The difference is TOS killed millions while wearing bright coloured uniforms in well-lit settings and ending each episode with a racist joke at Spock.
Voyager fans.. are you disappointed about Discovery?
- Thread starter Refuge
- Start date
Alas, going backwards has never been the way to go forward.
But Hollywood keeps pivoting to prequels, which is dumb because prequels either a) are railroaded into an established fiction and therefore find it harder to tell fresh stories without contradicting 'later' events or needlessly complicating something that was originally simple and straightforward; or b) the production staff take a view to setting something before previous events, but more or less just doing whatever they want to anyway and therefore somewhat defeating the whole purpose of setting it "before the events of..."
Either scenario is sure not to end well.
Thus far, people have not demonstrated the willingness to buy new things.Alas, going backwards has never been the way to go forward.
But Hollywood keeps pivoting to prequels, which is dumb because prequels either a) are railroaded into an established fiction and therefore find it harder to tell fresh stories without contradicting 'later' events or needlessly complicating something that was originally simple and straightforward; or b) the production staff take a view to setting something before previous events, but more or less just doing whatever they want to anyway and therefore somewhat defeating the whole purpose of setting it "before the events of..."
Either scenario is sure not to end well.
Wiping out entire cultures? No big deal? Violating the Prime Directive? Yawn. Introducing primitive civilizations to foreign concepts? Just a day in the life of the Enterprise crew.
Not to mention incurring on sovereign space of several powers that led to intergalactic incidents. Hardly anything to write home about.
While I agree that VOY has hardly covered 'new things' with glory, TNG was mostly well respected for taking Star Trek into new territory from TOS, and DS9 while not having the cultural cache of TNG, still gets plaudits a lot of the time for pushing Trek into fresh territory. Ever since 2001, every new incarnation of the franchise has chosen to look backwards to prequels instead of forwards... ENT, the Abrams movies, now DISCOVERY... but TNG proves, if nothing else, that if someone had the balls to actually step it up and create future-leaning Star Trek, it'd be risker than a prequel set within the safety zone of established settings or characters, but it could pay dividends. It's just nobody has actually been willing to try.
I really like Discovery. I like the fresh take and the way they deal with the characters. I would have liked it if the PTSD story hadn't ended so abruptly. The show is very different from Voyager, though.
I am not saying that TNG didn't take risks. TWOK took similar risks, as did ST 09. The problem is that people become more risk adverse when it comes to spending money. TWOK came about largely because is TMP had such a large budget and the studio was not willing to spend the money on it again.While I agree that VOY has hardly covered 'new things' with glory, TNG was mostly well respected for taking Star Trek into new territory from TOS, and DS9 while not having the cultural cache of TNG, still gets plaudits a lot of the time for pushing Trek into fresh territory. Ever since 2001, every new incarnation of the franchise has chosen to look backwards to prequels instead of forwards... ENT, the Abrams movies, now DISCOVERY... but TNG proves, if nothing else, that if someone had the balls to actually step it up and create future-leaning Star Trek, it'd be risker than a prequel set within the safety zone of established settings or characters, but it could pay dividends. It's just nobody has actually been willing to try.
I'm also not saying that creating something new within the world of Trek won't require risk. It absolutely will. What I am saying is that the market has not demonstrated a willingness to support such a risk. The Trek market has demonstrated that Kirk and Spock and Picard have enough name recognition to support new products. But, it hasn't demonstrated that something completely new will be successful. Hence, risk adverse
Could it pay dividends? Yes, absolutely and maybe someday someone will be willing to take the risk. Until then, the market has to demonstrate that Trek is worth making at all much less worth taking a risk on.
So true @Time is the Fire
The irony of long running franchises is that as time goes on the weight of the past almost acts like an inhibitor on risk
DSC definitely takes risks with the franchise, IMO, but the decision to set it in the past was definitely an insurance policy/security blanket for nervous shareholders at CBS. Same again for the Abrams movies, the only way Trek could be bankrolled for revitalization on the big screen was to go back to the characters everyone knew
The irony of long running franchises is that as time goes on the weight of the past almost acts like an inhibitor on risk
DSC definitely takes risks with the franchise, IMO, but the decision to set it in the past was definitely an insurance policy/security blanket for nervous shareholders at CBS. Same again for the Abrams movies, the only way Trek could be bankrolled for revitalization on the big screen was to go back to the characters everyone knew
I don't understand the playing safe reasoning when it comes to recent versions of Star Trek. They require a recognition that many enduring fans don't need. Old times fans will watch Star Trek set in a toilet, we are wired to give it a chance. We like Spock and Picard but we have proven we will watch without them. New fans who don't have a history but are going into Trek seeing any character for the first time or don't especially have a loyalty to existing characters don't require references to old timelines.
I don't even acknowledge that resistance to Discovery is because its format or its difference is a factor. It may present itself as different to previous Trek, (whilst also clinging to the past), but it is very samey when compared to its non-Star Trek competition. Dark, tad depressing, and a bunch of misery guts as characters
. They get killed off before you get used to them but then... *ping* they reanimate as a new version of the character.
It really is trying to fit in but Season One had issues. That being said it does deserve credit for opening up possibilities for more Trek. It has even been reported Kate Mulgrew wants back in! The Picard show too. There is life in the franchise.
