Why the soft reboot?

[eschaton]

Apologies if this has been asked before (feel free to link me), but do we have any idea what the original shapes for S1 and S2 were going to be beyond the vague details that have been discussed? I'm curious as to what might have been.

Some details of Fuller's vision have come out, these included:

• The initial pitch involved a new ship/cast every season. Essentially Season 1 was going to involve a time period 10 years prior to TOS, but then it would jump forward at the end of the season to a period between TOS and TNG. Both crews would be featured for the first four episodes or so, at which point the first ship would go back to the old TL, and the story would continue with the new ship. I think one could argue that he was trying to go for a Star Trek version of The Wire or something. CBS hated this idea - probably because it would involve building new standing sets every season, and quickly shot it down. It's how we ended up with the time period 10 years prior to TOS though.
• The first two episodes are probably reasonably close to Fuller's intention, though he left before filming, and they almost certainly are not executed the way he wanted.
• The bald Klingons, and complicated, unnecessary reworking of everything related to the Klingons, is all on Fuller. He wasted tons of money in pre-production on things like random props we see for 20 seconds.
• We know for sure that he wanted them to go to the Mirror Universe much earlier in season. Berg and Harberts thought more time was needed to get to know the characters before that happened. Though pushing it so far back meant there wasn't enough time to resolve the real plot of the season on the back end.
• Lorca being from the MU was not his idea. He just wanted Lorca to be a slightly militaristic captain.
• Fuller wanted the Tardigrade to be a bridge officer. I'm not sure what this implies about the original vision for the Spore Drive.

Regarding the original intent for Season 2, much less is known. I did hear from someone who worked behind scenes on here the initial plan for Pike was to make him outwardly religious and believing the Red Angel was a literal vision from God to contrast with Michael's skepticism. You can see hints of that in the first five episodes TBH.

 

[Kpnuts]

Lorca being from the MU was not his idea. He just wanted Lorca to be a slightly militaristic captain.

And he was much more compelling as such, before they flicked a switch and turned him into a moustache twirling evil bad guy out for revenge.

We know for sure that he wanted them to go to the Mirror Universe much earlier in season. Berg and Harberts thought more time was needed to get to know the characters before that happened. Though pushing it so far back meant there wasn't enough time to resolve the real plot of the season on the back end.

Here's a whacky thought. Why didn't they just not write any pointless mirror universe episodes in a series still trying to find its feet?

I did hear from someone who worked behind scenes on here the initial plan for Pike was to make him outwardly religious and believing the Red Angel was a literal vision from God to contrast with Michael's skepticism. You can see hints of that in the first five episodes TBH.

Would have been far more interesting than what we got: a safe, predictable, cliched AI against the galaxy storyline. The realisation that Michael was the angel all along, that it was a technological suit flying around, AND that section 31 are able to just build one overnight... the depressing story beats just kept coming.

Really hoping new seasons of Picard and Discovery can have one singular vision for its full length instead of the season falling off a cliff half way through, yet again.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

What does Richard Dean Anderson have to do with Star Trek?

Col. O'Neill, commander of the USS Stargate? One can hope, can't one?

 

[USS Firefly]

Col. O'Neill, commander of the USS Stargate? One can hope, can't one?

I would love too see that show

 

[NCC-73515]

Col. O'Neill, commander of the USS Stargate? One can hope, can't one?

Has to be a Cheyenne class!

 

[Noname Given]

It solves a lot of problems and makes the show more interesting

As a fan of 23rd century Trek (and have been watching Trek first run since 1969 at age 6) - I disagree with the above assessment. Having ST: D set in the 23rd century was no more problematic than other stuff they've inserted over the 50 year run of the franchise; and made the series LESS interesting for me.

I LOVED ST: D Season 2 because of how they tied Christopher Pike and the 1701 (not a big fan of their 1701 redesign, but I haven't liked the TMP or the JJPrise redesigns much either); and I'm really looking forward to "Strange New Worlds" - ST: D S3 not so much now...but as always YMMV>

 

[eschaton]

If SNW ends up being earlier than DSC, we wouldn't end up expecting even little mentions of DSC among the Enterprise crew.

Kurtzman has confirmed that Pike's foreknowledge of his destiny will be a running theme over the course of the show, which means it has to be set after Discovery's second season.

Here's a whacky thought. Why didn't they just not write any pointless mirror universe episodes in a series still trying to find its feet?

The MU was awful, because it had nothing to do with the core narrative arc of the first season. I actually thought, as flawed as it was, the first half of Season 1 had a pretty coherent arc. It was basically watching the fall and rise of Michael Burnham, who loses everything due to a bad call, and then has to pick the pieces of her life up, ultimately winning the respect and admiration of wary comrades, and even winning back the badge of her fallen captain.

Then the second half of the season was basically "let's emotionally torture Michael Burnham and make her cry."

Seriously. What did Ash's betrayal tell us about her as a character? What did Lorca's betrayal? What did finding out MU Georgiou was space Hitler? Nothing, nothing, and nothing. They were just plot twists for the sake of it, and muddled the entire narrative of the season as a result.

