News Spock has already been cast

[Amasov]

That said, I think the real problem with Discovery so far -- the writing -- transcends the setting. If they keep trotting out threadbare Trek tropes, it doesn't matter if the show is set in the 23rd, 24th or 42nd century.

I actually disagree with the tropes, of course, it depends on what trope we're talking about here. I'm more forgiving to a series like Enterprise having a transporter malfunction because it's a newer technology with regard to the period it's set in. It's the fact that this particular trope was first introduced to us on a series that takes place a century after Enterprise. So, it makes you wonder, why are they still having trouble with a 100+-year-old technology?

The timeloop episode I thought worked because even though we've seen it happen before, it wasn't as if it was some phenomenon the Discovery encountered; it was something being done to them dliberately by someone. So it took a trope and, in my opinion, gave it a fresh spin. To me, it's how it is introduced and how is it solved that make it fresh.

Name some other tropes that Discovery has fallen back on, please.

 

[DigificWriter]

By that logic saying that DSC and TOS are in the same universe is a falsehood, because it blatantly disregards the facts that DSC showed cloaking devices and TOS made it extremely clear that cloaking devices haven't been a thing until now.

Nope, because of the existence of the Retcon... and the fact that every Star Trek series since TNG has introduced things that contradict other series, or even themselves.

 

[Jinn]

I do think the endgame is to completely overwrite the original series with their "vision" of Star Trek.

Nah, I don't think they have any such plans.

 

[BillJ]

Nope, because of the existence of the Retcon... and the fact that every Star Trek series since TNG has introduced things that contradict other series, or even themselves.

If we all acknowledge that continuity really doesn't mean anything in Star Trek, why does it matter so much that Discovery is "Prime"?

 

[BillJ]

Nah, I don't think they have any such plans.

If they didn't, they wouldn't be introducing their versions of Pike, Number One, Spock and so on. If they do a Pike show, and its a hit, they aren't going to want to give that up when the time comes. They will want to keep milking that cow, and the only place to go to really do that is to remake TOS.

 

[Jinn]

Nope, because of the existence of the Retcon... and the fact that every Star Trek series since TNG has introduced things that contradict other series, or even themselves.

Well, for one there is no necessity to accept any given retcon. Furthermore there is also no actual evidence that (the bulk) of all Trek series play in the same timeline.

 

[DigificWriter]

Well, for one there is no necessity to accept any given retcon. Furthermore there is also no actual evidence that (the bulk) of all Trek series play in the same timeline.

My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

 

[Jinn]

If they didn't, they wouldn't be introducing their versions of Pike, Number One, Spock and so on.

Well, we don't really know how different these characters will be from their apperances in TOS. For the three TOS characters already around, Amanda, Sarek and Mudd, none of them feel particularly out of character to me except for Sarek's willigness to blow up Qo'noS.

If they do a Pike show, and its a hit, they aren't going to want to give that up when the time comes. They will want to keep milking that cow, and the only place to go to really do that is to remake TOS.

We can deal with that should it ever happen

 

[Jinn]

My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

Now that's a rhetorical masterpiece

ETA: I find the idea of not taking someone seriously because of a disagreement over other people's opinions on the timeline of a fiction show pretty funny.

 

[Phil123]

I'm so tired of the: "Anything not post TNG at this point = 'looking back...' <--- because that's a load of BS.

Star Trek has always been set in the future - and ST is 240 years in the future. From today, that's 'looking ahead' no matter how you slice it.

That is a fair point. For me it's more about all the tie in stuff I find annoying - everything linking to Spock and all that. The universe was never meant to revolve around Spock. I say that with love, he is Star Trek to me. Another show set in the time frame may not be my first choice, but I'm on board, just seems there is a lot of fan service going on. But I hope I'm not coming across to negative, I do like Discovery, and I will be watching and enjoying it for sure.

 

[Jesse1066]

Now that's a rhetorical masterpiece

ETA: I find the idea of not taking someone seriously because of a disagreement over other people's opinions on the timeline of a fiction show pretty funny.

It's from Firefly.

 

[Spider]

I do think the endgame is to completely overwrite the original series with their "vision" of Star Trek.

And if that's what their goal is, then that's perfectly fine with me. All I care about is how the characters appeal to me and the stories. Except for Lorca, I don't give a shit about the rest of the "main" characters, which is what I fault Discovery about, not it's (supposed) intent to rewrite history and call it prime time new canon. Even some of my least favorite Star Trek TV shows had at least one or two of the main crew I liked and was interested in. Sadly for me, that just isn't the case for Discovery.

