News Syncing Star Trek: Discovery With Short Treks: Calypso

[Tuskin38]

It's not the destination, it's the journey.

 

[Biggles]

Cutting and Pasting
Paradise confirmed that Discovery is slowly moving in the direction of Calypso. “Calypso has now become part of our canon,” she said. “And it takes place far beyond our time now even, in Season Three. And yeah, eventually we’ll have to find our way there. So that short, in the grand scheme of things, fits together as a piece. In certainly in Season Three, we were beginning that process with Zora — who isn’t quite the Zora we saw in Calypso — but we were getting that process started a little bit of her sparking to life in episode Four, and then coming in and having a bit more of a presence in Twelve and Thirteen. So, we’re starting our way there.”

Michelle Paradise's words, not mine.

The fourth season may not lead into "Calypso" but the series will, eventually.

Sorry, that was a poor choice of words by me. Clearly they are looking to tie it in somehow. What I meant (and said previously) was that there's no evidence of the main series making some big time jump as was being suggested early in the thread.

"...eventually we’ll have to find our way there" could mean anything from "we're doing another millennium time jump in S04E04 suckers!' to 'we're going to evolve Zora as an AI toward what you've seen in Calypso and we might do another Short Trek set between the series and Calypso'.

My guess is it will be much closer to the latter. How many people even know the STs exist, much less care about a strong connection to the series? A time jump at pretty much any point in the remaining run of the show wouldn't make a lot of sense in terms of story, budget, or audience expectations.

 

[Dukhat]

How many people even know the STs exist, much less care about a strong connection to the series?

And there's the rub: Why is it necessary to link Calypso to DSC season 4 if that is the case?

 

[Lord Garth]

Sorry, that was a poor choice of words by me.

No worries.

Clearly they are looking to tie it in somehow. What I meant (and said previously) was that there's no evidence of the main series making some big time jump as was being suggested early in the thread.

"...eventually we’ll have to find our way there" could mean anything from "we're doing another millennium time jump in S04E04 suckers!' to 'we're going to evolve Zora as an AI toward what you've seen in Calypso and we might do another Short Trek set between the series and Calypso'.

I made no indication that I think there will be a second time-jump. What I said was I don't know and I'll judge what they do when I do know. Earlier I indicated I think there's a bright-side that we'd be rid of those new uniforms if they do another time-jump but that's not the same thing as saying I think they'll do one.

My guess is it will be much closer to the latter. How many people even know the STs exist, much less care about a strong connection to the series? A time jump at pretty much any point in the remaining run of the show wouldn't make a lot of sense in terms of story, budget, or audience expectations.

Enough people know Star Trek exists that we had three big-budget movies about it in recent years. How many people know Discovery exists? Not anywhere near as many as do Star Trek in general, but enough to keep it renewed. This is the streaming era. If you want to watch a series, you jump in from the beginning and binge until you're caught up. You don't jump in mid-way through.

 

[Biggles]

It was Dukhat's response that prompted my initial reply rather than yours; I should have responded directly to that.

As to your final point, sure, people watch from the beginning - it's the Short Treks (which I lazily abbreviated to 'STs' that I'm talking about people not knowing/caring about. Case in point; myself. I still haven't watched Calypso as I see it as supplementary material and by the time I got around to thinking of catching it, the time jump and redesign of the ship seemed to contradict the whole premise. Now that I know they intend to somehow link them up, I will get around to it - but I doubt many who watch the series will. I know my wife and other non-Trek fans certainly won't.

The existing 900-year time jump was a big ask of the audience that I think worked out pretty well. A second one, purely to link up with something that few have seen, makes no sense to me and would incur more hits to the show's budget in terms of costume, sets, props, CGI models etc. Unlike first time round (where there was a clear need to move past the original Fuller concept/time period to one where there was creative freedom), there's also no story imperative to jump forward again.

This is not to say that it's impossible obviously. Although for me there's no indication from this brief quote we have that a time jump is how they intend to 'get there', we could I suppose see a sort of coda, right at the end of the run, showing the ship in roughly the situation it's in during 'Calypso'. That could just take place in the present time of the show (in however many years that ends up being), or it could include a scene set in the Calypso time period. It could even be a montage of scenes filling the gap or even going beyond Calypso - the ship being a character in its own right. Or they could do that kind of overt link-up as another Short Trek as I mentioned before, so that fans can take or leave it.

 

[RAMA]

It's not necessary but they seem intent on making it work. It'll always be a great standalone story.

 

[Timo]

It's a bit of a tradition: since when did we get a bit of Trek that wouldn't fit?

That is, usually it's square bits and tesseract-shaped holes - but the writers still make the effort. They started with inserting "The Cage" into the continuity already, and even if the results weren't particularly impressive in terms of continuity, it was a pretty good reuse of production values, and led to many a good thing down the line.

All that really matters is the motivation. That is, it will be there, sooner or later, even if possibly decades later in some cases. But will it be done as a fun hobby project (typically giving great results due to the combination of lack of time pressures and presence of genuine enthusiasm) or in a cinch to fill a gap in output or to grasp for an audience segment (quite possibly flopping miserably)?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[nic3636]

It's a bit of a tradition: since when did we get a bit of Trek that wouldn't fit?

That is, usually it's square bits and tesseract-shaped holes - but the writers still make the effort. They started with inserting "The Cage" into the continuity already, and even if the results weren't particularly impressive in terms of continuity, it was a pretty good reuse of production values, and led to many a good thing down the line.

