Voyager fans.. are you disappointed about Discovery?

[catshadowsi8]

But Discovery never does this as a straight swap (a la Harry Kim in "Deadlock"). They're very different people who lived very different lives, who happen to look identical.

Spoiler: DISCOstuff

Captain Georgiou is still dead, the former Emperor is no replacement. And we never even met Prime Lorca.

Spoiler Alert: re Discovery

We get to know prime Lorca from other characters and, though we don't meet him I person, Mirror Lorca plays the role of prime Lorca very well so he doesn't arouse suspicion.

As for Captain Georgiou she is different but not so much that Burnham leaves her behind in the Mirror Universe. Burnham sees hints of her captain in there, so we are suppose to see it as well.

Tjmo though.

 

[Lynx]

Because they are trying to market something for a particular time frame. It isn't just that Star Trek is in a bottle. It is a product of its times, including production values, good, bad or indifferent.

Here's the thing. It becomes static. That's my experience with Trek over the years is the expectations that Star Trek be a "greatest hits" album, touching on all the familiar notes and not changing too much, and playing it very safe.

What made Star Trek great was highly unique, and then it became a bit static. I'm not saying Discovery is perfect, but I'll applaud the production team for at least trying something different. And, if they had set Discovery post-VOY/NEM there would still be complaints because they changed stuff.

I prefer static before changes which ruins things. And changes just for the sake of changing are never good.

If Discovery had been set shortly after VOY/NEM and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles had been a new hostile species from the Andromeda Galaxy or some unexplored corner of the Gamma Quadrant or Delta Quadran, then I might have found it interesting. Now I just realized that they were going to screw up established Trek history again and then I totally lost interest.

But now I'm gonna be constructive as well.

You want new ideas? Here is one!

STAR TREK NEW EARTH

It takes place shortly after VOY/NEM and is aboutThe 37's planet from the Voyager episode "The 37's.

Here we will see how the inhabitants of this planet, inspired by the visit of Voyager are going to create a new Federation in the Delta Quadrant and bring peace and cooperation to their part of the Quadrant. Wouldn't that be interesting?

 

[Sophie74656]

I prefer static before changes which ruins things. And changes just for the sake of changing are never good.

If Discovery had been set shortly after VOY/NEM and the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles had been a new hostile species from the Andromeda Galaxy or some unexplored corner of the Gamma Quadrant or Delta Quadran, then I might have found it interesting. Now I just realized that they were going to screw up established Trek history again and then I totally lost interest.

But now I'm gonna be constructive as well.

You want new ideas? Here is one!

STAR TREK NEW EARTH

It takes place shortly after VOY/NEM and is aboutThe 37's planet from the Voyager episode "The 37's.

Here we will see how the inhabitants of this planet, inspired by the visit of Voyager are going to create a new Federation in the Gamma Quadrant and bring peace and cooperation to their part of the Quadrant. Wouldn't that be interesting?

Honestly no, that does not sound like the sci fi that i would enjoy. I prefer the space exploration, spacial anomalies and such

 

[fireproof78]

I prefer static before changes which ruins things. And changes just for the sake of changing are never good.

Agree to disagree. I would rather they try and fail that not try anything at all.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I prefer static before changes which ruins things. And changes just for the sake of changing are never good.

If nothing ever changed, we'd have no peace with the Klingons and no B'Elanna Torres in Voyager. We'd have no terrorist factions within the Federation and thus no Maquis faction on Voyager.

These things were a big deal in TNG. And not everyone approved.

 

[Refuge]

My problem with alternate/mirror universes is what I call 'superman syndrome'. Let's kill so and so for dramatic effect, then pop over to this other universe and bring back a copy. Its shock and awe writing, with a sprinkle of laziness. After a while I stop caring if anyone dies.

That's a good point. The value of a character dying had very little impact on Discovery. All seemed just fun in the Mudd episode with the repeated death of a character. However by the time other characters were either not who they seemed to be or could be visited in other realities (reference a Stamet's/Culber spoiler), or there was a mirror version of them, the shock factor wore off.

You know Voyager has been criticised for resets but in its short run Discovery has exploited not showing consequence for most everything.

 

[Lynx]

Honestly no, that does not sound like the sci fi that i would enjoy. I prefer the space exploration, spacial anomalies and such

But it would include a lot of space exploration in the Delta Quadrant and there would be some anomalies too. Typical good old Star Trek adventures!

 

[Lynx]

If nothing ever changed, we'd have no peace with the Klingons and no B'Elanna Torres in Voyager. We'd have no terrorist factions within the Federation and thus no Maquis faction on Voyager.

These things were a big deal in TNG. And not everyone approved.

Those changes were good because what happened were events which were possible and believable.
One of the reasons I really enjoyed TNG were because it took development a step further from what had been established in TOS which lead to the fantastic 24th century Star Trek Universe which I still love.
But changes which are only about screwing up Star Trek history and mess up things, now that's what I call changes just for the sake of changing.

 

[Sophie74656]

But it would include a lot of space exploration in the gamma Quadrant and there would be some anomalies too. Typical good old Star Trek adventures!

Just doesn't sound like my cup of tea.

 

[Lynx]

Just doesn't sound like my cup of tea.

Then what is your cup of tea?

By the way, it should be Delta Quadrant, not Gamma Quadrant in my post. Sorry for the mistake, it's corrected in the original post.

 

[Prax]

That's a good point. The value of a character dying had very little impact on Discovery. All seemed just fun in the Mudd episode with the repeated death of a character. However by the time other characters were either not who they seemed to be or could be visited in other realities (reference a Stamet's/Culber spoiler), or there was a mirror version of them, the shock factor wore off.

