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

[Longinus]

Yeah, I think it's crazy for anyone to specifically argue that Roddenbery's vision has been betrayed when they started moving away from it in TNG almost as soon as Roddenberry ailed enough to intervene, and in a lot of ways DS9 completely blew past it. Gene would never have allowed DS9 to turn into what it was if he was still alive (or he would have been shitting all over it).

Indeed. I would have really preferred if he had been alive to stop a main character Starfleet captain from taking orders from gods over his own government or committing war crimes. But most people love that shit over 'boring perfect humans' of TNG, so what do I know.

As for conflict between characters, there's conflict and then there's conflict. I really loved the bickering and friendly quips between the characters in the first half of the first episode; reminded me of Spock and Bones. But assaulting superior officer or calling people 'garbage' or 'animals'... No thanks.

 

[ISS Enterprise]

I thought Gene's vision was to be rolling in a pile of money with a bunch of naked women. Am I missing something?

Nope, very solid plan, IMO

 

[Noname Given]

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.

It violates his TNG reconned vision of Star Trek; but no - it really DOESN'T violate the vision he had when the original Star Trek series was in production. It really doesn't - and the proof of that can be seen in watching episodes like TOS - "Balance of Terror" or TOS - "Arena" or TOS - "Errand of Mercy", etc.

 

[Tesophius]

I think all of these arguments, made on both sides, merely illuminate what has been said many times before, Star Trek was attractive to people for completely contrasting reasons.

1. Inspirational vision of the future, exploration of sci-fi ideas, what-if concepts, first encounters, exploration of futue tech concepts etc.
2. Conflicts, stories depicting wars, battle scenes, drama, relationships

In the past, Star Trek got away by mixing the two types of episodes and everyone kind of enjoyed the episodes that appealed to them. In STD there's a huge arc that spans the entire season (presumably) which basically only appeals to fan type #2 and there's no hint of catering to fan type #1. I think they should just make two completely different shows, because there's very little overlap between the two types of shows.

 

[BillJ]

In the past, Star Trek got away by mixing the two types of episodes and everyone kind of enjoyed the episodes that appealed to them.

I think the darker episodes meant more to the characters and viewers when they were sprinkled throughout what was intended to be a more evolved universe. We could see the contrast in characters when those episodes came along.

 

[mattyhugh]

Gene Roddenberry died in 1991. His vision can no longer change, or grow. It's completely static and based on what he thought the world should look like from the perspective of the 80's. Now I don't want to shortchange him or deny his influence, but if Trek is going to grow and continue to stay relevant, It can't be confined to what one man in the 80's thought the future should look like.

It violates his TNG reconned vision of Star Trek; but no - it really DOESN'T violate the vision he had when the original Star Trek series was in production. I really doesn;t - and the prooof of that can be seen in watching episodes like TOS - "Balance of Terror" or TOS - "Arena" or TYOS - "Errand of Mercy", etc.

Star Trek has always been a product of its time. TOS was awash with post War American triumphalism and TNG was at times an 80s self help book written by a former hippie. To ENT pivoting to be a show about 9/11 in its third season.

 

[Dukhat]

@Sci-fi fan what do you think of the arguments presented in this thread you started?

I’m sure like many newbies, he just felt the compulsive need to post his feelings and then not bother to respond to any replies.

Wearing blinders can be fun!

 

[Vger23]

I think all of these arguments, made on both sides, merely illuminate what has been said many times before, Star Trek was attractive to people for completely contrasting reasons.

1. Inspirational vision of the future, exploration of sci-fi ideas, what-if concepts, first encounters etc.
2. Conflicts, stories depicting wars, battle scenes, drama, relationships

In the past, Star Trek got away by mixing the two types of episodes and everyone kind of enjoyed the episodes that appealed to them. In STD there's a huge arc that spans the entire season (presumably) which basically only appeals to fan type #2 and there's no hint of catering to fan type #1. I think they should just make two completely different shows, because there's very little overlap between the two types of shows.

I disagree...I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

I think there are elements of both in there (just like I believed that about the JJTrek movies etc). I think it's easy to be blind to one if the other is as overt as it currently is in the new series, particularly if you are heavily leaning toward valuing #1.

I'm very middle of the road with Trek. I like TMP, The Inner Light, etc...but I also like WOK, BoBW, FC, etc. So it's perhaps easier for me to see and appreciate both sides being present in the show as well.

Also- I think a lot of people in your camp are underestimating the arc nature of the season...and the there is a larger story here with a larger purpose being told. It's all about the journey, not the destination. And, most of previous Trek was all about the destination. Hell, we LIVED in the destination in most previous Treks. In this case with DSC..we need to journey with the characters and the universe to find our way from the darkness and into the light. That's what I'm holding out for. I truly believe that is going to be the payoff of the series. If I'm wrong...I'll be bummed. But whatever. I'm having fun now, so could care less.

But if people would rather be at the destination immediately, that attitude is not going to resonate. I, for one, feel like we've spent far far too much time at the destination, and that a little journey is good for the Trek soul at this point.

YMMV

 

[cultcross]

I think all of these arguments, made on both sides, merely illuminate what has been said many times before, Star Trek was attractive to people for completely contrasting reasons.

1. Inspirational vision of the future, exploration of sci-fi ideas, what-if concepts, first encounters, exploration of futue tech concepts etc.
2. Conflicts, stories depicting wars, battle scenes, drama, relationships

In the past, Star Trek got away by mixing the two types of episodes and everyone kind of enjoyed the episodes that appealed to them. In STD there's a huge arc that spans the entire season (presumably) which basically only appeals to fan type #2 and there's no hint of catering to fan type #1. I think they should just make two completely different shows, because there's very little overlap between the two types of shows.

