To Mildly Go Hither And Yawn. ;)

[fireproof78]

Bully for them. It's not. The technology's wrong, the visuals are wrong and the aliens are wrong to be in the time period they claim it's in.

Holograms, phasers, and warp drive is wrong? O_o

The Klingon War? I see nothing about the war that demanded it be prior to TOS. For me, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Something that should've never been done. You need a war prior to TOS? Then you get creative. They got lazy.

I don't disagree that it shouldn't have been done but I think that is their thinking. Disagree with it but that's what I see.

I also see a fandom that is constantly demanding prequels and explanations of things, so I don't fault CBS thinking they could have their cake and eat it to. The enjoyment of said cake will vary.

 

[Admiral2]

Holograms, phasers, and warp drive is wrong? O_o

.

Dude, ten years before Kirk puts the technology in the Pike Era, so unless there's a couple of Talosians in the crew hell yes holograms are wrong. And I notice you don't mention the giant bay windows in the underslung bridge instead of a proper viewer in a cockpit-style control room, uniforms that might have existed before Pike but certainly couldn't be standard after ward..and oh yeah, the totally bald Klingons with the sadistic Christmas tree armor.

But dey got phasers and warp drive. Oh yeah, dat's totally prime timeline...

 

[fireproof78]

Dude, ten years before Kirk puts the technology in the Pike Era, so unless there's a couple of Talosians in the crew hell yes holograms are wrong. And I notice you don't mention the giant bay windows in the underslung bridge instead of a proper viewer in a cockpit-style control room, uniforms that might have existed before Pike but certainly couldn't be standard after ward..and oh yeah, the totally bald Klingons with the sadistic Christmas tree armor.

But dey got phasers and warp drive. Oh yeah, dat's totally prime timeline...

Shall I mention the Rec Room in TAS?

Given how many variants there are in water going vessels, I struggle with the argument that somehow Starfleet would not use windows or have different configurations of vessels, including an underslung bridge.

Oh, and the Klingons? Because cultures can't have different types of armor except when they do? There are 10,000+ types of martial arts on planet Earth. But, Klingons can't be different? What sense does that make?

Oh, and uniforms, in an organization that switches uniforms more often than I change tennis shoes?

Sorry, I'm not buying any of this, much less that CBS did it with malicious intent just to screw over and lie and deceive the gullible faithful...

 

[Admiral2]

Sorry, I'm not buying any of this, much less that CBS did it with malicious intent just to screw over and lie and deceive the gullible faithful...

So, agree to disagree? Cool.

 

[Greg Cox]

When in doubt, chalk it up to artistic license and apply some willing suspension of disbelief. Visual continuity matters less than making the show look cool and futuristic to modern audiences.

It's a "Prime" as you want it to be. Just squint a little and use your imagination.

 

[fireproof78]

So, agree to disagree? Cool.

Agree to disagree, absolutely.

When in doubt, chalk it up to artistic license and apply some willing suspension of disbelief. Visual continuity matters less than making the show look cool and futuristic to modern audiences.

It's a "Prime" as you want it to be. Just squint a little and use your imagination.

That sounds hard

 

[eschaton]

I'm still struggling to figure out why Discovery needs to be in the Prime Universe from a story point-of-view? Heck, I'm still struggling with why it even needed to be in the 23rd century. You could have changed some names and it would have been indistinguishable from 24th century Trek.

I don't think this is a fair criticism, because between whatever "Fuller's original vision" was, the demands of CBS, and the writing team trying to salvage a show that arguably should have been scrapped, it's easy to see how there might have been a good idea somewhere along the way to start the show before TOS at some point. However, whatever that point originally was didn't make it onscreen.

That said, this is arguably the third trek series in a row which has failed to live up to its premise, because VOY did absolutely nothing with its premise, and ENT didn't get around to using the prequel setting properly until the last season.

 

[gblews]

I often see people claim - including latter-day Trek writers - that TOS was about "the characters" - particularly the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triumvirate. Nothing could be further from the truth however.

TOS was about as character driven as any action/adventure show produced in the '60's. You may be comparing TOS to a modern character driven show and by that standard, no, it doesn't look like it was "about" character. But for the writers who worked on that show, from their viewpoint, which is just as valid as yours, they wrote a "character" show.

Basically, Trek started out as the Twilight Zone on a starship. It ended up Lord of the Rings on a starship.

