Hmm. I don't think we're making the same point, actually. I think that doing honest Biblical analysis is not compatible with maintaining "absolute faith" in things that would otherwise cause cognitive dissonance.
Season 2 Teaser
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Hence my second paragraph, about the boundaries that need to be observed. We don't really know all that much about Christopher PIke, for instance. There's plenty of room for a new actor (and writers) to add to our understanding of who he is and how he thinks. But that should be done in a way that acknowledges and builds on (not contradicts) such things as we do know.
None of those character is Discovery so far have have strayed far from how they were portrayed before.
Hell Pike only appeared in 2 episodes, there is a whole lot a wiggle room for that Character.
We know nothing about him except what was revealed in those two episodes.
Why restrain creativity? Why not allow the new interpretations to be new, unfettered by anything except the broad strokes? I think they do a disservice to Discovery by fitting it with a TOS straight jacket.
I'm sure that if the owner of the Mona Lisa decided to paint a mustache on it, they would be taunted both a second and a third time.
Kurtzman has maintained that various members of the creative team are "fans" of Trek. But that doesn't really say anything if context isn't included. What kind of fans are they? What is their 'vision' for the franchise?
So, they wanted to fit a series in between Enterprise and TOS. What has come thus far in Discovery seems like an unusual approach to accomplish that. They have neither been completely faithful to TOS nor cleared the slate and gone in a totally different direction. It's a strange amalgam of the two. What they've done really does seem like it would have worked better as a stand-alone sci-fi series, with no connection to Trek. It almost has the feeling of trying to wedge a size 12 foot into a size 9 1/2 shoe.
When they sat down to decide what they wanted to do with this series, I wonder what they used for reference material? How much in-depth research did they do? Discovery isn't horrible, but in Trek it is like a distant cousin rather than a closer relative.
Mona with a 'stache has been done....they have her looking a bit like Abner Doubleday:
So, they wanted to fit a series in between Enterprise and TOS. What has come thus far in Discovery seems like an unusual approach to accomplish that. They have neither been completely faithful to TOS nor cleared the slate and gone in a totally different direction. It's a strange amalgam of the two. What they've done really does seem like it would have worked better as a stand-alone sci-fi series, with no connection to Trek. It almost has the feeling of trying to wedge a size 12 foot into a size 9 1/2 shoe.
When they sat down to decide what they wanted to do with this series, I wonder what they used for reference material? How much in-depth research did they do? Discovery isn't horrible, but in Trek it is like a distant cousin rather than a closer relative.
Mona with a 'stache has been done....they have her looking a bit like Abner Doubleday:
Experience and reading has taught me otherwise. So, I've seen it done.
Edit: Sorry, off topic.
Last edited:
Again, this is the way I look at it. Post TNG, there were three further Berman era series. They all kept to canon and continuity of course, but you could categorize them as follows:
DS9: Although tons of new elements were introduced (notably the Dominion) DS9 for the most part fleshed out elements of Trek mythos which were created by TOS or TNG, such as Cardassians, Bajorans, the Maquis, Klingons, Ferengi, etc). It took a fresh approach though because it did not have the same "format" as TNG, with the show taking place on a station and half of the cast being non Starfleet. Personally speaking, I think i achieved great results from this.
VOY: Kept to the TNG format, but attempted to distinguish itself by getting lost in the Delta Quadrant, and having a mixed Maquis-Federation crew. The latter was ignored immediately, as was most of the ramifications of the former (resupply was basically no issue). The forehead bump "aliens of the week" were no different than on TNG, except for arguably the focus on the Borg. The writers still, despite the different quadrant, found ways to tell stories about Ferengi, Cardassians, Romulans, Klingons, etc. So the entire premise was undermined.
ENT: Tried to distinguish itself by being a prequel, though it largely kept to a hybrid TOS/TNG format. Despite being a prequel, it still found ways to shoehorn in races like the Ferengi and Borg which shouldn't have been covered during the time period. Along with random forehead-bump aliens which again could have been straight off a TNG episode. Things revved up a bit for Season 3 - although it really wasn't a story that needed to be told in a prequel at all. Only with Season 4 - when the series goes all in on fanwank - does it begin to achieve the promise of the setting.
Obviously we don't have the Berman-era creative teams any longer, meaning we don't need to worry episodes which are poorly-done expys of previous shows. But I think it's notable that the most creatively successful of the Berman-era shows was the one which decided to go deeper into what was already established at a slightly different angle rather than just have a change of scenery or time frame.
While I am optimistic about DIS season 2, I am a bit concerned that it's clear they've decided to go "conventional" with the bridge crew now being the main cast. Tilly's on the bridge, the bit characters like Detmer are going to get more exposure, we're getting a chief engineer, etc. It suggests to me that the lesson the showrunners learned is to "be safe" - which is dispiriting to say the least, because the Lower Decks ambitions of the beginning of Season 1 was part of what I liked about it.
Last edited:
Only when commanded by Kirk.
You posted this in response to a list that included "the Klingons, the D-7, the Enterprise, Harry Mudd, Sarek, Amanda, Pike, Number One, Spock."
Do you really think so?
So far, of those nine, we've seen the first six on the show. I'd say that all of them (except possibly Amanda, who had a very brief appearance) were portrayed in ways that strayed markedly from their past depictions. The differences in the Klingons, their ships, and the Enterprise have already been discussed at length around here. Mudd was markedly more bloodthirsty than ever seen before. Sarek initially seemed more similar to his classic appearances, but by the end of the season he was turned into a mouthpiece for war crimes, which did no service to his character.
So what do those examples allow us to anticipate about the depictions of Pike, Number One, and Spock?...
I must have missed that. Where was Tilly shown on the bridge?
Hopefully not much, given the near complete turnover of creative staff over the course of season 1 and the start of season 2.
Okay, fair point. At best all that really leaves us with, then, is that we have no basis for anticipating how the show will depict previously established characters in the future.
Pike and Number One, at least, have relatively little established about them, so it shouldn't be too hard for the DSC folks to respect what went before while still finding creative ways to flesh them out. Spock is obviously another story — he's arguably the most familiar and most ubiquitous character in all of Trek — so they'll need to tread a lot more carefully. One can only assume that's a major reason they're playing it safe by keeping him off-screen for the time being.
Berg, Harberts and Goldsman all worked on season two before being fired.
And scripts were all done (though of course subject to change but probably not much at this stage) before B&H departed.
EDIT - I swear I read this in one of the many articles regarding them / Kurtzman, but I can't find the quote now. Without proper sourcing, I'll amend my above thought to: I doubt much of the big picture story / character elements for S2 will change with B&H gone. Fuller was out earlier in S1 than B&H in S2 and what we saw of S1 was very Fuller in story / character, though clearly quite different in execution. I hope for the best, but...
Last edited:
Only when commanded by Kirk.
Yeah, it sometimes seems as though those other Federation starships are like the other "double-0" agents in the Bond movies. 007 is indestructible, but 006 or 008 might as well be wearing a red shirt . . .
"005 was on the case, Bond, but his body just turned up floating in the Seine."
To be fair, 006 went mad and tried to kill Bond and 007 had to drive a tank through St Petersburg.Yeah, it sometimes seems as though those other Federation starships are like the other "double-0" agents in the Bond movies. 007 is indestructible, but 006 or 008 might as well be wearing a red shirt . . .
"005 was on the case, Bond, but his body just turned up floating in the Seine."
If Michael goes mad and tries to kill the Discovery crew and she ends up falling off a giant satellite dish in s2...
... we’ll know they’ve ripped off Goldeneye.
Similar threads
