Paramount apparently still doesn't get it...

[Lord Garth]

He wants to go exactly the way I want it to go. Move forward from the berman era shows. No more prequels or prequel/sequels (set 900 years into the future. )

I want them to move forward with new characters and new storylines, not keep going back to old storylines.

PIC Season 3 as a one-time thing to give the TNG crew a better send-off, I could understand and have gone along with. Doing nothing but that is the wrong way to go.

I either want the 25th Century with new characters or, yes, the 32nd Century.

I'm no longer too keen on the 23rd Century, because I'm sick to death of Prequel Arguments, but I'm okay with it in principle because it isn't overexposed. So I can live with it, even if it's not my first or even second choice.

2020s Trek existing only as a sequel to 1990s Trek is a gigantic mistake. It's not moving forward to anywhere except an Old Folks Home...

... But "The Next Next Generation" is something I'd be okay with.

If PIC Season 3 is supposed to be TNG's Star Trek VI, then let it be the Star Trek VI. The TOS cast stopped at the right time.

 

[XCV330]

Trek has gone ABOUT as far as it can go without getting out of the comfort zone. I would say, suprisingly to me, Prodigy has gone the furthest from trying a different story telling route. We'll see if it can continue.

DIscovery tried, but couldn't commit to any particular path for longer than a season. SNW is doing what it does well, which is regular episodic Star Trek. It can keep doing that, if its good, for quite awhile longer, timeline constraints notwithstanding. There's plenty of room left for good stuff in the TOS type of story, but anything else has to be a little different. There's no point in making SNW-25th Century just for people who admire different color combos.

The class reunion series, Pic, has done what it was supposed to do: get people who weren't enticed by Discovery but liked Berman Era Trek to take a look. Only Paramount knows whether it was worth the expense.

 

[Lord Garth]

By the way, I'm okay with DSC and SNW being part of a different timeline. I would even prefer it. For two reasons:

1. In SNW's case, we wouldn't know where it all ends up.

2. In DSC and SNW's case, it would remove the fig leaf some people are hiding behind. "I don't like it because of Canon!" Well, if you can't use that anymore, then it forces people to put more thought into what else.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Or replacing the Human Torch in "Fantastic Four" with, as you said, a robot. I guess since I hadn't seen either in its original form, it didn't bother me.

There's an urban myth that says they did that because they were afraid that kids would set fire to themselves, but the reality is someone else owned the rights to the character at the time.

 

[Citiprime]

Some day someone will explain to me when crying and hugging became such evil and laughable things...and this is why I struggle with emotional expression amongst fans is the sardonic inappropriate humor around such simple human expressions.

Because it was overdone to the point of being a cliche. And I don't think it served the characters that every other episode their response to a crisis was to weep in a hallway and need a hug in order to deal with the problem.

This is all subjective opinions, but to me it became maudlin and arguably emotionally manipulative.

From the (TOS) Star Trek writer’s/director’s guide, revised in 1967:

“The time is today. We’re in Viet Nam waters aboard the navy cruiser U.S.S. Detroit. Suddenly an enemy gunboat heads for us, our guns are unable to stop it, and we realize it’s a suicide attack with an atomic warhead. Total destruction of our vessel and of all aboard appears probable. Would Captain E. L. Henderson, presently commanding the U.S.S. Detroit, turn and hug a comely female WAVE who happened to be on the ship’s bridge.

As simple as that. This is our standard test that has led to STAR TREK believability. (It also suggests much of what has been wrong in filmed sf of the past.) No, Captain Henderson wouldn’t! Not if he’s the kind of Captain we hope is commanding any naval vessel of ours. Nor would our Captain Kirk hug a female crewman in a moment of danger, not if he’s to remain believable. (Some might prefer Henderson were somewhere making love rather than shelling Asiatic ports, but that’s a whole different story for a whole different network. Probably BBC.)”

Now even TOS violated that rule more than a few times with Kirk consoling Yeoman Rand during a crisis, but you didn't have episode after episode of the senior staff having to tearfully discuss their feelings about how they don't know how they're going to be able to do their jobs, because it undercuts the believability of those characters in the situations you throw them in.