All that really matters is the motivation. That is, it will be there, sooner or later, even if possibly decades later in some cases. But will it be done as a fun hobby project (typically giving great results due to the combination of lack of time pressures and presence of genuine enthusiasm) or in a cinch to fill a gap in output or to grasp for an audience segment (quite possibly flopping miserably)?

Timo Saloniemi

I assume you are referring to If Memory Serves, which I thought was very well done. If they can do THAT with Calypso then have at it!

 

[Timo]

Well, I'm referring to "The Cage" first and foremost: TOS created a connection to that otherwise unrelated episode nicely enough. And it keeps on giving, allowing the Abramsverse movies and DSC both to milk the Pike character for dramatic worth. Who wouldn't want to milk Craft?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[fireproof78]

It's great they have the motivation. It doesn't need a published statement.

 

[drt]

I think it is an obligation storytellers feel in this day and age.

I think it's driven less by the storytellers and more by audience expectations.

Modern audiences for genre properties like Star Trek, Star Wars, etc., have this weird fascination with needing to connect the dots, nothing can be stand alone anymore, it has to be filled with call-backs and/or call-forwards. I sometimes wonder now if that's a reason TNG was so successful, after a couple of "passing the torch" things in the first two episodes, it pretty much ignored TOS and the 1980s movies for the rest of its run (except for rare episodes like "Sarek", "Reunification" and "Relics"). This gave the show way more breathing space and allowed it to find an audience. You can't do that anymore because too many are concerned with "fitting in with canon", and punishing minor deviations from such.

 

[Lord Garth]

If Michelle Paradise outright said Discovery doesn't and won't tie into "Calypso", I'd be fine with it. I wouldn't expect something that I'm told won't happen.

It's all about setting expectations, and it's a two-way street. Fans (in general) expect things to fit and producers are telling them it fits. They feed off each other.

 

[fireproof78]

I think it's driven less by the storytellers and more by audience expectations.

Modern audiences for genre properties like Star Trek, Star Wars, etc., have this weird fascination with needing to connect the dots, nothing can be stand alone anymore, it has to be filled with call-backs and/or call-forwards. I sometimes wonder now if that's a reason TNG was so successful, after a couple of "passing the torch" things in the first two episodes, it pretty much ignored TOS and the 1980s movies for the rest of its run (except for rare episodes like "Sarek", "Reunification" and "Relics"). This gave the show way more breathing space and allowed it to find an audience. You can't do that anymore because too many are concerned with "fitting in with canon", and punishing minor deviations from such.

Well put and I agree. More my point was that storytellers feel that pressure because, as you note quite well, audience expectations are there. And the insistence upon connecting the dots has become rather tiresome. I watched a long tirade in various forums over "Is it canon?" and the only question I really have is "Does it matter?" And that sounds very dismissive so I feel the need to clarify. Is canon the point of the story? To my mind the answer is "No." The point of a story is to share an experience with the audience, usually centered around characters or events. Canon is, to my mind, a secondary consideration, designed to create an illusion of consistency despite a lot of differences across various installments.

I think your point of "Would TNG be successful today?" is telling. No, I don't think a show like TOS or TNG would be successful because every single detail would be taken super seriously and then start challenging canon status of different stories over small contradictions. There is little room to grow with the constant questioning of canon status.

 

[nic3636]

This is all Marvel's fault.

 

[Farscape One]

Who wouldn't want to milk Craft?

Anyone who doesn't like boxed mac and cheese.

 

[dinzy]

Why can't they revisit Calypso in a short Trek and just show that that

Well put and I agree. More my point was that storytellers feel that pressure because, as you note quite well, audience expectations are there. And the insistence upon connecting the dots has become rather tiresome. I watched a long tirade in various forums over "Is it canon?" and the only question I really have is "Does it matter?" And that sounds very dismissive so I feel the need to clarify. Is canon the point of the story? To my mind the answer is "No." The point of a story is to share an experience with the audience, usually centered around characters or events. Canon is, to my mind, a secondary consideration, designed to create an illusion of consistency despite a lot of differences across various installments.

I think your point of "Would TNG be successful today?" is telling. No, I don't think a show like TOS or TNG would be successful because every single detail would be taken super seriously and then start challenging canon status of different stories over small contradictions. There is little room to grow with the constant questioning of canon status.

Look at Doctor Who fandom for a weird example. Each new Show runner creates a new canon that is related to other eras but very often contradicts things in one or several other eras. People still complain endlessly about retcons and try to make it fit together. It never really has. I don't see Who fans complaining about the look of some species not being canon, but some do complain about the Tardis. It's a lot less than in Trek and I think that is because the writers don't care so the fans who whine keep getting more reasons to realize that it is pointless.

Trek is the next closest TV scifi franchise to Doctor Who in longevity. It is far better at trying to make things tie to a common canon, but some of the fans are rabid when it comes to all things canon. There are some that are pissed that the New Disco Enterprise Bridge isn't made out of cardboard with relatively huge incandescent light bulbs as indicators and a plethora of other anachronistic items that people in the 1960's thought looked futuristic. FFS the wiring doesn't even have circuit boards. There are scenes where Spock and Scott are fumbling with a mess of wires which wouldn't exist in a modern car but they complain about changing the old look. There is probably more canon inconsistencies per hour in TOS than in other shows. Spock is a Vulcanian.

Calypso was cool but it is 15 minutes or so of Trek that only a small fraction of fans watched. It could be made canon. They could send the ship back in time to allow the AI to grow and then meet back up with it. They could do whatever. But if they are trying to devise a story just to make it fit, I am concerned that it will suck. I still hate the fact that they explained Klingons in ENT and if this sucks, I will hate it too because it is pandering.