S1 was awesome, S2 is a yawn fest

[fireproof78]

Space is big, very big.

There is room for all.

You can have two series.

One a light fluffy safespace eg TNG 2.0

AND

A more dark gritty series.

You can just choose to watch what one you want.

Or, make a new franchise. Wouldn't that be something?

As I stated, GoT style ignores a fundamental conceit of Star Trek's inception. By all means, give it a shot. But, I have my doubts that it will be enjoyable. But, I will freely admit my bias against GoT and have no desire to see Star Trek go that direction.

 

[Crazyewok]

Or, make a new franchise. Wouldn't that be something?

As I stated, GoT style ignores a fundamental conceit of Star Trek's inception. By all means, give it a shot. But, I have my doubts that it will be enjoyable. But, I will freely admit my bias against GoT and have no desire to see Star Trek go that direction.

The idea of a fundamental idea is bollocks in my opinion.

It's premise has changed from series to series.

The franchise is big enough for two different series styles.

If you don't like a gritty style? Simply don't watch it. No one will make you.

 

[fireproof78]

The idea of a fundamental idea is bollocks in my opinion.

It's premise has changed from series to series.

The franchise is big enough for two different series styles.

If you don't like a gritty style? Simply don't watch it. No one will make you.

You can call it bollocks all you want. I know what I have read and studied.

The premise was always exploring the human condition, with a basic idea of humans being able to grow and become more positive.

The franchise is big enough. I don't think GoT style is appropriate for Star Trek. Agree to disagree, IDIC and all that.

Hard to not watch something that isn't currently being made...

 

[Sir Stewart Wallace]

I wouldn't call Discovery gritty in the slightest. Nothing the show has produced comes close to DS9's "In The Pale Moonlight" in terms of darkness. Discovery has a vastly different aesthetic than Berman era Trek, and with half the episodes Trek usually has it has to pack in a lot of story quickly. So while the show can feel rushed and overstuffed sometimes, it still plays things pretty safe.

 

[Alan Roi]

Or, make a new franchise. Wouldn't that be something?
.

Well, MacFarlane is attempting TNG 2.0. We can see how that is working.

But honestly, Star Trek starting out with The Cage has as much in common with the conceits of GoT as it does TNG if not more so. Swordfighting, sex, torture, totally weird shit going on.

TOS consistently wobbled back and forth between, "Hey, we're moving towards a wondrous utopia" and "My god?! What have we done?!", sometimes in the same episode.

The future has always looked both amazing and terrifying. No reason why Star Trek needs to pick one or the other to be called Star Trek.

 

[Dukhat]

I remember reading (on the internet, so it had to be true) it was a body double and not Jolene...

That is true.

 

[XCV330]

That is true.

A natural scene ruined by the lack of a Vulcan tramp stamp tattoo.

 

[Dukhat]

A natural scene ruined by the lack of a Vulcan tramp stamp tattoo.

I think Riker got his Chef program mixed up with Quark's Vulcan Love Slave program that week.

 

[fireproof78]

I wouldn't call Discovery gritty in the slightest. Nothing the show has produced comes close to DS9's "In The Pale Moonlight" in terms of darkness. Discovery has a vastly different aesthetic than Berman era Trek, and with half the episodes Trek usually has it has to pack in a lot of story quickly. So while the show can feel rushed and overstuffed sometimes, it still plays things pretty safe.

I wouldn't call it gritty at all. And I don't need gritty, or more like DS9 or anything like that. I appreciate the fact that DISCO can stand out on its own, and still try to do something to distinguish itself.

The future has always looked both amazing and terrifying. No reason why Star Trek needs to pick one or the other to be called Star Trek.

There's terrifying and then there is GoT. In my opinion, one fits with the Star Trek paradigm as it stands. The other does not.

I think Riker got his Chef program mixed up with Quark's Vulcan Love Slave program that week.

Hate it when that happens.

 

[Alan Roi]

There's terrifying and then there is GoT. In my opinion, one fits with the Star Trek paradigm as it stands. The other does not.
.