I don't think an episode like TNG's "Family" works, where Picard breaks down and admits his vulnerability and trauma after the Borg assimilation, if it had been preceded by episode after episode of Picard doing group hugs with Deanna and Beverly about his feelings.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

2. In DSC and SNW's case, it would remove the fig leaf some people are hiding behind. "I don't like it because of Canon!" Well, if you can't use that anymore, then it forces people to put more thought into what else.

I've written paragraphs about what else I didn't like in those SNW episodes, but I have to admit that the continuity issues put me in a bad mood and broke the fantasy. If they weren't present I might have had a different experience and come away feeling more positive about them.

It feels like a lot of us are concerned about Trek going in directions we don't want to follow. Some people don't want a show like Legacy to exist, even if they don't have to watch it, because its success would be a signal that fans want more returning story threads and characters in the stuff they do watch. Right now I'm feeling I'd be happy if SNW didn't exist, even though I don't have to watch it, because its success could lead to a TOS reboot, which would absolutely retcon the history of ALL the shows. People say that we still have our DVDs, that the old episodes are are still real, but I would be absolutely horrified at TOS being reclassified as 'Star Trek Legends' and considered old continuity.

So ideally what Trek producers need to figure out is how to give everyone what they can be happy with, and I don't think they're far off. Starfleet Academy will probably be relatively free of past ties (I don't think people consider Discovery as being 'nostalgic' yet, so that crew can visit). I haven't seen a lot of people complaining that Lower Decks and Prodigy aren't pushing Star Trek forward, so they're fine. Discovery's ending soon, so its haters will be out of fuel. As long as people can tolerate the idea of Berman era storylines and characters continuing, a hypothetical Legacy series could give a TNG/DS9/VOY fans what they're craving without bothering anyone else. And then someday Legacy storylines and characters can be continued by another show that people don't have to watch.

 

[Sci]

Discovery made a sport out of it.

No, it did not.

And prequels and far future are possible, just if ahem done in a way that respects and furthers pre-established continuity...

Prequels and sequels are possible whether or not whiny guys on YouTube approve of how they handle continuity.

ENT wise, the Temporal Cold War could finally get an explanation in a time travel series

The TCW got an explanation 20 years ago.

(maybe follow up "Relativity" and set it in the 29th century) or the Earth-Romulan War could be covered. And you also have the option to explore parallel universes beyond the Mirror Universe, or hell, depending on what the royalty payment to JJ Abrams would be, the Kelvin Universe after a century + of divergence.

I'm pretty sure there's no royalty payment required to use characters from movies Paramount already owns based on old TV shows Paramount owns.

Because it was overdone to the point of being a cliche.

Nope.

And I don't think it served the characters that every other episode their response to a crisis was to weep in a hallway and need a hug in order to deal with the problem.

Not what happened.

Now even TOS violated that rule more than a few times with Kirk consoling Yeoman Rand during a crisis,

If TOS broke its own rule multiple times then it's not a "rule" and not worth following.

but you didn't have episode after episode of the senior staff having to tearfully discuss their feelings about how they don't know how they're going to be able to do their jobs,

Not what happened.

I don't think an episode like TNG's "Family" works, where Picard breaks down and admits his vulnerability and trauma after the Borg assimilation, if it had been preceded by episode after episode of Picard doing group hugs with Deanna and Beverly about his feelings.

Picard has always been a messed-up guy with major psychological issues and he would have been a much healthier person if he HAD been more willing to be emotionally vulnerable and expressive to people he loves.

 

[Citiprime]

No, it did not.

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

Nope ... Not what happened.

Just considering the 13 episodes of season 4 of Discovery, the majority of those episodes involve emotional resolutions that are based around some form of crying by characters (e.g., Michael over Tilly, Tilly over her responsibilities, Michael over Book, etc.) and group hugs, including a group hug after debating the sentience of the ship's computer. It is not an exaggeration to say Discovery is a series that puts the emotions of its characters front and center and has fallen back on tears and hugs as a crutch.

