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

[McDuff]

I'm not worried, more observing. It's the tendency to insist that Star Trek must be something special that concerns me, because it doesn't always allow change.

That's ridiculous. TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise are all different to each others but they kept the spirit of previous Star Trek series alive at the same time. It's always both. You want to make it similar enough to be part of the same franchise and different enough to keep things original and interesting. I'm sure some people were not happy about the changes in the movies, TNG, DS9 or Voyager and you may end up not liking the next Star Trek series or movie after Discovery. You won't like the changes made to the new Star Trek compared to Discovery.

 

[fireproof78]

That's ridiculous. TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise are all different to each others but they kept the spirit of previous Star Trek series alive at the same time. It's always both. You want to make it similar enough to be part of the same franchise and different enough to keep things original and interesting. I'm sure some people were not happy about the changes in the movies, TNG, DS9 or Voyager and you may end up not liking the next Star Trek series or movie after Discovery. You won't like the changes made to the new Star Trek compared to Discovery.

Ridiculous, or not, I've seen it before, and I'll see it again.

I welcome DISCO's changes, and its placement within the story, so don't mistake me on that point.

 

[Vger23]

That's ridiculous. TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise are all different to each others but they kept the spirit of previous Star Trek series alive at the same time. It's always both. You want to make it similar enough to be part of the same franchise and different enough to keep things original and interesting. I'm sure some people were not happy about the changes in the movies, TNG, DS9 or Voyager and you may end up not liking the next Star Trek series or movie after Discovery. You won't like the changes made to the new Star Trek compared to Discovery.

I don't agree that they are "all different". The only shows that really tried to be unique were (obviously) TOS and later DS9.

TNG was simply moving TOS into the future. Otherwise, the fundamental format was identical. VOY had a fascinatingly different premise that went nowhere beyond superficiality and became an inferior "copy of a copy". ENT was taking VOY / TNG and kicking it into the past, with very little true difference other than superficial details again.

I'd say DSC is the third entry that truly achieves uniqueness.

 

[McDuff]

Ridiculous, or not, I've seen it before, and I'll see it again.

I welcome DISCO's changes, and its placement within the story, so don't mistake me on that point.

Don't worry, I won't mistake you. Let's meet and do a campfire with the blurays of all previous Star Trek series. Change is life and life is change.

I truly voted 7 or above! I'm enjoying Discovery thus far.

 

[McDuff]

I'd say DSC is the third entry that truly achieves uniqueness.

Any TV shows can be unique. It doesn't have to be called Star Trek. Let's see if it can achieve greatness like the other Star Trek series you hate so much. Thus far, I'm enjoying Discovery.

 

[Vger23]

Any TV shows can be unique. It doesn't have to be called Star Trek. Let's see if it can achieve greatness like the other Star Trek series you hate so much. Thus far, I'm enjoying Discovery.

I can't remember ever, in my entire life, saying that I hated a Trek series. I think you'd be wise to calm yourself.

I said they weren't special or unique. That doesn't mean I hate them or ever hated them.

I can hardly think of any individual episodes that I outright "hate."

Please think before you post.

 

[McDuff]

I can't remember ever, in my entire life, saying that I hated a Trek series. I think you'd be wise to calm yourself.

I said they weren't special or unique. That doesn't mean I hate them or ever hated them.

I can hardly think of any individual episodes that I outright "hate."

Please think before you post.

Think about how you write, maybe you will understand my position better.

It's pretty obvious you didn't enjoy TNG and Voyager as much as TOS and DS9 and keep blabbering about it. Don't act like a virgin caught in the act.

I can ask you directly. Did you enjoy TNG, DS9 and Voyager? Personally I enjoyed all Star Trek series. I think they are among the best sci-fi series ever produced. Discovery is pretty good thus far.

 

[fireproof78]

Don't worry, I won't mistake you. Let's meet and do a campfire with the blurays of all previous Star Trek series. Change is life and life is change.

I truly voted 7 or above! I'm enjoying Discovery thus far.

Only if we sing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat."

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[eschaton]

I don't agree that they are "all different". The only shows that really tried to be unique were (obviously) TOS and later DS9.

TNG was simply moving TOS into the future. Otherwise, the fundamental format was identical. VOY had a fascinatingly different premise that went nowhere beyond superficiality and became an inferior "copy of a copy". ENT was taking VOY / TNG and kicking it into the past, with very little true difference other than superficial details again.

I'm not sure I'd agree that TNG was just TOS moved into the future. The individual episode arcs were in a lot of ways TOS like (blatantly TOS episodes at the beginning). But the series was an ensemble cast show right from the start, rather than being built on the three-person dynamics that TOS settled into. And while it was largely episodic, in its later years it did experiment with semi-serialization (recurring guest characters, full on character arcs for Worf and Data, etc) that TOS never touched.