FWIW, TOS was never "the Twilight Zone" which was a a true anthology series with different characters, actors, stories, and set in different eras. Not sure what is meant by the Lord of the Rings reference.

As much I hear fans clamor for something new what I often see being the money maker, or in fan works, is what we are getting.

Back when I frequented the Star Trek forums on AOL back in the early '90's, there was much talk by the fans about wanting to see some "new" things in Trek, like sex, darker stories, even a desire to see Klingons speaking Klingon, among other things. But after going through Ent's run here in the Ent forum, my conclusion since then has been that Trek fans truly DO NOT want anything new.

The complaints about the new races in Ent, like the Suliban and in particular, the Xindi (who according to fans, should have been the Romulans), ranged from "uninteresting" to "this is a prequel, so where are the old races?". Something to be said for both sides of that argument, but what cannot be argued is the fact that fans love what is familiar, and that a prequel offers an infinitely logical reason to explore the familiar.

But, as can be seen in this very thread, some, not all, and certainly not the majority, continue to drag DSC, which is a prequel, for logically exploring familiar characters and themes (or "fanwank" as some call it).

So, I guess the argument that is really being made by some, either consciously or sub-consciously, is for a 24th century (or beyond), show. That's fine. But, DSC is a prequel, and as such, needs to explore historical Trek stories in greater detail than a 24th century show could offer.

I'm still struggling to figure out why Discovery needs to be in the Prime Universe from a story point-of-view?

For me, arguments about whether or not DSC is in the Prime or Kelvinverse are as boring as arguing canon. What difference does it make to people which universe DSC is in, other than providing some folks a reason to be "outraged' or even "offended".

Heck, I'm still struggling with why it even needed to be in the 23rd century. You could have changed some names and it would have been indistinguishable from 24th century Trek.

It may seem that way to you because all of the 24th century shows were produced in the '80's and '90's and therefore, looked like space faring shows produced at the time. DSC, season 1, was produced in 2017 and looks like a 2017 representation of the 23rd century. People still seem to be a bit flummoxed by this.

They apparently think a 2017 or even a 2009 representation of the 23rd century should look exactly like the representation of that era by shows produced in the '80's and '90's despite inevitable advances in production technology. Makes no sense.

 

[Lord Garth]

FWIW, TOS was never "the Twilight Zone" which was a a true anthology series with different characters, actors, stories, and set in different eras. Not sure what is meant by the Lord of the Rings reference.

I figure he's talking about a built-up universe over time.

Back when I frequented the Star Trek forums on AOL back in the early '90's, there was much talk by the fans about wanting to see some "new" things in Trek, like sex, darker stories, even a desire to see Klingons speaking Klingon, among other things.

I didn't start posting on bulletin boards until 1996 -- Psi Phi was the first one I posted on (and, yes, as Lord Garth. So I've had this username for 22 years! ) but things along these lines are exactly what I wanted. Which is why I like current direction so much.

But after going through Ent's run here in the Ent forum, my conclusion since then has been that Trek fans truly DO NOT want anything new.

I think many either just want TOS or TNG with updated production values or they think Discovery should look like Star Trek Continues and Star Trek: New Voyages. I've watched them and, when I did, I realized they'd never work as an actual Star Trek series for the 21st Century.

 

[DaveyNY]

I figure he's talking about a built-up universe over time.



I didn't start posting on bulletin boards until 1996 -- Psi Phi was the first one I posted on (and, yes, as Lord Garth. So I've had this username for 22 years! ) but things along these lines are exactly what I wanted. Which is why I like current direction so much.



I think many either just want TOS or TNG with updated production values or they think Discovery should look like Star Trek Continues and Star Trek: New Voyages. I've watched them and, when I did, I realized they'd never work as an actual Star Trek series for the 21st Century.

Heh... I've been DaveyNY since 1995 on AOL. (and everywhere else)
I use to frequent several Trek pages on AOL and lurked deeply around TREK sites and here for a couple of years before finally joining up.

Anyway...
I decided long ago, since I have absolutely no say in how They make Trek, I'm just going to try and enjoy whatever comes along.
It's a heck of a lot more fun (and way more productive) trying to figure out clever ways to integrate the myriad of Trek info from the assortment of shows into my head-canon, rather than wasting time tearing them apart because my personal expectations weren't delivered upon.
Not that I've really had specific expectations with each show, but ya do kinda go with liking the first version ya latch on too, so for me, having more of the TOS style show up is a plus.