If TOS broke its own rule multiple times then it's not a "rule" and not worth following.

TOS was great about some things and lax about others. There were amazing episodes that's the basis for the franchise's longevity in culture and television. And then there was "Spock's Brain."

Not what happened.

The relationship issues of Book and Michael is a HUGE chunk of season 4's storyline. There are multiple episodes with either Book or Michael being emotional to the point of tears repeatedly about either A) Book losing his homeworld, B) the affect that has on Book and Michael's relationship, and C) Book's decision to go against Michael's judgment. From episode to episode, that devolved into maudlin emotional frustrations that, in my opinion, undercut the Burnham character. It impacted my suspension of disbelief that she'd be the right one to deal with the crisis when everything around the crisis was an emotional scene of doubting how her relationship was being impacted.

And that's in addition to the other issues that are going on with the rest of the crew that have a tendency to devolve into scenes of crying and hugs.

Picard has always been a messed-up guy with major psychological issues and he would have been a much healthier person if he HAD been more willing to be emotionally vulnerable and expressive to people he loves.

Yes, that's probably true and here in the real world you'd hope he'd seek help. But this is a TV show, not a therapy session, and flawed characters dealing with conflicts through their flaws is the basis of drama.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Ironic, fans crying over too much crying in Discovery. Why don't you man up in an entirely non toxic way and move on?

 

[Citiprime]

Ironic, fans crying over too much crying in Discovery. Why don't you man up in an entirely non toxic way and move on?

First of all, I love that you somehow put the terms "man up" and "non-toxic" in the same sentence while criticizing people who have a problem with how Discovery treats its characters and story. Beyond that, I didn't know it was toxic to criticize a show for being off in how it treats its characters and their emotional responses given the setting and situation.

People who like Discovery and like how they've portrayed these characters, more power to you. I'm just saying, for me, if I wanted to watch a TV series where people repeatedly break down into tears with their problems it's something I'd expect from This Is Us or Grey's Anatomy, not Star Trek. And I think it undercuts the audience's confidence in these characters to repeatedly do it to the extent the writers on Discovery have.

 

[Dar70]

No, it did not.

https://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/inconsistencies/discovery_continuity.htm

Not saying the other shows don't have it. But the Kurtzman shows go out of their way to change things intentionally on a much larger scale.

 

[Lord Garth]

I think the real animosity towards SFA has nothing to do with SFA itself, it has to with SFA being a spin-off of DSC. The wind has been knocked out of the sails of the people who wanted to be rid of Disco.

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

Is that the Major Grin video? I watched that a few years ago. In the vast majority of the clips they chose, tears didn't come out of Burnham's eyes. If there aren't tears, then it's not crying, it's just expressiveness.

 

[Lord Garth]

I've written paragraphs about what else I didn't like in those SNW episodes, but I have to admit that the continuity issues put me in a bad mood and broke the fantasy. If they weren't present I might have had a different experience and come away feeling more positive about them.

It feels like a lot of us are concerned about Trek going in directions we don't want to follow. Some people don't want a show like Legacy to exist, even if they don't have to watch it, because its success would be a signal that fans want more returning story threads and characters in the stuff they do watch. Right now I'm feeling I'd be happy if SNW didn't exist, even though I don't have to watch it, because its success could lead to a TOS reboot, which would absolutely retcon the history of ALL the shows. People say that we still have our DVDs, that the old episodes are are still real, but I would be absolutely horrified at TOS being reclassified as 'Star Trek Legends' and considered old continuity.

So ideally what Trek producers need to figure out is how to give everyone what they can be happy with, and I don't think they're far off. Starfleet Academy will probably be relatively free of past ties (I don't think people consider Discovery as being 'nostalgic' yet, so that crew can visit). I haven't seen a lot of people complaining that Lower Decks and Prodigy aren't pushing Star Trek forward, so they're fine. Discovery's ending soon, so its haters will be out of fuel. As long as people can tolerate the idea of Berman era storylines and characters continuing, a hypothetical Legacy series could give a TNG/DS9/VOY fans what they're craving without bothering anyone else. And then someday Legacy storylines and characters can be continued by another show that people don't have to watch.