Voyager, the first two seasons of Enterprise, and a fair amount of early DS9 episodes were really just the TNG format ported onto another show however.

 

[The Wormhole]

in its later years it did experiment with semi-serialization (recurring guest characters, full on character arcs for Worf and Data, etc) that TOS never touched.

Eh? The closest thing to "serialization" they did was Worf's discommendation thing, and even that only lasted a year and a half and was brought up in four episodes. And maybe the Worf and Alexander storyline that was featured throughout season 5. which did eventually lead to a friendship and almost relationship between Worf and Deanna in the later years.

As for recurring guest stars, assuming we're not talking about the annual appearances of Q or Lwaxana Troi, than the only truly recurring guest stars were Guinan and Chief O'Brien. After that you have Alexander, who appeared eight times, Ro Laren who appeared eight times and Admiral Nechayev who appeared four times.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Serialization on TNG may not be the right term. I view a lot of them as "sequel episodes". For example, Datalore didn't actually have an opened ending. That was originally just another episode. Lore was vaporized via transporter, hence Wesley's uber badass line "Lore's gone, sir. PERMANENTLY" *puts on shades* It's not until "Brothers" that they retcon it to Lore being beamed in space (which admittedly makes the TNG crew more reckless for letting him float off). Then there's the Q episodes, but they're as much serialized as a Mudd appearance.

Contrast that with DS9, which kicked off its second season with a serialized arc wIth Richard Beymer. DS9 would only expand that kind of storytelling further as the show went on.

VOY had the Seska arc for the first two seasons (though mostly second season), and then after Piller left there were virtually no more story arcs aside from Seven having b-plots to develop her character in the fourth season. Edit: oh yeah and I guess Paris and Torres, which I usually forget because they're such an uninteresting as a couple.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I'm not sure the relevance of that statement.

Without the good will of the fandom and the success of the movies, TNG might not last but a few seasons. Paramount TV execs considered it a possible target if the writers' strike went too long. Without that base, TNG would not have reached the point of breaking out.

 

[eschaton]

Eh? The closest thing to "serialization" they did was Worf's discommendation thing, and even that only lasted a year and a half and was brought up in four episodes. And maybe the Worf and Alexander storyline that was featured throughout season 5. which did eventually lead to a friendship and almost relationship between Worf and Deanna in the later years.

As for recurring guest stars, assuming we're not talking about the annual appearances of Q or Lwaxana Troi, than the only truly recurring guest stars were Guinan and Chief O'Brien. After that you have Alexander, who appeared eight times, Ro Laren who appeared eight times and Admiral Nechayev who appeared four times.

I said semi-serialization, which implies it was not full serialization. Obviously it was limited, but at the same time it was much more than TOS, where there was only one recurring character who wasn't a secondary crew member/glorified extra (Mudd) and IIRC only one episode referenced events in another episode.

You missed Reginald Barclay (5 appearances), Gowron (4 appearances), Lore (4 appearances), Keiko (8 appearances), Sela (4 appearances) , and Tomalak (4 appearances).

 

[The Wormhole]

You missed Reginald Barclay (5 appearances), Gowron (4 appearances), Lore (4 appearances), Keiko (8 appearances), Sela (4 appearances) , and Tomalak (4 appearances).

I'll concede Barclay and Gowron, though I intentionally left Keiko off mostly because I hadn't realized she made that many TNG appearances. Since Lore was played by Brent Spiner anyway I simply didn't think of him. As for Sela and Tomalak, for Sela's first two appearances she wasn't even credited, and indeed in her first she was actually played by someone else (though Denise Crosby did provide dialogue). And IMO, Tomalak only really appeared twice in anything meaningful, the third time it was a fake Tomalak created by an alien child, and his fourth appearance was just a cameo in AGT.

 

[Albinator]

You seem angry against me but I don't know why. I was supporting your position. Discovery is just starting but I think it's pretty good thus far. Time will tell how great the series will become as a whole.

I'm not sure how you infer anger from that post.

As for Enterprise, in rewatching it the past two weeks, I'll say that contrary to popular belief, the first two seasons are much stronger than the third and fourth. The Xindi arc was, as many put it, "a risk" to shake up a sagging series, but ultimately it was a limp copy of DS9's Dominion War story, complete with 3 races that make up the villain (producers have admitted the Xindi were a copy of the Dominion).

The mini arcs that the show did in S4 were dramatically a step up, but ultimately no better than anything done before, and often were lame, gimmicky attempts to bring back a Trek audience that was walking away ("Look it's Brent Spiner! Look we've got a Constitution class ship! Orions and the Mirror Universe! We'll show you why Klingons don't have ridges and there's a Gorn too!")

Too little too late. In hindsight, I prefer the episodic nature of the first two seasons. The best episodes of the final season were the single episode stories like "Daedalus."

The real problem with that show is the characters and the actors inhabiting them. Completely lifeless, with zero charisma or chemistry with one another.

