Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 1x15 - "Will You Take My Hand?"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
The creators behind modern Star Trek underestimate Berman/Piller era Trek. They think the only Trek anyone cares about is TOS and so they're constantly pandering to it.
I've been told that according to Alex Kurtzman, the first place they started with STD was the encounter with the Enterprise at the end. The entire season was a set up to get to that moment.
That's just pathetic.
I've been told that according to Alex Kurtzman, the first place they started with STD was the encounter with the Enterprise at the end. The entire season was a set up to get to that moment.
That's just pathetic.
I interpreted that scene as being a cut between two different things which happened in that room. One was the awards ceremony, and the other was some sort of "lecture" which Burham was giving to a smaller audience at a different time.
The money demonstrates that.
Polling and streaming data says otherwise.
If what DIS is doing it pandering to TOS fans, then they're doing terrible job with it!
Finances and merchandising say otherwise.
Agreed. The reason for the last three movies going to the Kirk and Spock era, DSC being heralded as 10 years prior to TOS are only a couple things that demonstrate that Star Trek, in the public's mind, is more associated with "the guy with the ears", or Kirk. People in general seem to latch onto that era more than the TNG era, myself included.
I love all Trek, but for me the TNG era has not aged well, and doesn't stand up to much repeated viewing for me. TOS era is something I could watch any time and not be bored with it.
Well yes. I didn't say they were doing a good job of it.
And CBS knows this far more than the Internet would ever believe.
TOS is the most memorable and iconic. It was the first.
I'm saying it's not the only Star Trek that matters. More people have probably watched TNG than any other Trek. I'm not giving an opinion on whether it's better or worse.
Nor am I. I am saying that were money is being spent by consumers indicates that TOS is what supports CBS.
They are not "underestimating" anything. They are taking a risk that they can afford, which is pretty standard for corporations.
They make more TOS merchandise, ergo it sells better. TOS also sells well to the casual or hipster crowd...more years in public consciousness means ‘Spock’ can be a fashion thing, as can TOS. If it was just about the characters, then Movie Era merch would shift more too...yet there seems to be very little of that going on. Voyager was trending forever on Netflix once it went up over here...there were days recently where it was trending higher than DSC itself. It’s a complicated picture, and I think that once the others get age and exposure equal to TOS as it is now (which will never happen, and not just because they are younger shows. It’s just too late to bung out movies xD) you would see a different picture emerge. I am constantly surprise how well Voyager in particular seems to thrive in public and fan consciousness.
TOS is only the beginning.
I use to go in to an entertainment store frequently to get a sense of merchandising. I saw equal amounts in TOS and TNG. I have seen a similar balance at sites like Think Geek. Invariably, the TOS style items would be sold out and TNG would remain.
Yes, this is anecdotal, and no doubt others will state something opposite. I'm just saying that they make more TOS merchandise is not quite as accurate, or paints the complete picture
You know, there are moments in your stream-of-consciousness post that I thought made insightful points. Most notably, this one... a lack of emotional connection with Michael is clearly a problem for a lot of viewers and, therefore, for the show itself.
But despite such moments, in a larger sense you lost me the moment you castigated the show with the epithet "SJW." That's a term that says a lot more about those using it than it does about those they're trying to disparage.
Also, this...
...baffles the hell out of me. As it always does when I people say such things, about either fiction or reality. "It's war." That's a simple declarative statement. There's not even an argument there. What is that supposed to mean? If you think it has some sort of self-evident implications, well... it doesn't.
If it's meant to imply that war is such a powerful imperative that it sweeps any and all moral and ethical concerns off the table, that the end — victory! — is so crucial that it justifies any and all means? It doesn't. I say "imply" because that's how it gets used, because that's a whole lot easier than actually defending that kind of reasoning.
Finding a moral justification for war at all has always been a tricky business, but to the extent it's possible, it relies on the same basic principle that underlies self-defense on an individual level: if and when one's life or liberty is facing an imminent threat, and force is the only available response, then and only then is it acceptable. (Hence an aggressor, whether a person or a nation-state, implicitly and inherently places himself in a morally inferior position. Note that this means that even a "just war" is only actually just for one side, the defender.)
Important as survival is, though, it is not an end that justifies anything and everything. Even in self-defense, proportionality in the use of force is a key principle. If someone's threatening to assault you with his fists, you're not justified in shooting him dead with an automatic. Escalation is both unjustified and counter-productive. It makes you the aggressor.
Moreover, even where war is concerned, survival is obviously not the only end at stake. After all, one of the defining characteristics of war is that it's a situation in which one may be expected to risk and even sacrifice one's life. Sacrificing your life in order to preserve it is a logical contradiction, so the obvious question is what else about the situation merits such a sacrifice? The obvious answer is, protecting and preserving one's principles. There is no virtue in winning unless one deserves to win... and, as noted, the deserving party is never the one who initiates or escalates aggression.
This is a simplified summary, of course, but long story short, this is why all civilized societies have long ago recognized that certain kinds of conduct are simply never justified, even in a state of war. This includes the self-explanatory category of "war crimes," as well as things like torture, rape, killing noncombatant civilians, and, of course, genocide.
To commit genocide is to abandon all moral justification and declare oneself uncivilized and undeserving of victory. It is inconceivable that the Federation would ever commit such a lapse.
So that's "what all the heart-ache here is." The show was completely hamfisted in how it set up the situation and delivered the message, no question, but the message itself is sound.
I do think they underestimate how many people got into the franchise because of post-TOS Star Trek.
I'm not saying that I want TNG/VOY/DS9 rehashed or referenced more. Just that in an artistic sense when the creators of modern Trek look to the past for influence, there's a lot more out there than TOS that ST fans like. ST doesn't always have to be pulpy.
I tend to agree, but I don't tend to see that born out as much from the average viewer, though there are always exceptions.
While I agree with you that Trek is a greater universe than just TOS era, what a business needs to look for is a return on product that's out there. Like it or not, Trek can't be sustained in the open market, competing with the oversaturation of Star Wars and other Sci-Fi adventures on just the fans. If the money comes in from product bearing Kirk or Spock's likeness, more than Picard or Data, then they need to ensure a good return for the company.
Besides that, I know non-fans, just casual viewers, who like the feel of TOS era more than TNG. TOS has the look, feel and vibe people now are into (witness the 2017 Gucci campaign).
Plus I think that the TNG era had a lot more done within it than the TOS era on screen. It got fatigued and maybe even referring to it a lot would bring back that tiredness.
Sure. But that look, feel and vibe is not at all present on Discovery.
Last edited:
I worded that wrong, my apologies. I didn't mean to say it was present on DSC, but just that the selling point leaning more toward TOS is because of that look, feel and vibe.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