I personally don't watch LD. I also am planning to drop my Paramount+ subscription until DSC Season 5, after PIC Season 3 ends.

I think the idea of having five different shows, one for each faction, is fine. The thing I don't like is when some say all of Trek should go in one particular direction.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I think the idea of having five different shows, one for each faction, is fine. The thing I don't like is when some say all of Trek should go in one particular direction.

This a thousand times. Do I like Marvel? Sure! Do I watch every show? Lord no, She Hulk and others have zero interest from me. One day, they'll do a Trek I've no interest in either. But do I want all the shows to be the same as the one I like the best? Nope.

 

[fireproof78]

This is all subjective opinions, but to me it became maudlin and arguably emotionally manipulative.

Mileage will vary. I don't find it that way at all and showing a single clip video by a biased YT channel isn't going to change my view. @Richard S. Ta did a rewatch and kept track of the crying moments. There were whole episodes without tears.

I don't think an episode like TNG's "Family" works, where Picard breaks down and admits his vulnerability and trauma after the Borg assimilation, if it had been preceded by episode after episode of Picard doing group hugs with Deanna and Beverly about his feelings.

I think it works just as well, if not better. It shows Picard as someone traumatized by the experience and having people surrounding him in support. I don't know why that's a bad thing!

but I would be absolutely horrified at TOS being reclassified as 'Star Trek Legends' and considered old continuity.

No one is arguing that. The most we're doing is taking Roddenberry's own position that TOS was a dramatization of Kirk's logs and overemphasized on some parts. It's just a dramatic retelling of actual events. Treating it as real history is only going to cause issues though.

 

[IRW Bloodwing]

Also... you know, we had two seasons with Rios and Raffi, but I can't help but notice that certain fans threw them overboard for the exact same reasons they find Shaw somehow endearing. I can't qWHITE put my finger on why those fans are okay with Shaw being a traumatized asshole but not the others.....

I can only speak for myself, but I find Sydney far more interesting than either Rios or Raffi. It's just a case of which characters gel with the audience and which ones don't. No need to be playing the race card. Sisko was just as much an a-hole as Shaw (at first), and most of the audience was fine with that.

 

[fireproof78]

Didn't like Sisko at first either.

 

[IRW Bloodwing]

I like cartoons and I'm a big girl. Even the animated series had some great concepts. I think there's room for a lot in the franchise. And people can always pick and choose what they watch. (Except for fans who must watch everything so as to pick and choose what to bitch about.)

I think both of the animated shows are finding a pretty good balance between being kid-friendly (NOT infantile) and having a more serious storyline. And I'm coming from the standpoint of being someone who is on the record saying LD was bad when it first came out.

 

[IRW Bloodwing]

Here's the thing. I haven't mentioned it over in the PIC Forum, but I don't know what I think about a show that revolves around Shaw. He's too "I'm a normal guy! What the Hell did I get myself into?" It works for the short-term, meaning this one season, but I don't know how it translates over the long-term. That's why I'd look forward to it more because of Seven.

How many people said the same about O'Brien? He's now one of the most popular recent Trek characters. "Everymen" are poular.

 

[James Cole]

By the way, I'm okay with DSC and SNW being part of a different timeline. I would even prefer it. For two reasons:

1. In SNW's case, we wouldn't know where it all ends up.

2. In DSC and SNW's case, it would remove the fig leaf some people are hiding behind. "I don't like it because of Canon!" Well, if you can't use that anymore, then it forces people to put more thought into what else.

At least there's the precedent with the Abramsverse... And, like, THE ORVILLE is obviously not canon, but that doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed as Star Trek adjacent. A parallel universe SNW would still be open to criticism, but now on its own terms a la the Abramsverse, but just not for stepping on the toes of the rest of established continuity and threatening to de jure and not just de facto overwrite TOS.

I've written paragraphs about what else I didn't like in those SNW episodes, but I have to admit that the continuity issues put me in a bad mood and broke the fantasy. If they weren't present I might have had a different experience and come away feeling more positive about them.