"A god needs compassion!" - Kirk just before he and the doctor kill Gary Mitchell (who has gained so much power he now considers human beings insects.)

"In my experience, evil triumphs unless good is very, very careful," McCoy, The Omega Glory (shortly after we learn that a respected Star Fleet Captain has helped murder people by the thousands using his superior technology).

Oh, and half of Kirk's colony getting executed when he was a kid because of an anticipated food shortage. Nomad and the Space Amoeba destroying whole civilizations made up of billions of people... Good people being driven insane because they can't handle the horrors they have encountered... This too is Star Trek.

Just saying...

 

[fireproof78]

"A god needs compassion!" - Kirk just before he and the doctor kill Gary Mitchell (who has gained so much power he now considers human beings insects.)

"In my experience, evil triumphs unless good is very, very careful," McCoy, The Omega Glory (shortly after we learn that a respected Star Fleet Captain has helped murder people by the thousands using his superior technology).

Oh, and half of Kirk's colony getting executed when he was a kid because of an anticipated food shortage. Nomad and the Space Amoeba destroying whole civilizations made up of billions of people... Good people being driven insane because they can't handle the horrors they have encountered... This too is Star Trek.

Just saying...

Ok...not sure how that contradicts the wonderful horror of GoT which is not what I want. That is the only point. That's it.

But, please keep demonstrating how TOS was never the utopia that TNG was...that wasn't my argument at all...

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

I remember reading (on the internet, so it had to be true) it was a body double and not Jolene...

That is true.

Not according to Blalock herself in a slightly creepy interview by Matt Schneiderman of Stuff Magazine, dated 16 August 2004...

SCHNEIDERMAN: In one episode, you appeared with half of your backside showing. But people claim that you're nude in the European version of the show. Does such a fabulously sexy episode really exist?
BLALOCK: That is true. That was part of the massage scene, right before Trip and T'Pol do it. And I dropped my robe. The full shot aired on the East Coast, but when the network found out that crack was shown on Enterprise—this was after the whole Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction—they freaked out. They cropped it for airing on the West Coast.
SCHNEIDERMAN: Are you comfortable with nude scenes?
BLALOCK: Probably more than most actors. But I have the same reservations as the next guy. Or girl.​

Did she repudiate it elsewhere? Can someone else involved with the production actually be quoted as saying it was a body double?

-MMoM

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Or, make a new franchise. Wouldn't that be something?

As I stated, GoT style ignores a fundamental conceit of Star Trek's inception. By all means, give it a shot. But, I have my doubts that it will be enjoyable. But, I will freely admit my bias against GoT and have no desire to see Star Trek go that direction.

The Argument that Discovery is 'GoT in space' or 'Grimdark' do not hold up for me whatsoever. Compared to actual GoT or something like BSG or The Expanse. Discovery is about as dark and gritty as my little pony. A better way to describe Discovery might be that it treats it's audience as adults whereas previous incarnations have had such a low opinion of the viewer that they thought we couldn't handle seeing hero ships needing repairs across multiple episodes.

 

[Dukhat]

Not according to Blalock herself in a slightly creepy interview by Matt Schneiderman of Stuff Magazine, dated 16 August 2004...

SCHNEIDERMAN: In one episode, you appeared with half of your backside showing. But people claim that you're nude in the European version of the show. Does such a fabulously sexy episode really exist?
BLALOCK: That is true. That was part of the massage scene, right before Trip and T'Pol do it. And I dropped my robe. The full shot aired on the East Coast, but when the network found out that crack was shown on Enterprise—this was after the whole Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction—they freaked out. They cropped it for airing on the West Coast.
SCHNEIDERMAN: Are you comfortable with nude scenes?
BLALOCK: Probably more than most actors. But I have the same reservations as the next guy. Or girl.​

Did she repudiate it elsewhere? Can someone else involved with the production actually be quoted as saying it was a body double?

