Oh there is that, lol.I'm inclined to give Menosky credit for what was good about "Lethe." Ted Sullivan is the sole writer credited with the excruciatingly bad episode 13, "What's Past is Prologue," IMHO a contender for worst episode of the season.
It troubles me that the people who were responsible for some of the best writing in season one (Alexander, Coleite, Menosky) have apparently moved on, while those responsible for some of the worst (Kurtzman, Goldsman, Nardino, Sullivan) are still around.
Being around to the end of the season doesn't guarantee they'll be around for the next. It's pretty common for staffers to come and go between seasons, especially after a show's first season. And I believe there's going to be a fair interval between seasons 1 & 2, production-wise, so some people might want to move on and take other jobs. So we don't yet know which staffers will still be around (although I'm pretty sure Kirsten plans to stay).
True statement. It's easier to observe who's gone already than it is to say who may yet be replaced.Being around to the end of the season doesn't guarantee they'll be around for the next. It's pretty common for staffers to come and go between seasons...
You mean are still around right? Filming is supposed to start next month, so hopefully some season 2 scripts are already in rough form at the very least.
But it's fair to say that Kurtzman is sticking around — he's not just an EP but also credited as "co-creator," and he's been a prominent media spokesman so far about plans for Season Two, at least as much as Berg and Harberts.
Well, I'm so glad they have the "Trek experience buddy system" in place. I guess it wouldn't be beneficial.Doesn't matter, since there are others on the staff who have. That's what teams are for, after all. In particular, staff writer Kirsten Beyer (my friend and fellow novelist) is a Trek expert with a whole bunch of Voyager novels under her belt, and I know that the other staffers kept her very busy with constant questions about Trek lore and continuity until they got up to speed for themselves. She was involved in every creative decision, just as all of the writing staffers were. So none of the decisions in the show were ever made out of ignorance of Trek continuity. If they reinterpreted things, that was by choice for the sake of the story, not by accident.
Yeah, that's one of the tricky things about TV credits these days... the term "executive producer" covers quite a variety of different functional roles, at different levels. Certainly DSC has a noticeable abundance of EPs listed. Still, Kurtzman's own background is as a writer, and he has been prominent in the coverage of S2 plans, so it's hard to know what to assume... suffice it to say I'll keep my fingers crossed that his creative role really is de minimis.Kurtzman is the head of a production company that's responsible for multiple shows... He's a listed co-creator on several of the shows his production company has made, but that's basically the role of TV writer-executive producers at his level.
Goldsman surprised me. Every time I hear his name I think of Batman and Robin and the Lost in Space movie, which were not good scripts.
So if you want to assess how good a writer is, you're probably better off focusing on their television work than their feature work. TV is far more of a writers' industry.
Yeah, this is true. In the movies the director usually has the creative control and the writer is the gun for hire. In TV this is reversed.
They need Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens on staff. Just sayin.
If they are looking for new members I would recommend anyone from ENT 4th season (Coto, Sussman, Reeves-Stevens duo).
^^^I have no doubt that they've both seen the original series, and I've heard that some of the actors watched Enterprise(in addition to TOS) in preparation for their roles, but from a lot of the things I've heard Kurtzman say in regards to Discovery, I have the distinct impression that he hasn't seen TNG, DS9, or Voyager..
...authentic development of the Klingons. Finally, they weren't portrayed as stereotypical villains, and we got to see things from their P.O.V. and were given a glimpse into some actual Klingon culture at work.
...and we now have the most in depth, and authentic development of the Klingons. Finally, they weren't portrayed as stereotypical villains, and we got to see things from their P.O.V. and were given a glimpse into some actual Klingon culture at work.
You're wrong. They were 3 dyemensional.Got to say, the Klingons played like stereotypical Klingons. I saw little growth in them as a culture/species during the first season. We just got more babbling about Honor, Kahless and Stovokor. The only difference this time was that they were near impossible to understand thanks to the poor choices from the make-up department.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.