I do too but the reason why it amused me so much is because Axanar was supposedly the Trek people wanted after Abrams' Trek since it wasn't "True Trek" (whatever that means). But, they still used Kelvin Trek aesthetics. But, more to the point, yes there is a desire for them to return to the TOS aesthetic. Not just for continuity but for as a way of honoring Trek's past. Which, sounds good, but I think misses the point of what TOS was trying to do.
Everything is relative to its time and market, of course. The show's about as widely watched as late-years Voyager, which in those days was representative of a badly flagging franchise.
I think the issue here is doing yet another prequel after Enterprise and even the Abrams films for that matter, because I think all three took place before TOS started. If you are trying to create a 'real' fictional world here and set a series a mere decade before TOS then the technology, starships, uniforms, Klingons, etc. should look closer to what they looked like in TOS. I can only speak for myself and I am willing to accept some flourishes here, to make any series appeal to contemporary audiences, but still I wish more of an effort would've been made. I griped about the NX-01 as well, but ENT did, in it's own way, try to have more primitive technology, etc., in keeping with the prequel idea. Granted, 10 years isn't that big of a deal, but it is hard to accept that this all exists in one world when the differences can be so jarring. DISCO Season 2 even allowed for something of an explanation in why the Klingons looked different on their series, though it didn't make much sense. Also, the colorful Enterprise uniforms were closer to TOS than the DISCO Season 1 uniforms were. For the record, I am not one who hates the Abrams films. I thought Into Darkness was the wrong way to go, though that movie was well-made and had good action and performances-but made the wrong creative decisions. Beyond was good, but not great. It was like something was missing, that a great opportunity afforded by the 2009 film had been lost. I do think the Abrams' era starships were more like muscled TOS/TOS inspired versions, which was fitting with Abrams' kind of bigger is better style. But the basic designs were more in keeping with the familiar Trek aesthetic. The Axanar folks just got them even closer to that TOS aesthetic. Perhaps for financial reasons and creative ones, there wasn't enough time or imagination to come up with different ships, especially when you had the Kelvin starships already out there and could just tweak those. Even though I didn't like the Klingon bird-of-prey in Into Darkness even that felt more like familiar Trek than the DISCO Season 1 Klingon starships. I also thought the Kelvin Klingons were neat looking and I wish we had gotten those in DISCO or saw some of them sprinkled in the Klingon scenes.
This is a fair point and where I will probably different from other fans. I don't expect it to all fit in as "one world." I think that Trek and Kirk's era will always be reimagined based upon contemporary views of the future. I don't think Star Trek is like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or other properties were the coherence of the world is depended upon a shared history. I think that the events of TOS happened in some form but the tech will vary. And I think expecting it to all fit perfectly together has led to more frustration than enjoyment. I don't think it required much of an explanation but what we got was sufficient for my tastes. The uniforms were fine as well, since I saw the DISCO ones as one possible design trend from the USS KELVIN films featured in ST 09 as well as the ENT jumpsuits. But, obviously that is individual tastes. And, I love the TOS aesthetic, uniforms and ships. But, I genuinely don't think it needs to continue forward in a 2020 production.
Star Trek fans are a contrarian bunch who are going to be displeased from the get-go regardless. The current Star Trek is always bitched about as not being "true Star Trek" and won't be truly accepted until it's finished and the next iteration comes along. Disco is obviously doing well enough by the standards of those who matter, otherwise there wouldn't be Picard, Lower Decks or SNW. Looking back and playing the game of "maybe it should have been in that timeline or have looked this particular way to appease the fans" is an irrelevant exercise. Whether or not you like the show or how it's executed, it is an undeniable success by the relevant metrics of the television industry. If there are fans who have gotten their panties in a bunch because of funky looking Klingons, different uniforms or ships that don't look like they were designed for a 1960s pulp sci-fi setting, that's a problem for those particular fans, not for the show's production staff. And I say this as someone who has had his share of complaints about Disco's visual aesthetic and creative decisions.
As I said before Trek fans are fractious and I also believe-because it happened to me-that fan dislike (in my case for Voyager and Enterprise) can mellow over time, and by the time we get to the next iteration of Trek, CBS Trek might be rediscovered by some now disgruntled fans and considered to have been not that bad at all. DISCO and Picard have been successful, but I don't know if I would consider them unqualified successes. The fact that they are renewed is proof enough that they were successful enough and I suppose that's all that matters. Looking back is not irrelevant in the sense that that's why most of us do on here on various topics and franchises. It's part of the fun of being a fan. Plus, as a fan fiction writer, the what if is definitely part of the fun for me.
Indeed. For me the fun of being a fan is making apparent disparities work. Whether it's "James R. Kirk" to "Vulcanian" TOS is fill with oddities, and that continued on with TMP and then to TWOK. DISCO is just apparently continuing that grand tradition.
I tend to liken it to the model of Doctor Who fandom as described to me by my uncle. The new episodes are considered pure unadulterated crap and hated until a period of five years later when those episodes are rewatched and determined to actually be okay and far superior to the unadulterated crap that's airing now. In my experiences with Trek fandom, Trek fans seem to operated in a very similar manner. It is. The bean counters at CBS wouldn't keep giving Disco and Picard new seasons and greenlight more Trek shows if they were failing to connect with a larger audience besides a vocal minority who are noted for their propensity to complain about everything.