You know Voyager has been criticised for resets but in its short run Discovery has exploited not showing consequence for most everything.

Like Landry, who was unexpectedly killed off(or more like, killed herself off), and had a bunch of people saying "See? It's like GoT. Characters can get the axe at any time." Then she returned, and was rekilled.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Because they are trying to market something for a particular time frame. It isn't just that Star Trek is in a bottle. It is a product of its times, including production values, good, bad or indifferent.

It's been that product since 1993.

We're getting to a point where the dark emphasis is older than the Utopian concept. There was a time where the casual viewer could identify Star Trek. It's not Star Wars, but something brighter and enlightening, with the addition of Discovery it will be harder for a viewer to identify Star Trek. Remember what Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers looked like before the production values on their faces? The more one thinks they're touch ups, outsiders look at it thinking, "Geez, they've f^cked up their faces." "They've gone too far."

When will fans, who bend over backwards for these creatively bankrupt Trek shows, comes to grip this philosophy is not Star Trek?

 

[catshadowsi8]

It's been that product since 1993.

We're getting to a point where the dark emphasis is older than the Utopian concept. There was a time where the casual viewer could identify Star Trek. It's not Star Wars, but something brighter and enlightening, with the addition of Discovery it will be harder for a viewer to identify Star Trek. Remember what Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers looked like before the production values on their faces? The more one thinks they're touch ups, outsiders look at it thinking, "Geez, they've f^cked up their faces." "They've gone too far."
When will fans, who bend over backwards for these creatively bankrupt Trek shows, comes to grip this philosophy is not Star Trek?

You have a very good point. There is conflict and then there is agonizing misery. I thought Roddenberry wanted a show to give hope of a better future. Discovery makes me want to skip the future all together.

 

[Catarina]

I haven't seen it yet so I cannot comment on that. But I am concerned about it not leaving hope for the future. Which is why I watched Star Trek. I saw the character degradation all around me in my childhood and found relief watching 40 mins of better behavior and conflict resolution (most of the time if not reset ) When is it going to be tiresome to watch things we can immedately relate to? It's been a nice ride but I need a little more optimism in my life.

 

[Sophie74656]

I haven't seen it yet so I cannot comment on that. But I am concerned about it not leaving hope for the future. Which is why I watched Star Trek. I saw the character degradation all around me in my childhood and found relief watching 40 mins of better behavior and conflict resolution (most of the time if not reset ) When is it going to be tiresome to watch things we can immedately relate to? It's been a nice ride but I need a little more optimism in my life.

Without giving too much away, it's certainly not the utopian future we typically see in Star Trek. This is a darker grittier show. There is a little bit of humor which is nice, and a character that is nerdy and awkward and I relate to her super hard there were also to F-bombs which I didn't care for. I have nothi g against foul language, it just doesn't feel right in a show claiming to be in the Trek universe. For me I really enjoyed the show when i accepted the fact that it was clearly an alternate universe and just watched it that way. It's a very good sci fi show but not Star Trek.

 

[Catarina]

Without giving too much away, it's certainly not the utopian future we typically see in Star Trek. This is a darker grittier show. There is a little bit of humor which is nice, and a character that is nerdy and awkward and I relate to her super hard there were also to F-bombs which I didn't care for. I have nothi g against foul language, it just doesn't feel right in a show claiming to be in the Trek universe. For me I really enjoyed the show when i accepted the fact that it was clearly an alternate universe and just watched it that way. It's a very good sci fi show but not Star Trek.

I should keep an eye out for that character and say, ooh! I see some Sophie !
If I am understing correctly, if I let go of what I expect it to be or should be, it can be enjoyable as a science fiction show, yes?

 

[Sophie74656]

I should keep an eye out for that character and say, ooh! I see some Sophie !
If I am understing correctly, if I let go of what I expect it to be or should be, it can be enjoyable as a science fiction show, yes?

Exactly! If in your mind you can take it out of the Trek universe you may enjoy it for just being a good sci fi show.

 

[fireproof78]

When will fans, who bend over backwards for these creatively bankrupt Trek shows, comes to grip this philosophy is not Star Trek?

When I see a show that I think fits those criteria I'll argue against it. Discovery may be darker, but it certainly isn't as terrible as that.

 

[catshadowsi8]

I haven't seen it yet so I cannot comment on that. But I am concerned about it not leaving hope for the future. Which is why I watched Star Trek. I saw the character degradation all around me in my childhood and found relief watching 40 mins of better behavior and conflict resolution (most of the time if not reset ) When is it going to be tiresome to watch things we can immedately relate to? It's been a nice ride but I need a little more optimism in my life.

Real life is not all sunshine and roses. If I want dark, I dont have to turn on the TV. Yes I do want some conflict/crisis on a tv show, but I also want to be entertained, not traumatized. That's just me though. Maybe people want Game of Thrones in space. I'm just not one of them.

 

[Lynx]

It's been that product since 1993.

We're getting to a point where the dark emphasis is older than the Utopian concept. There was a time where the casual viewer could identify Star Trek. It's not Star Wars, but something brighter and enlightening, with the addition of Discovery it will be harder for a viewer to identify Star Trek. Remember what Michael Jackson and Joan Rivers looked like before the production values on their faces? The more one thinks they're touch ups, outsiders look at it thinking, "Geez, they've f^cked up their faces." "They've gone too far."

When will fans, who bend over backwards for these creatively bankrupt Trek shows, comes to grip this philosophy is not Star Trek?

I totally agree!
Which is a reason that I don't care about NuTrek. I'll stick with the good shows until someone comes along with a Trek show which I can find watchable.