 

[DonIago]

I guess I'm wondering what would have become of Lorca if they hadn't disposed of him in the MU. If he's just a more militant captain, is he still in command at the end of S1? Is he killed in action at some point? How far would he have to push the crew before they'd muti...actually, it would have been quite the bookend to the season if Burnham led a far more justified mutiny at the end of the season to contrast with her flawed rebellion at the beginning.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I am finally caught up on the show. Why the soft reboot, moving the time period 950 years into the future? I rather enjoyed the 22nd century setting, getting to see TOS-era characters, ships, places, and so on.

I figure it's just the plot of the season.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If SNW ends up being earlier than DSC

It won't be.

SNW is set after Pike's time on the Discovery.

 

[The Wormhole]

Why the soft reboot, moving the time period 950 years into the future?

Because Calypso said the ship ends up in the future, so they moved the ship into the future accordingly.

The part that bugged me the most is that everyone has to pretend Discovery never happened and never speak of the crew again. Um... how does that fight Control exactly?

It doesn't. But it fixes Canon, which Kurtzman was so insistent had to happen in the second season.

Lorca being from the MU was not his idea. He just wanted Lorca to be a slightly militaristic captain.

Not exactly. According to Fuller's original plan, Lorca was from an alternate reality where Michael was instead celebrated as the hero of the Battle of the Binary Stars instead of taking the blame for starting it.

I guess I'm wondering what would have become of Lorca if they hadn't disposed of him in the MU. If he's just a more militant captain, is he still in command at the end of S1? Is he killed in action at some point? How far would he have to push the crew before they'd muti...actually, it would have been quite the bookend to the season if Burnham led a far more justified mutiny at the end of the season to contrast with her flawed rebellion at the beginning.

Jason Isaacs was only signed on for the first season, so regardless of how the story played out, Lorca would not have been commanding the ship by the end of the first season regardless.

 

[DonIago]

^Yeah, I figured Lorca was a one-season captain, but I'm curious as to how they would have resolved his story originally.

 

[The Wormhole]

^Yeah, I figured Lorca was a one-season captain, but I'm curious as to how they would have resolved his story originally.

IIRD, in Fuller's original plan where Lorca was in fact from an alternate reality instead of the Mirror Universe, he returns to his reality by the end of the season and stays there.

 

[Vger23]

Preface: I love Discovery, warts and all.

The reboot is for a clean break. A showrunner would write the show into a corner, and then leave/get fired before being able to reveal their plan on how to get them out of that corner. For example, Brian Fuller came up with the DASH (spore) drive. Obviously it couldn't be kept around, it never showed up in TOS or later shows so there had to be a reason to get rid of it. It's entirely possible (seeing Fuller's work) he just didn't care and would never have dealt with the issue at all had he stayed on. But he didn't stay on, fans wanted an answer to what is as @Lord Garth points out is an entirely reasonable question, so the remaining writers had to come up with a reason. The Herbarts started the Red Angel mystery which in pre-season PR was said to explore the theme of science vs faith, but got fired before they could finish that line of thought, so we got the second half of season 2 which did not (IMO) tie cleanly with the first half of season 2. So ultimately I think after all of the fan grumbling over the disjointed nature of the storytelling, Kurtzman, Michelle Paradise, and the rest of the writers room just decided to have a clean break and reset the show to cleanse the palate for a new showrunner and hopefully a more cohesive season. I could be wrong, but that is my gut feeling.

While it pains me to say it...I think most of what you assume here is likely what happened. The original Fuller premise (not the anthology, but the Klingon War / Spore Drive) was interesting, but not really a sustainable premise for a long-running series. Just look at most of the characters, for example, who are not really compatible with other story arcs:

Ash Tyler: Klingon hybrid...oh crap, what do we do with this guy?? (painted into a corner)
L'Rell: Klingon spy turned Chancellor...oh crap, what do we do with her?? (painted into a corner)
Stamets: Mushroom guy..oh crap, with the spore drive being shelved...what do we do with him?? (painted into a corner)
Saru: Guy who is afraid of everything...hmmm....what the hell do we do with him long term??

etc. etc. etc.

I love DSC too...in fact it's in my top 3 series of the franchise. But man, that's definitely in spite of it's chaotic history and flaws.

I'm not happy that they decided to move to the future, but I can see why they did it.

 

[Jayson1]

^Yeah, I figured Lorca was a one-season captain, but I'm curious as to how they would have resolved his story originally.

I think they would have come full circle with Burnham leading a second mutiny to stop Lorca. He might have planned something that would change the tide of the war with the Klingons but it would be so unethical Burnham couldn't in good conscious support.


Jason

 

[Kpnuts]

Seriously. What did Ash's betrayal tell us about her as a character? What did Lorca's betrayal? What did finding out MU Georgiou was space Hitler? Nothing, nothing, and nothing. They were just plot twists for the sake of it, and muddled the entire narrative of the season as a result.

Well said.

