Visual Reboots: Ships...but not characters?

[Jadeb]

Thats just ethics.

Previous Trek explored moral philosophy, tracing a moral idea from it's logical formation, to it's logical effect on the world. DSC trotted out a conclusion without doing any of the sums, and it shows; you don't get the feeling that the characters knew exactly why they were freeing the Tardigrade, after having raped it's freedom and dignity for several episodes. "Oh hey, sorry about that, no hard feelings!"

If that's subtle writing, it's so subtle as to basically say nothing, other than "we will use you as a commodity, for our convenience, until it's convenient for us to free you".

Yeah, the freeing of the Tardigrade seemed to happen just because, hey, this is what happens in Star Trek. I've wondered if the writers are too indoctrinated in the Trek philosophy -- or too concerned about pandering to the fans -- to really put it to the test.

I'm reminded of the talking point about how the first season was all about affirming the Federation's values. That, to me, seems like a dead-end approach to a prequel. Where's the drama in simply arriving at a pre-ordained conclusion? It makes me worry about the "faith v. reason" arc for season 2.

 

[Ronald Held]

Without massive therapy, Mudd will not become the TOS version?

 

[Tuskin38]

I do suspect it’s entirely possible that was a late in the day decision, especially after looking at numbers.

That seems very unlikely.

 

[apepa]

Yeah, the freeing of the Tardigrade seemed to happen just because, hey, this is what happens in Star Trek. I've wondered if the writers are too indoctrinated in the Trek philosophy -- or too concerned about pandering to the fans -- to really put it to the test.
.

This is something that bugged me about the Abrams movies as well. They just throw in these lines about the Prime Directive and Starfleet values even though they contradict the character's actions and have nothing to do with the plot.

 

[Mudd]

Well, that was TOS.

 

[Mudd]

I'm reminded of the talking point about how the first season was all about affirming the Federation's values.

Feh...it's not about anything.

 

[Jadeb]

Feh...it's not about anything.

But Burnham gave that speech at the end!

 

[Mudd]

But Burnham gave that speech at the end!

Don't remember it. Were there gazelles?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Without massive therapy, Mudd will not become the TOS version?

Which version? "Mudd's Women" or "I,Mudd"?

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Don't remember it. Were there gazelles?

If you squint, Saru looks gazelle-like.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If you squint, Saru looks gazelle-like.

Which is why they keep him away from Caitians.

 

[Ronald Held]

Which version? "Mudd's Women" or "I,Mudd"?

He is basically the same in both episodes,but needs therapy to be the one to providing wives for miners.

 

[David cgc]

He is basically the same in both episodes,but needs therapy to be the one to providing wives for miners.

Mudd was pretty sanguine about holding the crew of the Enterprise hostage until they promised not to arrest him. "I'm told they have only three days of orbit left before they start spiraling in. I do hate to see you suffering such a situation, Captain, but truth is truth, and the sad fact is you will deal. Sooner or later, you'll have to."

 

[Nerys Myk]

He is basically the same in both episodes,but needs therapy to be the one to providing wives for miners.

Harry was much more sinister, conniving and competent in " Mudd`s Women". In "I, Mudd" he's more of a buffoon in over his head.

 

[fireproof78]

This is something that bugged me about the Abrams movies as well. They just throw in these lines about the Prime Directive and Starfleet values even though they contradict the character's actions and have nothing to do with the plot.

Yeah, that whole Kirk sacrificing himself thing, or trying to negotiate with Nero or Krall was completely contradictory /s


In TOS, the Prime Directive sounded great until Kirk had to break it "just this once" for whatever reason. He's willing to beat up an opponent until the opponent can't fight anymore. Spock is willing to lie when it serves his purpose.

Human beings are walking contradictions all the time, from cognitive dissonance, to justifying actions, etc.

 

[Tuskin38]

Mudd was pretty sanguine about holding the crew of the Enterprise hostage until they promised not to arrest him. "I'm told they have only three days of orbit left before they start spiraling in. I do hate to see you suffering such a situation, Captain, but truth is truth, and the sad fact is you will deal. Sooner or later, you'll have to."

Exactly

 

[apepa]

Yeah, that whole Kirk sacrificing himself thing, or trying to negotiate with Nero or Krall was completely contradictory /s


In TOS, the Prime Directive sounded great until Kirk had to break it "just this once" for whatever reason. He's willing to beat up an opponent until the opponent can't fight anymore. Spock is willing to lie when it serves his purpose.

Human beings are walking contradictions all the time, from cognitive dissonance, to justifying actions, etc.

Yeah, my point is that modern writers should know better than to bring it up in a throwaway line if they're just going to ignore it anyway. It feels like they only put it in the dialogue because "this is what people on Star Trek say".

 

[lawman]

No, I meant that I thought Discovery wasn't very good and probably would have given up on it if not for my pre-existing fondness for Star Trek. Had it been a reboot, I'm not sure I would have stuck with it.

Interesting. When I realised watching Enterprise was a chore, I just stopped watching.

It's affection for Star Trek that got me started watching it (and would have, whether it was framed as "prime" or a reboot). What made me continue was another matter. For quite a while, the show seemed to be improving as the season went along.

It wasn't really until around episode 12 that I realized that trend had reversed and it "wasn't very good" (or at least, that the current plot resolutions weren't likely to be — they wound up more frustrating than satisfying, one and all.) But it was only a fifteen-episode season, so by that point there wasn't much to be gained by quitting before the end. (Same basic reason I stuck with nuBSG 'til the finale, for instance, even though s4 was such a dog's breakfast.)

I'm coming back for season two very cautiously... only because the show still has obvious potential, and the showrunners seem to have given themselves a blank slate for season two. (And, admittedly, because of the undeniable hook of the Enterprise.) I'm not optimistic, however — given things like the Section 31 teaser, and the hacky evangelical Christian writing hires — but I'm always open to a pleasant surprise. If they wind up living down to my expectations rather than up to my hopes, though, I'll probably throw in the towel.

I mean, its all pretty ridiculous sounding, but look at how Marvel broke up their properties. CBS could have taken it to the next level of complicated.

It's worth remembering, though, that Marvel Studios didn't exist at the time Spider-Man and the X-Men were licensed away, and Marvel Comics wasn't yet owned by Disney and was in fairly desperate financial straits at some points along the way. Viacom was never in that kind of position, so it never needed to sell off any parts of Trek... and as we (and the design staff!) have learned, of course, it didn't.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah, my point is that modern writers should know better than to bring it up in a throwaway line if they're just going to ignore it anyway. It feels like they only put it in the dialogue because "this is what people on Star Trek say".

I never felt like it was out of place or character

 

[cooleddie74]

If so, I'm gonna need a flow chart to keep track of everything.

I'm gonna need Jack Daniel's.