 

[Lord Garth]

It is interesting to see how - over time - Trek has drifted in its conception to fit modern conceptions of drama.

I often see people claim - including latter-day Trek writers - that TOS was about "the characters" - particularly the Kirk-Spock-McCoy triumvirate. Nothing could be further from the truth however. TOS was fundamentally an anthology show which was making stuff up as it went along. Something like 90% of episodes revolved around a plot which did not in any fashion involve the backstory of the characters. Even where it did, except in rare cases (like Amok Time) was the backstory something so particular it needed to be associated with that character. Really they were generic sci-fi plots (and I don't mean that in a bad way) where the Enterprise crew were always written as the "heroes of the week." But fundamentally the exact same stories could have been told with a different ship and different crew. Much of the characterization came from the actors and directors rather than the script. Even when the script put those "personal touches" in, it was generally speaking banter which wasn't really central to the mission of the week. Certainly the character dynamics are what made TOS watchable and fun. But they weren't what the show was about - they were window dressing.

I would say the first season of TOS was extremely character-driven, despite being made up of stand-alone stories. The second season was far less character-driven and much more story-driven. The third season went back to being more character-driven, although mostly through romance.

I'm momentarily putting up an analysis in the TOS Forum (to which I'll provide a link). This is the "elsewhere" and "elsewhen" I intended to refer to.

EDIT: Link to the thread here.

The thread I just linked to above is a real throwback, for me anyway. Hopefully I'm accepted, even though I've flipped and gone Full Disco.

 

[Succubint]

Looks like I need to roll this out again. It's very informative look at the history of the use of holo-tech on Star Trek. According to canon (i.e. what has been aired on TV or film) there has been holo-technology used in some form since 2151. It's a bit ridiculous to think that it can't have been improved upon from Enterprise's time (2151) to Discovery's (2256). Look at how fast technology has progressed in the past 50 years let alone one hundred.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[eschaton]

TOS was about as character driven as any action/adventure show produced in the '60's. You may be comparing TOS to a modern character driven show and by that standard, no, it doesn't look like it was "about" character. But for the writers who worked on that show, from their viewpoint, which is just as valid as yours, they wrote a "character" show.

I think this is a fair assessment. It is true that at the time serialization of anything was considered antiquated and lowbrow (reminiscent of the old radio serials) and anthologies and "pseudo-anthologies" were considered the height of dramatic art.

FWIW, TOS was never "the Twilight Zone" which was a a true anthology series with different characters, actors, stories, and set in different eras. Not sure what is meant by the Lord of the Rings reference.

TOS was in some senses like the Twilight Zone insofar as the ship and core cast were used as a framework to be able to tell virtually any sci-fi story. Sometimes very silly ones which just took advantage of standing sets on the Paramount lot (Nazi planets, Roman planets, Gangster planets, etc).

Over time Trek became more like Lord of the Rings because of the increasing focus on semi-consistent worldbuilding over "what wacky sci-fi concept can we explore this week." Fandom became obsessed with wanting more and more knowledge of the intricacies of a consistent Trek history and universe. Trek stopped being an "anything goes" universe and became more and more fankwanky.

 

[Doc Mugatu]

Note: I am very appreciative of everyone who has opted to participate in this discussion. I was just venting on a source of frustration. Truly didn't expect so many responses, and am thrilled they've all been respectful and, I believe, open-minded. This is why I joined. Again, thank you all.

Jake and Nog were fun together, but I'm not sure the world is exactly clamoring for their future adventures. Marquee names like Picard or Spock they are not.

Then again, Commissioner Gordon got his own TV show and apparently there's an Alfred series in the works, so what do I know.?

I can understand your point-of-view. Picard and Spock ARE marquee players. Basically, my interpretation of a recent remark made by Nicholas Meyer, is that if you are going to go backwards then you have to add a layer. It has to have a valid justification for existing. Doing it as a gimmick/"because they can" isn't good enough. That's why I feel if they are going to go backwards then better to explore the nooks and crannies (i.e. Jake and Nog for instance) as it is a much more straightforward proposition to add dimension and value. Constantly exploiting the same old characters becomes more and more the no-win scenario.