I don't even acknowledge that resistance to Discovery is because its format or its difference is a factor. It may present itself as different to previous Trek, (whilst also clinging to the past), but it is very samey when compared to its non-Star Trek competition. Dark, tad depressing, and a bunch of misery guts as characters
. They get killed off before you get used to them but then... *ping* they reanimate as a new version of the character. It really is trying to fit in but Season One had issues. That being said it does deserve credit for opening up possibilities for more Trek. It has even been reported Kate Mulgrew wants back in! The Picard show too. There is life in the franchise.
It's very simple. The first thing that vocal fans do (not singling out anyone here, just observations) is complain about something new. One merely need to read about the death threats regarding killing of Spock in TWOK, or even the discussion regarding Klingons that came up with TMP.
What is often presented out in front, even if it doesn't represent the majority, is a resistance to change. So, studios play it safe because that what the vocal commentators state. Look at how quickly Into Darkness was regarded as "the worst Star Trek movie ever!" because of one convention poll. Look at the complaints around Discovery not fitting in with the TOS time frame, from the Klingons, to the starships and the uniforms.
So, what do the powers that be do? Play it safe. Go back to familiar material. And, Kirk and Spock are pop culture icons, safe enough for them to be used as familiar touchstones of Star Trek and reassure people that this is "really Star Trek." And, it is telling that even in the above post, the final statement is "Even Kate Mulgrew wants back in!." How is that new? How is that taking a risk?
Again, it's risk adverse on the part of the studio because of feedback from audiences and risk adverse on the pop culture view of Star Trek. Star Trek doesn't mean "space adventure" anymore. It means nostalgia.
What is often presented out in front, even if it doesn't represent the majority, is a resistance to change. So, studios play it safe because that what the vocal commentators state. Look at how quickly Into Darkness was regarded as "the worst Star Trek movie ever!" because of one convention poll. Look at the complaints around Discovery not fitting in with the TOS time frame, from the Klingons, to the starships and the uniforms.
So, what do the powers that be do? Play it safe. Go back to familiar material. And, Kirk and Spock are pop culture icons, safe enough for them to be used as familiar touchstones of Star Trek and reassure people that this is "really Star Trek." And, it is telling that even in the above post, the final statement is "Even Kate Mulgrew wants back in!." How is that new? How is that taking a risk?
Again, it's risk adverse on the part of the studio because of feedback from audiences and risk adverse on the pop culture view of Star Trek. Star Trek doesn't mean "space adventure" anymore. It means nostalgia.
This would only happen in a prequel as people in the 24th century are so perfect that they no longer need to poo.
#genesvision
On the topic of this thread, Voyager brought me into trek and Discovery has refueled my interest in it.
I find this comment a bit exaggerated.
TOS wasn't perfect, no serie is. But it didn't annoy me or bore me to death like NuBSG and Stargate Universe.
Unfortunately, Discovery is about to make me give up on Star Trek.
Unfortunately, Discovery is about to make me give up on Star Trek.
Who would of thought that different people might have different tastes.
I thought all the seasons of voyager without kes were going to make you give up on star trek.
It actually did!
I haven't watched much of what have been produced after the assasination of Kes.
The things I have watched haven't actually encouraged me to continue watching or given me that good, old feeling of Star Trek back.
"The Kes thing" still p***es me off. The only difference is that it became boring for me to comment about it. They never bring her back in the books or if they did, they would probably destroy the character even more.
To be honest, my comment in the post you quoted should have been: "Unfortunately, Discovery is about to make me lose all hope of a future for Star Trek."
Yes, that's something I would really like to know.
This is perhaps a more accurate statement than giving up on Star Trek. I think if we gave up on Star Trek then we wouldn't be here
That said, I've seen the franchise go through worse that Discovery or the tail end of VOY or ENT. Franchises have their ups and downs, and everyone enjoys different styles of Star Trek. Given that VOY and Discovery are vastly different in tone it is unsurprising that VOY fans, in general, would not care for this particular iteration of Trek.
My personal recommendation (use it, lose, abuse it as you see fit) is wait for the next iteration of Trek and have some optimism.
Well, there's always hope.This is perhaps a more accurate statement than giving up on Star Trek. I think if we gave up on Star Trek then we wouldn't be here
That said, I've seen the franchise go through worse that Discovery or the tail end of VOY or ENT. Franchises have their ups and downs, and everyone enjoys different styles of Star Trek. Given that VOY and Discovery are vastly different in tone it is unsurprising that VOY fans, in general, would not care for this particular iteration of Trek.
My personal recommendation (use it, lose, abuse it as you see fit) is wait for the next iteration of Trek and have some optimism.
But I've waited a long time for something which will add some fuel to the fading Star Trek flame for me. but so far it's nothing. Not even the books are good now.
Perhaps then lay Trek aside and find a new flame. Things like this ebb and flow.Well, there's always hope.
But I've waited a long time for something which will add some fuel to the fading Star Trek flame for me. but so far it's nothing. Not even the books are good now.
Good advice!
However, ever since Kes was dumped in the most disgusting ways, I've tried to "find a new flame". The most close I got was NCIS which still remains a favorite, even if the loss of several beloved characters have put me off a bit. However, it's still the best show to watch, in fact the only show to watch after the CSI series were cancelled one by one and since NCIS Los Angeles and NCIS New Orleans have become almost unwatchable.
When it comes to SF-series, there's nothing to watch right now as I see it. Too much doom-and-gloom added with boring characters.
