Expound further. I'm not familiar with his work. Give me an elevator pitch of why he is the most qualified based on what Trek should be, and what is that "should?"
Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 5x10 - "Life, Itself"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
^^^ A link was provided by @Fateor that preemptively answers that question by quantifying his rather extensive involvement with the franchise. His treatments of LDS and PRO were excellent, IMO, and Trek needs more of that.
I like that choice, actually.
Sadly, DSC's genetics were somewhat flawed from day-zero, starting with Bryan Fuller's highly contrarian vision of how ships and aliens should look. I get updating shows to conform to modern audience expectations of higher-budget production values, but Fuller didn't just take a left turn, he jumped through a wormhole into a pocket universe several dimensions away. By then the shit was out of the horse.
I like that choice, actually.
Sadly, DSC's genetics were somewhat flawed from day-zero, starting with Bryan Fuller's highly contrarian vision of how ships and aliens should look. I get updating shows to conform to modern audience expectations of higher-budget production values, but Fuller didn't just take a left turn, he jumped through a wormhole into a pocket universe several dimensions away. By then the shit was out of the horse.
I would like to hear their argument. An MA link doesn't help me understand another person's point of view.
This is true.
A good question. Several, actually.
First, what is Star Trek supposed to be? Well, one of the strengths of the series is that it is vast and can contain multitudes. Discovery could have existed there. But they strangled it in the crib from season 3 on. You're always going to have detractors who say something isn't Trek. That's been happening since TNG.
But I suppose what Star Trek is, is a living breathing universe. Actions have consequences. Things are referenced. This has been happening since TOS. But after Season 2, Discovery pretty much dumped all of that. The Emerald Chain disappeared. The rebuilding of the Federation mostly happened off-screen. Suddenly everyone can use warp drives again.
Everything was too isolated and monofocused pretty much only on Burnham, especially post-season 2. The rest of the cast got more and more marginalized, to where they didn't even get speaking parts in the epilogue.
Basically, Discovery made the universe feel very small. And that's not what Star Trek should be like.
As for who should write it? Hard question. No showrunner has been flawless, but I'd argue no one took a series into a bigger nosedive than Paradise. A writer doesn't necessarily have to be a lifelong fan. Sometimes that can get a bit too memberberry heavy (Matalas). But ideally, the showrunner should have some experience with the genre they are working on.
There's a lot I liked about Discovery. After the first season, it was right behind DS9 as my favorite series. But Paradise pretty much sucked everything I liked about the the show out of it.
Can we not with this phrase, please?
It's not? So, when All Good Things laser focuses on Picard, or "The Inner Light" goes that way that's not Star Trek?
So, we need a genre person who enjoy science fiction? Not just Star Trek, but might try to incorporate say "Game of Thrones" attitude, or perhaps maybe upcoming will be more Dune stylings?
It's actually happened with every single new iteration of Trek going back to TMP. "Klingons with bumpy heads and crewmembers wearing pajamas with rodeo buckles while on-duty? WTF IS HAPPENING?!?!?!" Every movie made after that was accused of, by Roddenberry, as being not TruTrek™ and there was always a subset of fandom which religiously agreed with his incessant griping. One could also argue it went as far back as TAS, when he had his pissing contest with DC Fontana and decanonized it out of petty spite.
Sounds very much like how many Star Wars fans view Kathleen "There's No Source Material" Kennedy. Some people aren't meant to run shows if they think so little of what's actually out there.
I made this joke elsewhere, but I stand by it. Discovery started as Edgelord Trek, and ended as Hallmark Channel Trek.
That said, I think Michelle Paradise is fine as a writer. I actually liked her first script for Discovery in Season 2. Project Daedelus fleshed out Airiam (if too late) giving a hint of genuine emotional depth for a side character for one of the first times in the show.
The problem, IMHO, is she turned out to be a bit of a one-trick pony. She exceeded in writing mildly damaged characters who could make connections with, and rely upon, trusted friends. But that's not enough of a hat to hang on three seasons, leaving a lot of the back end of Discovery feeling a bit thematically thin.