 

[McDuff]

I'm not sure how you infer anger from that post.

You don't know how? You must know how at least just a little bit. You were confrontational with me when I thought I was agreeing and supporting you 100 %. I was surprised.

First, you start by saying: "Well, what is it?". Then you end the post by saying "I'm going off the rails". And in the middle, you say I "invented things in my head". Is that not enough "to know how" just a little bit?

Then you acted all defensive toward Discovery. We're only 6 episodes in. Thus far, I'm enjoying Discovery. All along I was agreeing with you and your post I was responding to! I was just trying to move the discussion along in the same sense as you. Maybe you were not angry, but you strongly disagreed with many parts of my reply. Oddly, since my points only re-enforced yours, I thought. I don't get it.

My most important part was that one:

'When you truly have talented sci-fi writers (people with knowledge, love for sci-fi, things to say about: humanity, our societies, visions of the future, the impact of technologies and development of science, etc) they can always write great stories encompassing what Star Trek is all about. The way Star Trek (and to some degree similar show like Doctor Who, Stargate, The Orville) is set up, you can write stories about practically everything. Whether it's war, incest, impact of the internet, our fears, heroism, transgender, injustice, politics or the death penalty. We saw it with all previous Trek series (TOS, TNG, Voyager and DS9).

It's not about a magic formula or format. It's about having inspired and talented writers. Writers who love Star Trek for what it is not hate it for what it is not. There's place for shows like Star Trek and great shows like BSG, Spartacus, Rome, Stargate, Doctor Who or GoT in television. They can all maintain their uniqueness and what made them great while providing new and original materials. I think that's the hope of any people and fans who love a franchise. If it's exactly the same, it's boring, if it's completely different then it's too far removed from what you loved about it. This is all what make those TV shows a success and not just another uninspired empty Hollywood drivel in the first place.

It's really about having inspired and talented writers who love Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

Saying it was just franchise fatigue is just a polite way of saying "this show sucked". It had a large premiere, so it's not like nobody was willing to give it a chance after VOY's run. Had the quality of ENT actually been strong enough, it wouldn't matter whether it had too many shows preceding it.

The quality likely has little to do with it. People were simply burned out on Trek. You can only go to the well so many times. I was a huge Trek fan, and every new show simply became "more Trek". I started tuning out.

 

[Albinator]

You don't know how? You must know how at least just a little bit. You were confrontational with me when I thought I was agreeing and supporting you 100 %. I was surprised.

First, you start by saying: "Well, what is it?". Then you end the post by saying "I'm going off the rails". And in the middle, you say I "invented things in my head". Is that not enough "to know how" just a little bit?

Then you acted all defensive toward Discovery. We're only 6 episodes in. Thus far, I'm enjoying Discovery. All along I was agreeing with you and your post I was responding to! I was just trying to move the discussion along in the same sense as you. Maybe you were not angry, but you strongly disagreed with many parts of my reply. Oddly, since my points only re-enforced yours, I thought. I don't get it.

My most important part was that one:

'When you truly have talented sci-fi writers (people with knowledge, love for sci-fi, things to say about: humanity, our societies, visions of the future, the impact of technologies and development of science, etc) they can always write great stories encompassing what Star Trek is all about. The way Star Trek (and to some degree similar show like Doctor Who, Stargate, The Orville) is set up, you can write stories about practically everything. Whether it's war, incest, impact of the internet, our fears, heroism, transgender, injustice, politics or the death penalty. We saw it with all previous Trek series (TOS, TNG, Voyager and DS9).

It's not about a magic formula or format. It's about having inspired and talented writers. Writers who love Star Trek for what it is not hate it for what it is not. There's place for shows like Star Trek and great shows like BSG, Spartacus, Rome, Stargate, Doctor Who or GoT in television. They can all maintain their uniqueness and what made them great while providing new and original materials. I think that's the hope of any people and fans who love a franchise. If it's exactly the same, it's boring, if it's completely different then it's too far removed from what you loved about it. This is all what make those TV shows a success and not just another uninspired empty Hollywood drivel in the first place.

It's really about having inspired and talented writers who love Star Trek.

Your initial rambling post left me unsure what what side of the argument you're on. Your statements could be applicable to agree or disagree with me.

 

[Albinator]

The quality likely has little to do with it. People were simply burned out on Trek. You can only go to the well so many times. I was a huge Trek fan, and every new show simply became "more Trek". I started tuning out.

I agree, but that doesn't mean those shows were good either. I do enjoy VOY and ENT a lot more today than I did at the time, but they still don't hold a candle to the quality of TNG or DS9 when at their best.

 

[BillJ]

I agree, but that doesn't mean those shows were good either. I do enjoy VOY and ENT a lot more today than I did at the time, but they still don't hold a candle to the quality of TNG or DS9 when at their best.

I actually rank Deep Space Nine as the worst of the Trek series.