Personally, I'm of the opinion that Discovery didn't need fixing.
Why the hate for Alex Kurtzman?
- Thread starter HotRod
- Start date
Season 2 has suffered for me more and more, now that I can see the seams of the significant retooling of the story due to Berg and Harberts getting fired after they'd filmed episode 205 (for instance originally, Spock wasn't going to appear in the season). I was more invested in the science vs. faith theme they'd started the season with, and vastly less interested in yet another evil AI plot.
Intention and Results are two quite different things.
You've hit the nail on the head with main issue with season two as well. Although, not getting Ethan Peck as Spock would have been a tragedy.
Essentially, the gear changing that went on after TMP also gave us TWOK so it’s a win win.
Season 2 of DISCO was definitely an attempt to right some of the stuff of season 1. It just failed catastrophically.
Just as moving to the 32nd century was the producers way of not having to be stuck with canon and visuals arguments anymore.
(The look of the series was always fantastic... just a shame the writing was ridiculously subpar.)
Completely agreed.
One day we will get a ‘tell-all’ account of the making of DSC which I can almost guarantee will be way more interesting than the series itself.
Is there any proof of this retooling? I've heard about it over and over, but the source is always a Youtube video or something else citing exactly zero sources.
If it's true, I want to know more about the ultra-religious Pike who was scripted to fall to his knees before the Red Angel, and clashed with Michael over science vs faith. SNW literally would never ever have happened
The proof is written all over the screen. It’s obvious.
Jonathan Frakes stated in an interview before Harberts and Berg left that there were no plans for an "adult Spock" to appear in the season, which I assume meant that flashbacks showing Spock and Michael's childhood would always have happened. The fact that Ethan Peck wasn't cast until after Harberts and Berg left would seem to back that up.
Yes but also Benedict Cumberbath isn't playing Khan
These people are lying liars and I'll never trust them again
Still, Ethan Peck wasn't cast until after Harberts and Berg left.
I guess there is some consistency in that people who say why is Abrams/Kurtzman hated do tend to also not love Roddenberry, to ask why is Roddenberry loved (although some verge on hating him) ... but they do tend to love Behr and/or Moore. Of course the person in charge will tend to generate strong reactions, especially if been in charge for many many years and if there OTOH are also years worth of other versions to compare with.
And just jealousy can be legitimate factor, given how much they get paid, rich compared to most of us, if someone feels they are doing bad job, really not deserving that, that can also generate particularly strong reaction.
And just jealousy can be legitimate factor, given how much they get paid, rich compared to most of us, if someone feels they are doing bad job, really not deserving that, that can also generate particularly strong reaction.
I don't know that we would have gotten an ultra religious Pike that would have fallen to his knees before the Red Angel, but we certainly would have got more of the Pike that was hinted at in New Eden whose father was both a professor of science and comparative religion, something that led to many disagreements over the family dinner table. We also might have heard more about Pike's evasive cousin who only ever gave a straight answer at church from "Saints of Imperfection".Is there any proof of this retooling? I've heard about it over and over, but the source is always a Youtube video or something else citing exactly zero sources.
If it's true, I want to know more about the ultra-religious Pike who was scripted to fall to his knees before the Red Angel, and clashed with Michael over science vs faith. SNW literally would never ever have happened
i think even with casual viewers, with properties that don't have particularly intense fans, there still tends to be skepticism and derision when someone makes a sequel (or 5th, 6th, 7th sequel) or remake, consider them at best real cheap and wasteful. Trek fans are probably more open, at least not less open, to them, to thinking that sequels and remakes can be good even though many or most of them aren't.
For all his flaws (and boy, does the man have massive, massive flaws), he felt "unique" in how he approached storytelling. Kurtzman and company just feel like they are chasing trends with a Star Trek coat of paint. It doesn't mean they haven't hit it out of the park from time to time, but it all feels very much "been there, done that, saw the movie, read the novelization, bought the bedsheets and nightlight".
Similar threads