I made it through the first two seasons of DISCOVERY before hitting the no more, no more pain point and bailing (I did eventually see around 2 1/2 episodes of season 3, but the "Burn" future was completely unbelievable for me). SNW is "better" than DISCOVERY, but the misaligned continuity makes it much harder to watch. I couldn't even finish the season, and even then was watching episodes 6-8 in small chunks over the span of a month. The analogy I've used before is watching a TV series set in a country you lived in for years, only for the series to get half of the basic basic details completely wrong.

It feels like a lot of us are concerned about Trek going in directions we don't want to follow. Some people don't want a show like Legacy to exist, even if they don't have to watch it, because its success would be a signal that fans want more returning story threads and characters in the stuff they do watch. Right now I'm feeling I'd be happy if SNW didn't exist, even though I don't have to watch it, because its success could lead to a TOS reboot, which would absolutely retcon the history of ALL the shows. People say that we still have our DVDs, that the old episodes are are still real, but I would be absolutely horrified at TOS being reclassified as 'Star Trek Legends' and considered old continuity.

The zero sum game is in effect. SNW is the one the legacy/continuity fans have to fear, not DISCOVERY (and I don't think anyone is predicting SFA will somehow be a breakout hit). At least the Popcast guys (who had a ton of advance knowledge of PICARD season 3) have indicted SNW season 2 kinda goes off the deep end. I don't want to root for something to fail, but with the current atmosphere of a zero sum game and without the multiverse safety valve, SNW is... a problem because it isn't staying in its own lane.

And yes, especially on Twitter, several of the NuTrek fans do have this response to PICARD season 3... the fine dining restaurant that went vegetarian suddenly has a filet mignon on the menu again for ten weeks.

Prequels and sequels are possible whether or not whiny guys on YouTube approve of how they handle continuity.

Then it becomes a numbers game over who still watches and who boycotts, and how many old fans they lose relative to new fans they gain. And merchandise sales.

The TCW got an explanation 20 years ago.

I know there was a novel that resolved Future Guy, but "Storm Front" just removed it as a plot point from ENT.

I'm pretty sure there's no royalty payment required to use characters from movies Paramount already owns based on old TV shows Paramount owns.

Nick Locarno became Tom Paris because TPTB didn't want to pay character royalties to Ron Moore and Naren Shankar. I'm sure if JJ Abrams is getting a cut of merchandise based on his films (and went so far to change a C3PO arm and the antenna dish on the Millennium Falcon in his Star Wars films for merch variation), he'd also get royalties for anything created under his aegis

People who like Discovery and like how they've portrayed these characters, more power to you. I'm just saying, for me, if I wanted to watch a TV series where people repeatedly break down into tears with their problems it's something I'd expect from This Is Us or Grey's Anatomy, not Star Trek. And I think it undercuts the audience's confidence in these characters to repeatedly do it to the extent the writers on Discovery have.

Star Trek has been accused of overthinking. But you can also have overfeeling. And the tail end of DISCOVERY season 2 had way too much overfeeling, especially where people died in scores while Burnham and Spock were having their moment.

I think the real animosity towards SFA has nothing to do with SFA itself, it has to with SFA being a spin-off of DSC. The wind has been knocked out of the sails of the people who wanted to be rid of Disco.

Guilty... But at the same time, if it was set in the TOS movie era, or the TNG era, and with the right writers, was going for a broader audience thus not oversampling a marketing stereotypical "Gen Z" audience, I'd be more interested in it.

I can only speak for myself, but I find Sydney far more interesting than either Rios or Raffi. It's just a case of which characters gel with the audience and which ones don't. No need to be playing the race card. Sisko was just as much an a-hole as Shaw (at first), and most of the audience was fine with that.

Season 3 has awesome casting and well developed new characters.

I think both of the animated shows are finding a pretty good balance between being kid-friendly (NOT infantile) and having a more serious storyline. And I'm coming from the standpoint of being someone who is on the record saying LD was bad when it first came out.

STLD becomes consistently good by the middle of its second season. PRODIGY after about 5 episodes. Pleasant surprises both.