I liked the DISCO uniforms just as science-fiction uniforms, but not as ones that should've been around the same time as "The Cage" era. Though I accepted them more when I started thinking of DISCO as more of a sequel to ENT than a prequel to TOS. They felt more organic coming from the ENT uniforms. One of the draws with Trek for me is that it is supposed to fit in one world and for the most part the older series have done decent to good at making me believe it. It's a challenge, but one that works well when they pull it off. Further, the creators of DISCO made a choice to put their series 10-years before TOS, when most of the stories they've written didn't necessitate being in that time period. With that decision made, I don't think it's too much to expect them to pay more respect to the design aesthetic that has been established. I'm not saying I wanted them to replicate it, like Star Trek Continues. STC is neat because of that attention to detail, but I know that wouldn't work for a contemporary mass audience. Abrams wisely created the Kelvinverse so he could skirt around the fan consternation, some of it anyway. If CBS had wanted DISCO to be its own thing, as free from the burden of canon as they could get, they could've started the first season in the 25th century or beyond. But once again, they made a choice to set it 10 years before TOS, they made a choice to make Burnham Spock's adopted sister, they put the series close to one of the franchise's legendary characters. So, CBS wanted the benefits of nostalgia but then some are upset that people might be looking at what came before and DISCO and seeing an uneasy fit. With Picard, the disconnect is not so much story but the characters felt off. Also, the production design often left too much to be desired, but that's just my personal thing. Picard gave itself enough space to logically set up its world building in a way DISCO did not. Also appeasing fans should not be seen as a bad thing. I mean, that's how businesses stay in business. I'm not talking about bowing down to retrograde trolls, but not every person who has issues with Trek, Star Wars, etc., is coming from a place of toxicity. I want a good series, with interesting compelling characters and stories, and also respects and builds what came on before. With Season 2 someone at CBS heard the fans and made some tweaks to the Klingons and also brought in Pike, Number One, and Spock, and that proved so popular that they can spin them off.
I think that's what we got. It's not perfect but it isn't burning things down. I don't think its a bad thing if its down in moderation. But, I don't feel like fans are always moderate in their requests and expectations.
I said this back in 2007 about the upcoming film at the time, "It won't be as much the same as some people want, but it also won't be as different as some other people want." I said that about the 2009 Film but it applies to DSC, PIC, and SNW just as well. Retroactively, it applies to pretty much all of Star Trek.
Correction, it wasn't 2007. It was 2008. June 30th, 2008... holy crap! That's 12 years ago today! That's too weird. Well, in honor of this unintentional anniversary, I might as well cut-and-paste the entire thing and put it in a quote, and put where I first said it in bold.
I don't think the DISCO writing is that good. Many of the characters though have a lot of promise, which feels like it's just starting to get realized. The casting is mostly good and Sonequa Martin-Green really throws herself into the role, helping me like the Burnham character more than I might if someone else was in the role. The production values are great, the best of any Trek series, including Picard. And I do think the writing for Burnham, of truly making the series about her journey has been mostly well-done, though I can't say I've loved all the writing. Two years in and I have yet to have a favorite DISCO episode. There are characters I like, some scenes I like, but no episodes that I feel rank up there with the best of Trek. Perhaps the very serialized nature of the series is affecting why none really stand out on their own for me. I feel the same way about Picard, and I like DISCO more than Picard, which right now is my least favorite Trek live-action series. I do think moderation is not a bad thing when it comes to taking in fan feedback, though I have not been pleased with this kind of anti-fan sentiment I've seen growing over the last several years. That's like chopping at the root of the tree and still expecting it to stand.
It's a mixed bag for sure, but I think Pike, Saru and Burnham have all done well with it. I don't see the "anti-fan sentiment" as others do nor do I see moderation in fan feedback at times. So, while it sounds odd, I feel more comfortable with giving freedom to the production team than yielding to fan demands. Now, I feel conflicted in saying that as having a Pike show is probably the top of my fan wish lists. But, I feel like there is an all or nothing mentality in fandom and that giving them an inch means giving a mile in terms of demands and expectations of control.
On the topic of Kirk, I noticed that aside from the lack of mention of Sybok, another element of Star Trek 5 that doesn't fit well with Discovery is Kirk stating that Klingon General Korrd's tactics were required reading during his time at Starfleet Academy. As Prime Kirk likely attended the Academy circa 2251-2255, just before Discovery's Klingon War, Korrd must have made a massively unusual impact on Starfleet during the almost nonexistent contact the Federation had with the Klingons during Kirk's cadet years (possibly the earlier isolated brush fights like the Battle of Donatu V) for his tactics to be required reading.
Maybe Korrd's tactics were required reading because he was the only Klingon general who's tactics were known to the Federation in any significant detail at all.
exactly. To give an example the producers of cobra kai know the fan base and made a successful show in YouTube mind you and it’s now going to Netflix because of its success. Disc and Picard are not enjoying that kind of success because the shows come off like the producers watched all other sci fi shows except Star Trek. They relegated Star Trek to standard sci fi fare. It’s no longer unique.
You don’t even like classic trek and have admitted to not watching all of tng. You’re the breed of fan that like standard sci fi that looks like all the others. Just like Picard overuse of cheap holographic button displays. Every show and movie is using this cheap effect and it’s so overused now and cheap.
TOS is the best. I love classic Trek. TNG is not classic Trek. And, why does it matter if I don't? Trek fans don't have to like all Trek.
Not enjoying what kind of success? Being cancelled and moving to another service? Star Trek has always been standard sci-fi fare. Indeed, it pretty much is the very text book definition of standard sci-fi fare.