 

[BillJ]

And if that's what their goal is, then that's perfectly fine with me. All I care about is how the characters appeal to me and the stories. Except for Lorca, I don't give a shit about the rest of the "main" characters, which is what I fault Discovery about, not it's (supposed) intent to rewrite history and call it prime time new canon. Even some of my least favorite Star Trek TV shows had at least one or two of the main crew I liked and was interested in. Sadly for me, that just isn't the case for Discovery.

I agree. I liked Tilly and Stamets, but the rest of the show was dreary and uninspired.

 

[Mudd]

To close the loop with TNG, Trek's producers have to do a new version of Kirk, Spock - everyone, eventually.

TOS exists outside of and apart from the TNGVerse, which began in 1987. A new continuity was not the immediate intent of the folks working on the show - they tried hard to keep it all in sync with the original series, for quite a while - but that's how post-TOS Trek has evolved, which is much more important than the original creators' intent.

 

[Lord Garth]

To close the loop with TNG, Trek's producers have to do a new version of Kirk, Spock - everyone, eventually.

TOS exists outside of and apart from the TNGVerse, which began in 1987. A new continuity was not the immediate intent of the folks working on the show - they tried hard to keep it all in sync with the original series, for quite a while - but that's how post-TOS Trek has evolved, which is much more important than the original creators' intent.

The main problem here is, I don't see execs going for the idea of a show about Kirk & Crew while they're still making movies. Even if, for the sake of argument, the fourth Abrams film -- and the Quentin Tarantino film if you want to throw that in there -- are the last they do, they'll just reboot the films again if they want to keep going.

The only way I see them doing another show with Kirk's Enterprise is if they're not making a version of them on the big-screen anymore. Paramount must want to keep making movies with them, so the only way they won't is if ST4 hypothetically tanked. If the Quentin Tarantino film tanked, on the other hand, they'd probably write it off as, "Oh, it was just a one-time thing anyway!"

 

[Mudd]

I actually disagree with the tropes, of course, it depends on what trope we're talking about here. I'm more forgiving to a series like Enterprise having a transporter malfunction because it's a newer technology with regard to the period it's set in. It's the fact that this particular trope was first introduced to us on a series that takes place a century after Enterprise. So, it makes you wonder, why are they still having trouble with a 100+-year-old technology?

The timeloop episode I thought worked because even though we've seen it happen before, it wasn't as if it was some phenomenon the Discovery encountered; it was something being done to them dliberately by someone. So it took a trope and, in my opinion, gave it a fresh spin. To me, it's how it is introduced and how is it solved that make it fresh.

Name some other tropes that Discovery has fallen back on, please.

The technology of the transporter is so completely out of sync with every other technology presented in Star Trek that it wouldn't be surprising if it took hundreds of years for them to really understand it and get the kinks out. In that TAS episode that used Niven's inventions, it was mentioned that the Federations artificial gravity tech is the result of reverse-engineering a gadget found in a "stasis box" left behind by a lost civilization. It would make a lot more sense for the transporter to be something like that.

 

[XCV330]

The technology of the transporter is so completely out of sync with every other technology presented in Star Trek that it wouldn't be surprising if it took hundreds of years for them to really understand it and get the kinks out. In that TAS episode that used Niven's inventions, it was mentioned that the Federations artificial gravity tech is the result of reverse-engineering a gadget found in a "stasis box" left behind by a lost civilization. It would make a lot more sense for the transporter to be something like that.

Emory Erikson wasn't without ethical delimmas. That might make sense.
Honestly I like the idea that the only reason humanity came up with warp drive, which again, was a huge leap from where technology currently stands was if Cochrane himself was a closet augment. Humanity probably went on a program against remaining augments and not all of them probably were as powerful or well placed as Khan. Seeing your species reduced to a few thousand frozen embryos, you might want to lay low and hit the bottle. Augment-Cochrane couldn't sit still and came up with a warp drive so he could at least get an island filled with naked women.

 

[Spot261]

My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

Was this intentionally hilarious?

 

[Mudd]

Well, it was when Whedon wrote it.

 

[Jadeb]

Name some other tropes that Discovery has fallen back on, please.

You mentioned the time loop, but we also got:

• The Tardigrade/Horta arc, in which we learn it's bad to kill and torture living things, even if they don't look humanoid
• The bad/incompetent admiral who must be defied
• The evil/megalomaniacal captain
• Daddy issues with Sarek and the return of Harry Mudd
• The planet of sparkly, noncorporeal aliens (who use stools)
• Half a season -- half the season! -- in the Mirror Universe, an uber-fannish Trek trope if there ever was.
• And that's after we spent the first half in yet more conflict with the Klingons.

Really, though, it wasn't the presence of these familiar ideas that bothered me so much as the shortage of new and creative ones. It seemed to me they spent more time reimagining than they did imagining. I hope that ratio changes in season two.