Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time

[eschaton]

It's reasonable to expect that we'll see the characters evolve and grow over the series. It's a highly serialized format after all. And, the producers have indicated that only the first season will focus on the Klingon war and that they wouldn't want a darker series for any longer. So, stay tuned!

I do have to say this is a fair comment. I mean, I'm a Niner, but at the start of the series, many of the characters were downright annoying. In some cases, like Jadzia, it was because the writers hadn't found the proper role for the character yet, but in other cases like Bashir and Kira it was because they purposefully started off the character flawed in order to showcase growth in later seasons.

 

[Refuge]

Look, Roddenberry deserves plenty of credit for creating STAR TREK and successfully launching it three times. (Four, if you count the Saturday morning cartoon.) And, honestly, I would have loved it if "Genesis II" or "Assignment: Earth" or "The Questor Tapes" or "Spectre" had run for years as well. It's just that the endless hand-wringing over "What would Gene think?" gets a bit wearisome--and counter-productive--sometimes.

Star Trek is a TV show, not a cult. And Roddenberry, thankfully, was not L. Ron Hubbard. At this late date, fretting about "what would Gene do?" should not be the only standard that matters. Star Trek has passed into new hands.

Would Arthur Conan Doyle approve of "Sherlock" or "Elementary"? Who knows? Who cares? What matters is whether the shows work for modern audiences.

I don't imagine anyone is expecting Roddenberry to directly influence Discovery, you know having passed on and all. It just seems odd to deny him some credit for what he started. I think he's still referenced in Discovery's credits somewhere?? I'll look next episode.

This show timeline wise leads into TOS, it's hard to not expect something recognisable. Not a copy or denying modern audiences their own vehicle but it is Star Trek, right? Discovery is very much a different beast. The tone, the characterisation, the language, the ethics even, are confronting at best, dark at worse.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I do have to say this is a fair comment. I mean, I'm a Niner, but at the start of the series, many of the characters were downright annoying. In some cases, like Jadzia, it was because the writers hadn't found the proper role for the character yet, but in other cases like Bashir and Kira it was because they purposefully started off the character flawed in order to showcase growth in later seasons.

Great point here, and one that is a good basis for a series, in having a flawed character redeem themselves over the course of the series.

However, Burnham for one is beyond flawed. More obnoxious, insubordinate, angry and mentally unstable.

 

[Mr Awe]

Please don't direct personal remarks at posters, and stick to discussing the content of people's posts. People are entitled to their own opinions on Discovery.

Alright, Doc, that'll do. Let's not get personal.

Sorry, just meant it as a helpful suggestion. Clearly nothing personal was intended!

On the other hand, my main point about the extreme hyperbole is right on and addressing the content of the post. It's evident that Discovery is NOT comprised of 100% tired tropes of modern TV!

 

[Kor]

Early Trek was good because Roddenberry had a lighter supervisory touch and let more talented creative minds develop the details with their excellent world-building ideas.

Kor

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Sorry, just meant it as a helpful suggestion. Clearly nothing personal was intended!

On the other hand, my main point about the extreme hyperbole is right on and addressing the content of the post. It's evident that Discovery is NOT comprised of 100% tired tropes of modern TV!

While not 100%, it is using some of the major trends now in television, ones which don't suit some fans as it doesn't fit the established form used for Star Trek.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Early Trek was good because Roddenberry had a lighter supervisory touch and let more talented creative minds develop the details with their excellent world-building ideas.

Kor

This. Even before they shot a foot of film, Roddenberry had to have assistance to even get the pitch heard, because he was incapable of speaking well enough to the network execs.

He had the ideas and could impart those, but needed other people to implement them and make them completely work, one of which was Gene Coon, who is an unsung force behind Star Trek.

 

[eschaton]

However, Burnham for one is beyond flawed. More obnoxious, insubordinate, angry and mentally unstable.

I understand what you mean. I think it honestly comes down to shitty writing, especially in the first two episodes. I think the writers intended her to be sympathetic to some degree, and just did a poor job of connecting the dots. If I had only watched the third episode, I would feel a lot better about Burnham (who looks downright pleasant compared to some of the rest of the Discovery crew).

That said, even Episode 3 had characterization issues. Like why did Burnham act like she would be totally compliant and do whatever she was told, and then decide to break into the spore lab out of curiosity? The only answer is that the plot demanded they show off the visual effects, and that was all the writers could come up with. I would like to see the series live up to its claimed focus on characters in the future.

 

[Mr Awe]

However, Burnham for one is beyond flawed. More obnoxious, insubordinate, angry and mentally unstable.

I'd disagree with that, although I see where you're coming from. I think her motivation and thought processes weren't portrayed clearly enough. She wanted to save her ship and her beloved captain more than anything, and that compromised her judgement. I don't take that as beyond flawed, just flawed. She even told Lorca that if he was looking for someone who breaks Star Fleet's rules on a regular basis, he was looking at the wrong person because she is Star Fleet. YMMV.

I think they're clearly setting up a lot of these characters to have arcs. We're right at the beginning now.