Big difference. One episode versus a whole series.
And AGT not only gave us possible futures for b every character, but also brought back Yar, Tomalak, and Q, and tied back directly to the first episode.
Yes.
I guess.
But the focus was still on Picard. The entire crew gave up their supposed futures for his "last adventure."
So, what Fuller imagined initially before he left? Also, not necessarily someone who knows Star Trek?
The only time this ever really worked, to my recollection, was Nick Meyer. According to his memoirs, the extent of his Trek knowledge when he was asked to helm TWOK was, "that's the show with the guy with the ears, right?"
Everyone thought that we would get some brilliant Gladiator-like cinematic genius when John Logan wrote Nemesis, but instead we just got.... Nemesis.
Some of Trek's greatest outings came from Johnathan Frakes and we all know his Trek bona-fides. So maybe not someone who considers themself to be a "pure" fan (this would be equally disastrous, IMO), but certainly someone who understands something of the freaking universe!
Again, I'm drawn back to an interesting question, though: Like Fuller?
No. He fucked it all up with his re-imagined Klingons, square warp engines and all the other "change for the sake of change" nonsense that the studio couldn't fix before it was too late and he was let go of the project. The shit was already out of the horse at that point.
And before someone says, "but wait, 81 episodes of Voyager!" - that alone should have disqualified him.
And before someone says, "but wait, 81 episodes of Voyager!" - that alone should have disqualified him.
See, this is why I love hearing other people's perspectives, but also why "Who is the right person?" is not an easy question to answer. People would say, "They need familiarity with Trek." When Fuller had that in spades! He had the experience, and the knowledge, and familiarity with the property.
So, clearly knowing about Star Trek isn't enough. Writing for Star Trek isn't enough because the "should have known" didn't apply when Fuller wrote it, and being on Voyager should have disqualified him?
Because he is literally one of the most qualified people.
He wrote for Deep Space Nine, he continued writing novels and comics in the setting after that, and was the story consultant for both Lower Decks and Prodigy.
Sounds like, to some, that Star Trek isn't allowed to have stories focused on an individual, which is a strange limitation to put on the franchise.
So writing for Star Trek is the qualification?
You say this like its a foregone conclusion, yet Fuller wrote for Star Trek as well. So, I again will reiterate my curiosity as to what makes this such a clear choice when the only statement of preference is writing for Star Trek, which Fuller did.
Ane before accusations of obtuseness are made, I am genuinely curious. I see people post over and over and over again here stating that they know better how to write Star Trek. Fine, great and I hope you get to. But, the qualifications should be stated rather than assumed.
I know we're not going there (yet) especially after the recent strike and all that, but I would be VERY curious to know what an AI fed with literally every Star Trek tv show, movie, novel, comic book and video game would generate for a brand new story, just out of technical curiosity.
Would it result in the "Pulaski" hypothesis, that it would just be a hodgepodge of the material it was fed with? (Basically what Data was accused of in his Sherlock Holmes holodeck roleplaying because he was just a machine) Or would we actually get something brilliant (basically the screenwriting equivalent of "Moriarty" that breaks all the boundaries of what it was thought possible by AI)
Would it result in the "Pulaski" hypothesis, that it would just be a hodgepodge of the material it was fed with? (Basically what Data was accused of in his Sherlock Holmes holodeck roleplaying because he was just a machine) Or would we actually get something brilliant (basically the screenwriting equivalent of "Moriarty" that breaks all the boundaries of what it was thought possible by AI)
I can definitely get behind David Mack as a showrunner. He definitely qualifies as a strong candidate.
On paper Fuller would be a good choice.
However, he's also shown that when he's in charge, things can get rocky. his shows are often very esoteric, and short. And he really chafes at following someone else’s IP (Hannibal, American Gods).
There's no perfect equation. Nick Meyer, famously, knew nothing about Star Trek before helming Wrath of Khan. But these days, after 13 movies and 10 series, it would be foolishly to hire someone with zero knowledge of the franchise or genre.
Oh, I don't know. It seems that we all here at the BBS know exactly how to run it.