Not remotely the case. There's plenty for both types of fan in Discovery. We're three episodes in and we're debating the moral choices made by characters on screen - that's great! That's what should be happening. Shows which are just battles and pew pew and who is shagging who don't have that. Star Trek does, and at its best always has.

 

[Longinus]

I'm having fun now, so could care less.

How much less?

 

[Vger23]

Not remotely the case. There's plenty for both types of fan in Discovery. We're three episodes in and we're debating the moral choices made by characters on screen - that's great! That's what should be happening. Shows which are just battles and pew pew and who is shagging who don't have that. Star Trek does, and at its best always has.

I tend to chuckle at the folks who have been saying "it's too much pew pew" to be honest.

I mean, given that we've got a total of about 130 minutes of Discovery on screen time now...how much actual time has been devoted to people or ships engaged in a fire fight with each other? It's certainly not the majority of that time since there was virtually no pew pew in Vulcan Hello and extremely limited pew pew in Context is for Kings.

Go back to Voyager or Enterprise, and there was a ship-to-shiip engagement in virtually every episode it felt like. DS9 had a full-blown war over multiple seasons.

Star Trek wasn't pew pew?

C'mon man.

 

[Vger23]

How much less?

Far less than others apparently.

That's for damn sure.

 

[Tesophius]

I disagree...I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

I think there are elements of both in there (just like I believed that about the JJTrek movies etc). I think it's easy to be blind to one if the other is as overt as it currently is in the new series, particularly if you are heavily leaning toward valuing #1.

I'm very middle of the road with Trek. I like TMP, The Inner Light, etc...but I also like WOK, BoBW, FC, etc. So it's perhaps easier for me to see and appreciate both sides being present in the show as well.

Also- I think a lot of people in your camp are underestimating the arc nature of the season...and the there is a larger story here with a larger purpose being told. It's all about the journey, not the destination. And, most of previous Trek was all about the destination. Hell, we LIVED in the destination in most previous Treks. In this case with DSC..we need to journey with the characters and the universe to find our way from the darkness and into the light. That's what I'm holding out for. I truly believe that is going to be the payoff of the series. If I'm wrong...I'll be bummed. But whatever. I'm having fun now, so could care less.

But if people would rather be at the destination immediately, that attitude is not going to resonate. I, for one, feel like we've spent far far too much time at the destination, and that a little journey is good for the Trek soul at this point.

YMMV

I'm not disputing that there's absolutely no overlap in what people enjoy, I'm about 80% into the first camp. Sometimes I enjoyed the characters to such a degree that I also found myself enjoying some conflict-drama episodes every now and then, even some that involved Klingons in TNG. However, overall, the show would be much more enjoyable to everyone, imho, if it was separated into two distinct types. I imagine camp #2 people are truly loving STD right now and camp #1 people also deserve a show of their own.

 

[Tesophius]

Not remotely the case. There's plenty for both types of fan in Discovery. We're three episodes in and we're debating the moral choices made by characters on screen - that's great! That's what should be happening. Shows which are just battles and pew pew and who is shagging who don't have that. Star Trek does, and at its best always has.

That's funny, because from my perspective you've just described the general impression I have of STD in your second to last sentence.

 

[Vger23]

I'm not disputing that there's absolutely no overlap in what people enjoy, I'm about 80% into the first camp. Sometimes I enjoyed the characters to such a degree that I also found myself enjoying some conflict-drama episodes every now and then, even some that involved Klingons in TNG. However, overall, the show would be much more enjoyable to everyone, imho, if it was separated into two distinct types. I imagine camp #2 people are truly loving STD right now and camp #1 people also deserve a show of their own.

Interestingly enough, we may get that given that each season will have a different arc.

Since the war will be over at the end of S1, that kind of leaves out war and conflict for S2. So it will likely happen but not in the "parallel" way you'd rather see.

I actually think that makes the show all the more interesting. Have the characters go through this arc, and then put them in a totally different situation (exploration, diplomatic mission, whatever) and see how they perform...but they still have the developments of the past season weighing on them.

Interesting stuff.

 

[Tesophius]

Interestingly enough, we may get that given that each season will have a different arc.

Since the war will be over at the end of S1, that kind of leaves out war and conflict for S2. So it will likely happen but not in the "parallel" way you'd rather see.

I actually think that makes the show all the more interesting. Have the characters go through this arc, and then put them in a totally different situation (exploration, diplomatic mission, whatever) and see how they perform...but they still have the developments of the past season weighing on them.

Interesting stuff.

Perhaps. Even so, I'm not sure I'd want a full season centering around one major story, even if it's a story that falls under type #1. I'd rather have 10 great stories. I really dislike the arc concept of Discovery.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Yeah, the whole "garbage" and "animals" lines were jarring, to say the least. Nothing about the show grabs me as "Star Trek" right now.

Reminds me of people getting upset that Kirk said "What are you talking about, man?" in one of the trailers for the 2009 Star Trek. Apparently it was too contemporary and violated Gene's vision of the future, somehow.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

But this isn't TNG. Hell, it's set prior to TOS, and I seem to recall Pike being pretty cranky back in the day. And Bones was positively irascible.

There's more to Star Trek than TNG. Me, I prefer the TOS approach, which was also Roddenberry's "vision," back in the day.

 

[Vger23]

Reminds me of people getting upset that Kirk said "What are you talking about, man?" in one of the trailers for the 2009 Star Trek. Apparently it was too contemporary and violated Gene's vision of the future, somehow.

There were people who literally complained about every frame of film and every sound uttered in that movie though...so there is that...

 

[Longinus]

Reminds me of people getting upset that Kirk said "What are you talking about, man?" in one of the trailers for the 2009 Star Trek. Apparently it was too contemporary and violated Gene's vision of the future, somehow.

Yeah, totally the same thing... *eyeroll*