 

[Greg Cox]

This was Gene's vision for TOS
The Star Trek Writers/Directors Guide

Thanks for posting that. Note particularly this bit:

"AND SO, IN EVERY SCENE OF OUR STAR TREK STORY... ... translate it into a real life situation. Or, sometimes as useful, try it in your mind as a scene in GUNSMOKE, NAKED CITY, or some similar show. Would you believe the people and the scene if it happened there?"

So, yes, Roddenberry's original vision was that the characters would act and talk like contemporary people in a gritty, realistic police drama like NAKED CITY. Sounds like DISCOVERY to me.

(The whole "future people are much more evolved than we are" business is a TNG thing that got scaled back as Roddenberry gradually receded into retirement. It should not be applied to TOS or DISCOVERY.)

 

[starmike]

Especially on the 3rd episode most characters, even the leads are often depicted as extremely cranky like a regular crime show on any regular tv script. Roddenberry's vision is not a fixation, it's what genuinely made TNG a phenomenon.

No,it doesn't.

Roddenberry's vision is not what made TNG a phenomenon, it was not until after Gene got his hands off it that TNG got better.

/thread

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I'd disagree with that, although I see where you're coming from. I think her motivation and thought processes weren't portrayed clearly enough. She want to save her ship and her beloved captain more than anything, and that compromised her judgement. I don't take that as beyond flawed, just flawed. She even told Lorca that if he was looking for someone who break Star Fleet's rules on a regular basis, he was looking at the wrong person because she is Star Fleet. YMMV.

I think they're clearly setting up a lot of these characters to have arcs. We're right at the beginning now.

And that was a lousy contradiction to write for her, IMO. She stands there and falls on a sword for Starfleet, waxing poetic about it and what it stands for, but she disobeyed several direct orders, committed mutiny and assaulted her commanding officer. If her emotions clouded her judgement, she must have been sick that day in the Vulcan Learning Center about governing passions, and should not be First Officer of a Starship if her emotions overload her that much.

Her arc, for me, is one I frankly don't have much concern for. She was written as someone thoroughly unlikable to me.

 

[starmike]

I agree and it's already turning fans away from even watching this iteration of "Star Trek" any further. In the previous Trek series the nature of the characters created a distinct impression that we were watching people from the far future, in this Trek I'm seeing same boring characters that surround us in 2017.

And yet CBS is reporting a high number of signups two weeks in a row.

 

[Greg Cox]

No,it doesn't.

Roddenberry's vision is not what made TNG a phenomenon, it was not until after Gene got his hands off it that TNG got better.

/thread

Exactly. See my post above. Roddenberry originally wanted the characters to act like they were on a realistic "crime show." So it's funny to see DISCOVERY condemned for doing exactly that.

 

[eschaton]

And yet CBS is reporting a high number of signups two weeks in a row.

Who would have signed up for CBS All Access before Discovery? Does it have any other exclusive content at all?

 

[KirkusOveractus]

And yet CBS is reporting a high number of signups two weeks in a row.

Are those paid signups or free ones from the various promotions offered?

 

[GeekUSACarl]

And yet CBS is reporting a high number of signups two weeks in a row.

Not that I agree with Tesophius as a whole

but I trust CBS reporting those numbers about as well as I'd trust Wesley Snipes to do my taxes.

 

[Greg Cox]

That said, even Episode 3 had characterization issues. Like why did Burnham act like she would be totally compliant and do whatever she was told, and then decide to break into the spore lab out of curiosity? The only answer is that the plot demanded they show off the visual effects, and that was all the writers could come up with. I would like to see the series live up to its claimed focus on characters in the future.

See, I read that scene completely differently. I didn't think that was just about showing off the special effects. I thought that scene showed us things about Burnham that were completely in character with what we've seen before, in a couple of ways:

1) She does believe in Starfleet's ideals, so if she thinks Lorca is up to something shady, she's damn well going to look into it as a matter of conscience and duty. It wasn't just a matter of curiosity.

2) She is, as Saru noted, "dangerous." She's smart and capable and resourceful, but she's not always a team player and.she's going to do what she thinks she has to do, regardless, even if that means doing the wrong things for right reasons. (Not unlike her foster brother, actually.)

That's who Burnham is. She's complex, contradictory, and not always predictable--just like real people.

Or, to put it another way, people saying one thing and doing another is not necessarily an inconsistency or sloppy characterization. It just means that dialogue should not always be taken at face value . . . and that human beings are masses of paradoxes and contradictions.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

I don't imagine anyone is expecting Roddenberry to directly influence Discovery, you know having passed on and all. It just seems odd to deny him some credit for what he started. I think he's still referenced in Discovery's credits somewhere?? I'll look next episode.

This show timeline wise leads into TOS, it's hard to not expect something recognisable. Not a copy or denying modern audiences their own vehicle but it is Star Trek, right? Discovery is very much a different beast. The tone, the characterisation, the language, the ethics even, are confronting at best, dark at worse.

I think Rod gets ample credit for starting it.

At least he dodged the George Lucas scenario where he also gets ample credit for trashing it.

I'd rather be Rod than Lucas in that regard. He has a HUGE imagination that sometimes, can be your own undoing, and I think had he continued to have a direct influence it woulda turned into his legacy being equal parts YEAH and equal parts WTF were you thinking?

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't find losers who make bad decisions and stuff up every five minutes fun to watch either.

But enough about Janeway and Voyager...