This new Picard project, for example, is born out of a desire to pop the audience therefore, by definition, it is a stunt/gimmick. It is not coming from a place where a writer(s) had an inspiration and came up with a story they felt must be told. Again, Sir Patrick Stewart is an incredible actor, however, I am dubious of his past "creative" contributions to scripts. As "Nemesis" illustrated you can have an "A-list" writer but by the time everyone has given their input and submitted their "notes" that writer can quickly find himself straight-jacketed into the authorship of a mediocre-at-best production. So, in the end, we get something that we may have been better off without.

I'd love to see a show centered around Sarek.
Say from the time period before the birth of Sybok up to DISCOVERY.
I'll bet diamonds to doughnuts that he wasn't exactly his fathers darling either.
I would imagine deep down, Sarek didn't care for having his wife picked out for him and it may be a small part of the reason why he fell in love with Amanda.

Absolutely, and this fits my "nooks and crannies" parameter. Even a mini-series on Surak could be an intensely interesting project, however, constantly using the Spock character to be our eyes on Vulcan history and sociology becomes more a droning single-note. You can still tap into the nostalgia but expand and add a layer by focusing on Sarek, Sybok, or Surak. Again, constantly going backwards to re-examine Spock, Kirk or any of the "marquee" characters is a editorial choice rooted in fear (and a CYA attitude). I'm saying go BIG or go home.

 

[Lord Garth]

Note: I am very appreciative of everyone who has opted to participate in this discussion. I was just venting on a source of frustration. Truly didn't expect so many responses, and am thrilled they've all been respectful and, I believe, open-minded. This is why I joined. Again, thank you all.

Any thread that prompts me to create a spin-off thread due to points raised is a good one.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

People like new things, they just don't like bland new things so much. (Not that people know what they really want.) The Suliban and the Kazon were snorefests, uninteresting/uninspired designs/cultures presented in bland ways. And when people feel that much bland in their face, they think: Oh, that reminds us of how fascinating and cool the Klingons (or whoever) are/were, we'd like more of that instead of this new bland flavor. But what they really mean is: we'd like something less bland, please, new or old doesn't matter so much.
Similar arguments about starship design, etc, particularly sets: make it look cool and only the most diehard canonistas will care if it doesn't look like the 60s, but make it look generic "modern" and all of a sudden it seems like there's far more diehard canonistas. Make it look like the 60s show fresh with modern techniques and budgets and only the most diehard modernistas will care that it doesn't look like some "modern" enough, but make it look bland 60s rehash and all of a sudden it seems like there's far more diehard modernistas.
None of these things are mutually exclusive (except the Kazon).

 

[Agony_Boothb]

This new Picard project, for example, is born out of a desire to pop the audience therefore, by definition, it is a stunt/gimmick. It is not coming from a place where a writer(s) had an inspiration and came up with a story they felt must be told.

It probably came from CBS seeing all the bitching about Discovery not being set 'post-nemesis'. So they decided to give a segment of the fanbase what they wanted.

 

[GNDN18]

It probably came from CBS seeing all the bitching about Discovery not being set 'post-nemesis'. So they decided to give a segment of the fanbase what they wanted.

The last time the producers gave a valentine to the fans we got “These Are the Voyages…”

Just write and film a good story. The fans will follow.

 

[Mudd]

This new Picard project, for example, is born out of a desire to pop the audience therefore, by definition, it is a stunt/gimmick. It is not coming from a place where a writer(s) had an inspiration and came up with a story they felt must be told.

Neither was TNG. Or DS9, or Voyager, or Enterprise...

 

[Vger23]

I figure he's talking about a built-up universe over time.



I didn't start posting on bulletin boards until 1996 -- Psi Phi was the first one I posted on (and, yes, as Lord Garth. So I've had this username for 22 years! ) but things along these lines are exactly what I wanted. Which is why I like current direction so much.



I think many either just want TOS or TNG with updated production values or they think Discovery should look like Star Trek Continues and Star Trek: New Voyages. I've watched them and, when I did, I realized they'd never work as an actual Star Trek series for the 21st Century.

I am definitely not one of those fans. I love TOS and TNG and I really enjoyed both those fan series. But that said, I wanted something completely different from Trek. A different feel, a different approach, etc. That format got worn out badly. It's one of the reasons I love DSC so far. And, it's incredibly unique in that it actually is exploring the classic TOS backstory and characters. Most of the other shows barely acknowledged the existence of the original show. DSC is the first to really go back and explore the history.

Count me in.