Respectfully, I disagree.
It is the difference between two distinct sets of tastes and preferences. That is all.
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
Respectfully, I disagree.
It is the difference between two distinct sets of tastes and preferences. That is all.
I simply don't know enough yet to decide whether or not Discovery is a quality show.
Just because everything changes is not a good reason to produce a content that many, including myself, won't like. I would be willing to pay a lot more for MORE OF THE SAME, no arcs, great episodes, no obnoxious characters. Isn't this all about money? I'd literally pay 10 times more for more of the same.
Roddenberry's vision was great and it's good to have an optimistic Star Trek but he's also human and someone who also made many personal artistic choices which I feel were poor (not bringing in his personal handling of Trek). This is Nicholas Meyer's Trek and I've always preferred it.
Also, the Federation in Discovery is still the decent and good Federation. It's just under siege from within and out.
Also, the Federation in Discovery is still the decent and good Federation. It's just under siege from within and out.
Perhaps Roddenberry's vision for the future is something that needs to be earned.
Perhaps to fully appropriate his vision we need to see contrast.
The future that we see in TOS did not just happen overnight.
Well, sure, I'm exaggerating, but so far, the comparison is laughable.
But yes, in a serious way, there's always been Roddenberry's Trek and the Trek of his co-writers. This is the Trek of The Undiscovered Country and DS9 which isn't "DOOM, DOOM, GLOOM" Trek but the Trek about the compromises between idealism versus a harsh reality.
I'd hate Discover if not for Michael's speech and the fact it's clear being BAD people to WIN isn't what this show is about.
And it is Socially AwareTM Trek, which we haven't gotten in 12 years. Albeit, it's War on Terror Trek which is about 20 years too late.
I'd hate Discover if not for Michael's speech and the fact it's clear being BAD people to WIN isn't what this show is about.
And it is Socially AwareTM Trek, which we haven't gotten in 12 years. Albeit, it's War on Terror Trek which is about 20 years too late.
No they aren't. Most of your brain cells are the same ones you're born with, even most of their constituent carbon atoms remain the same.
In any case, I think it is too early to say how Discovery will be, but I certainly would prefer if certain aspects of 'Gene's Vision' were retained. I don't think it is a coincidence that the two Trek shows he was directly involved with are my clear favourites.
But there are many others who DO like the change and ARE willing to pay for it. Existing fans or new fans. And there would certainly be an equal number (if not more) that would be uninterested in more of the same since we've already had 700 hours of varying quality already.
So...you can't really have it both ways. As we've learned time and again...if you try to please everyone with Star Trek, everyone generally thinks it sucks. So that's not the route to go.
It's always painful for the side that's left out. I get it.
But that's why I'm a Trek moderate. It's just too varied a universe and idea for me to only like it one way or another. That way, I'm rarely disappointed. I just like the universe and the fun. Don't care if it's story arcs and people blasting each other or if it's individual episodes with people hugging whales and alien trees and stuff. It's all good.
Thanks for the lesson, Billy Biology.
I think a lot of people forget that idealism means nothing if it's not challenged. It's easy to be idealistic in a pre-determined and pre-established utopian wonder world where everyone drinks tea and listens to classical music and advances the philosophies and goals of the enlightened Federation.
But when something's that easy...it becomes meaningless. Star Trek has always been wise to stop every once in a while and test those convictions and ideals. Put them through some trauma and see how they hold up.
Otherwise, it's just an after school special about doing the right thing.
Sure. I just wish we wouldn't get main characters who fail that test like Sisko and Archer.
Roddenberry's vision is also something that was flexible in some ways which I think we should mention. While he had the messianic vision of the socialist agnostic Federation as a kind of Arthur C. Clarke paradise with no conflict and humanity too evolved for personal flaws--he also had the rest of the galaxy depicted as a hellhole. Roddenberry's paradise never lacked for people trying to tear it down and trying to figure out how to resolve the fact other people were murderous barbarians.
Which, unfortunately, is an attitude that isn't quite as acceptable today as it was in the sixties since plenty of modern day conservatives rather than liberals have the "enemy at the gates, civilization here, Klingon there" attitude about the world.
My biggest hope about Discovery is we don't end up, "KLINGON ISIS vs. GOOD MERICA FEDERATION."
Understood...but I think it's necessary to advance the characters and the drama at times. It's necessary (well...maybe not NECESSARY) because it creates some very interesting and thoughtful / heated debate amongst the fans, which is the lifeblood of the franchise.
And, from my point of view, it's ultimately necessary because these people aren't flawless gods. They are human beings with frailties and warts and all. And it's important that we see that they can make mistakes in judgement and that there are consequences. Just like there are for us in real life.
Where the franchise has occasionally failed is when there are no consequences / long-term lessons or impacts from those mistakes/instances of flawed judgement. So far, Discovery hasn't made that mistake. The entire season seems to be about consequences / long-term impacts and the growth associated with those kinds of errors.
It's one of the reasons the TOS movies appeal to me so much. Nearly the entire 6 films are somehow linked to the consequences of past actions and the growth and fall-out.
If everyone's just doing the right thing all the time, it strips the reality and the tension away from the show. You know, after a small amount of debate, that Janeway or Picard is going to proudly and nobly do the "right thing" and proclaim that they are upholding the principles of Starfleet yet again. Ok...cool...I get it. But not dramatic or entertaining. Not at all in fact.
Mind you, I'm fairly sure this season will end with Captain Lucius Malfoy doing something unspeakably evil and getting taken down with our heroine ascending to Captain.
Hopefully, it will be after Lucius is promoted to Admiral to keep "All Admirals are Insane" as a theme.
Hopefully, it will be after Lucius is promoted to Admiral to keep "All Admirals are Insane" as a theme.
OK, that is a good point.
It made early TNG boring