The second half of Discovery season 1 was utterly obsessed with plot twists. None of them made sense and they certainly didn't land emotionally. The series was telling us we should feel things without actually doing the leg work to get us there.

 

[Lord Garth]

This is so obvious I can't believe I didn't think it or post it long before now. Spock, in his full logic mode, probably also recommended classifying the Spore Drive under the penalty of Treason because if an enemy ever figured out how to duplicate the Spore Drive, they don't even have to set course for a Federation world. They can use the spore drive and pop right in front of one. And you'd never know where they'd go next. They'd be on constant alert from the Klingons, the Romulans, and whoever else.

I think it's a good in-story reason. Better than the real one: "We can't talk about the Spore Drive ever again because of Holy Canon."

The whole "Don't mention Michael Burnham" thing, though, that's a different story. The only in-story reason I can think of is Spock's still upset about what Burnham said to him when they were kids. Just working in that one last "screw you". But it's extremely forced. People on Vulcan knew who she was, anyone who went to the Academy knew who she was, she was scapegoated as the person who started the Klingon War (before anyone says anything: yes, I know I opened up a can of worms by saying I think she was scapegoated, let's agree to disagree because it's not the main point of my post). So the bottom line is: her name is known. Now, it can be forgotten over time, but "don't mention Burnham" sounds extreme and it's too late. The cat's already out of the bag.

Discovery herself gets a little bit more leeway because who outside of Starfleet even knows about specific ships? In today's terms, I know about the Navy but I couldn't tell you about any specific ships or engagements. I just don't know. And I obviously have access to the Internet, but I still don't know since I've never looked it up. The news could report it as Starfleet command sent a starship to fight a key battle at XYZ and Starfleet in general gets credit instead of Discovery in particular.

Burnham was on the Shenzhou when the Klingon War started. Discovery was a test-bed ship for the first six months after the war started. Then it spent maybe two months at most fighting the Klingons before it disappeared for nine months. So Discovery actually didn't spend that much time in the spotlight, assuming its time spotlight was even made public to the Federation at large. I'm thinking it wasn't.

 

[BillJ]

This is so obviously I can't believe I didn't post it long before now. Spock, in his full logic mode, probably also recommended classifying the Spore Drive under the penalty of Treason because if an enemy ever figured out how to duplicate the Spore Drive, they don't even have to set course for a Federation world. They can use the spore drive and pop right in front of one. And you'd never know where they'd go next. They'd be on constant alert from the Klingons, the Romulans, and whoever else.

Without a Tardigrade or Tardigrade DNA the Spore Drive is useless. Limited to jumps of a few dozen kilometers, IIRC.

And you can't order that shit on Amazon!

 

[eschaton]

While it pains me to say it...I think most of what you assume here is likely what happened. The original Fuller premise (not the anthology, but the Klingon War / Spore Drive) was interesting, but not really a sustainable premise for a long-running series. Just look at most of the characters, for example, who are not really compatible with other story arcs:

Ash Tyler: Klingon hybrid...oh crap, what do we do with this guy?? (painted into a corner)
L'Rell: Klingon spy turned Chancellor...oh crap, what do we do with her?? (painted into a corner)
Stamets: Mushroom guy..oh crap, with the spore drive being shelved...what do we do with him?? (painted into a corner)
Saru: Guy who is afraid of everything...hmmm....what the hell do we do with him long term??

etc. etc. etc.

I love DSC too...in fact it's in my top 3 series of the franchise. But man, that's definitely in spite of it's chaotic history and flaws.

I'm not happy that they decided to move to the future, but I can see why they did it.

While I broadly agree with this, we really don't know how many characters were originally conceived by Bryan Fuller.

Michael obviously was, as was Lorca. I believe Stamets was a creation of Fuller as well.

But Saru, not as we know it. I remember reading at the time that his line about "food webs" in the first episode was an ad-lib by Doug Jones. Essentially the creature design was put together with Doug Jones' frame in mind, but they knew nothing about the race whatsoever. The whole "natural-born coward" thing came out of Jones' portrayal, not anything Fuller intended. A total aside, but promptly abandoning the "natural coward" thing in Season 2 was a real disappointment. If TNG could deal with Data having no emotions for seven seasons, DIS should have been able to get through at least two without abandoning the core trait of Saru.

As for L'Rell and Ash, it's hard to say what Fuller's intention was. When Shazad Latif's role in the series was first announced, it was said he would play Kol, which suggests that the roles morphed considerably during pre-production.

 

[eschaton]

Without a Tardigrade or Tardigrade DNA the Spore Drive is useless. Limited to jumps of a few dozen kilometers, IIRC.

And you can't order that shit on Amazon!

Since we know that the mycelial network links the entire multiverse and every point in space/time, this actually isn't a good explanation. Presuming Trek's multiverse is infinite, as our multiverse is presumed to be, that means there's an infinite number of times that someone gets the right combination of DNA to develop a spore drive.

Basically, in an infinite multiverse, nothing can ever happen only once. If it can happen, it must happen, repeatedly.