-MMoM

From Memory Alpha:

• As originally filmed, the famous "love scene" between Tucker and T'Pol featured a look at actress Jolene Blalock's naked posterior. Two versions of this scene exist, however, depending on where and how the episode is watched; US audiences watching the original broadcast on UPN (or later on the Sci-Fi Channel) were shown a version in which the frame was "enlarged," enabling the network to crop the picture just above Blalock's bare bottom. Canadian viewers, however, were treated to the scene as it was originally shot – with Blalock's bottom shown (see the picture to the right). The "unedited" version of this scene is intact on the DVD release of the episode, HDNet's broadcast, and streaming video providers such as Netflix and Hulu. The episode aired ten days after the "wardrobe malfunction" during halftime at Super Bowl XXXVIII, which may have resulted in the alternate versions.

I'd always heard it was a body double (which is standard in Hollywood when you see the actor's private parts but not their face in the same shot), but if Blalock herself says it was her, I have no reason to disbelieve her.

 

[fireproof78]

The Argument that Discovery is 'GoT in space' or 'Grimdark' do not hold up for me whatsoever. Compared to actual GoT or something like BSG or The Expanse. Discovery is about as dark and gritty as my little pony. A better way to describe Discovery might be that it treats it's audience as adults whereas previous incarnations have had such a low opinion of the viewer that they thought we couldn't handle seeing hero ships needing repairs across multiple episodes.

No, it doesn't hold up for me either. My point is simply that I don't think the GoT approach is appropriate for Trek.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

No, it doesn't hold up for me either. My point is simply that I don't think the GoT approach is appropriate for Trek.

I agree, honestly I sometimes think trying to be like GoT doesn't even work for GoT. Watching (or reading about) characters you have come to love die over and over again, eventually loses it's impact and becomes an annoyance. Watching GoT can be exhausting and manipulative, and Trek would be best to steer clear of that type of storytelling.

 

[Lord Garth]

Like I've said before, last season I expected anyone who wasn't Burnham could die, unless they had to survive to TOS. This season, I haven't felt that.

To take it a step further: the fact that there was a funeral scene for Airiam basically cements the change in mentality the series has taken in Season 2 and, presumably, from here on out. Anyone who's a regular or recurring character (and not an antagonist) won't just die at any moment and, if they do die, it won't be treated lightly.

 

[BillJ]

To take it a step further: the fact that there was a funeral scene for Airiam basically cements the change in mentality the series has taken in Season 2 and, presumably, from here on out.

That funeral was a long drawn out mess for someone that featured in one episode. It felt more like filler than anything else.

 

[mos6507]

A better way to describe Discovery might be that it treats it's audience as adults whereas previous incarnations have had such a low opinion of the viewer that they thought we couldn't handle seeing hero ships needing repairs across multiple episodes.

What you're actually describing here is how the target demo of Discovery is so different from what came before that Disco fans feel the need to belittle the earlier shows and its fans, to the detriment of Trek fandom as a whole.

 

[Lord Garth]

What you're actually describing here is how the target demo of Discovery is so different from what came before that Disco fans feel the need to belittle the earlier shows and its fans, to the detriment of Trek fandom as a whole.

I was a Star Trek fan for 26 years before Discovery hit CBS All Access two years ago. Going by you, you'd think we'd never seen or liked Star Trek before Discovery. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm 39. I haven't been a teenager in 20 years. You want to know what I like? It's this:

Like: TOS, TOS Movies, DS9, DSC
In-Between: TNG, VOY, Kelvin Movies
Don't Like: ENT, TNG Movies

Why don't you try to get to know us a little better instead of just trying to make assumptions about us?

As you'll be able to tell from my list, I'm not some huge JJ Abrams fan (no offense to those who are) and you'll also be able to tell that even without Discovery, I was never exactly a fan of Rick Berman either. My favorite Trek series from that era is the one he had the least to do with because he was more concerned with TNG/VOY and Ira Steven Behr knew how to stand up to him.