Hell, Star Wars Episode III doesn't perfectly line up with Star Wars Episode IV. Nor even The Clone Wars for that matter, and that series was produced within three years of Episode III being in theaters.
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 2x04 - "An Obol for Charon"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Hell, Rogue One is supposed to line up with Episode IV to the point where one ends the other is supposed to begin, and it doesn't an a number of important ways that would have been incredibly easy to do if anyone cared.
Just more evidence that Hollywood isn't that kind of caring place no matter where you seek whatever continuity balm you are looking for.
Yeah, as interesting as Rogue One was and was a very surprising movie I agree that it doesn't line up perfectly well. However, it lines up enough and fits the narrative well enough. It also does a great job of illustrating elements of the Rebellion previously unseen.
In all that, it does its job and it does it well.
Uh.....what?
Um, why? Why do you like that? It's stupid, it's a waste, it's a poor use of resources for a TV show and it's just something dumb and distracting for your audience. BTW, Ro had more character development in one act of one episode of TNG than Detmer, Asian Guy, Robot Gal and Black Gal have had in 25 episodes.
They are FINALLY, SLOWLY, BARELY starting to define those glorified extras on the DSC bridge, but what a waste of resources. How poorly planned and dumb. They basically have all the importance on the show as an extra Picard passes in the corridor.
It's a very poor, frustrating way to make a TV show. Sure, there were plenty of background extras on "Mad Men", but Don Draper didn't sit in meetings with useless extras who ever talked. Even minor characters like Harry, Cosgrove, etc., who may not have only gotten a tiny handful of storylines dedicated to them over the show's run, had very specific voices, personalities and points of view.
It's just idiotic to spend so much time on the bridge with people who the show doesn't even care to define, like, a little.
I'm all for mixing things up. I think it was a bold idea to focus the show on a character who wasn't the captain and who had a specific and long-term storyarc being planned. (in theory, anyway. I think Burnham is kind of a drag as a character, but that's another argument.)
But the show is still a ship-based Star Trek show. Similar shows have had in the neighborhood of 8-9 series regular characters, all of whom we know and understand, even if they're seldom the focus of the main narrative.
There comes a point when not playing by the rules just results in a bad game.
Actually, she's just pressing a button which opens the hatches/blinds and lets more light in. The hatches are visibly sliding up. Why would there be hatches if they simply were natural light simulators? It's also worth noting that other windows on the ship (in Pike's ready room, for example) also have bright orange-y light shining through.
Only if you go by 1990s model. DISCO is more like classic TOS so far.
Works for me.
Heck, I've been rewatching the 1970s version of BUCK ROGERS lately. That show only had three human regulars in its first season: Buck, Wilma, and Docter Huer. There's no rule that says that every space show has to have a big ensemble cast.
Exactly.
there's that tiny blue up arrow to the right ofGood question. Which post was that? And what was I trying to say?
greg cox said:
click it, it's a link
please don't mention season 2 - i'd also count twiggy as a regular
I quite agree. What I can't fathom is why, when some fans offer opinions and critiques involving one aspect of this, some other fans always insist on weighing in to say "Why do you care about that? It doesn't matter! What's wrong with you?" IMHO, if X or Y or Z isn't important to your personal enjoyment of a work, bully for you; just stay on the sidelines when others are discussing XYZ, rather than trying to throw a wet blanket over things.
Personally, I can and do very much enjoy discussing the real-world aspects of a work's aesthetics (and themes, and so forth) after the fact, when I'm analyzing it. However, when I'm watching or reading it, I very much want that sense of in-story immersion. Just the other day I was reading a novel, for instance, and it was generally quite good, but there was a stretch where the author reunited a certain set of characters after separating them for various events which—for one subset—took four days, and yet—for the other subset—took two days. And I noticed that immediately, and it bugged the hell out of me. And this was a single story by a single author; there wasn't even the too-many-cooks excuse of franchise fiction.
Well, sure, that seems reasonable... if everyone can agree on "what it is." But if "what it is" to you is a present-day TV show that's not beholden to anything that's come before, and "what it is" to me is the latest installment in the larger Star Trek universe, and moreover one that owes its entire existence and many of its core characters to TOS, to which it is explicitly a prequel... well, then we're not going to see eye to eye, because our expectations will be very different.
2nd season, huh? Then don't forget Hawkman...errr...Hawk or Birdperson, or whatever his name was.
And, btw, that's "Twiki", not "Twiggy"; Twiggy was a 1960s and 70s supermodel-turned-actress. Plus if you mention Twiki, you must include Dr. Theopolis.
EDIT:
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
