Why the soft reboot?

[eschaton]

I think Burnham is competent but mired by her own self-loathing and doubt.

I think Burnham utilized her knowledge of both Sarek and the Klingons without letting her personal hurts get in the way at the end. Now, did some things go lucky? Yeah, a bit, but even that was unpacked in Season 2 with L'Rell having to sort out the consequences with the Council.

My understanding of what the writers were attempting to tell us during Season 1's first half was essentially that Michael was someone in deep denial about who she was. She was raised by Sarek to be "culturally Vulcan" and thus always believed she was acting from cool, collected rationality. But the combination of her human biology and trauma meant she was in fact a very impulsive, emotional individual who came up with after-the-fact rationalizations for her random-ass decisions. So her desire to give "the Vulcan Hello" to the Klingons was not coming from a position of logic, it was coming from a position of terror. Over the course of the season she gets more centered regarding her emotional core (never mind how she was on the Shenzhou for 10 years or whatever and showed no growth then). By Into the Forest she seems somewhat calm and collected, even though she's back on the Ship of the Dead. Indeed, she is the one who has to comfort Ash when he is falling apart.

But nothing they did in the MU followed up on this really - it was just emotional torture. And she just kept right on making random-ass impulsive decisions (like saving MU Emperor Georgiou) all the way through to the end. So thematically the ending didn't work for me, because I think the proper end for the season in order to show she had growth would be for her to not trust her instincts for once. Maybe actually listen to orders from a commanding officer, or take advice from Saru or something that cut against what she thought was the right decision? Instead the ending seemed to imply her real mistake was being a warmonger, which fit with none of the real themes of the season and her character.

 

[fireproof78]

But nothing they did in the MU followed up on this really - it was just emotional torture.

Which I think is the point. Seeing Klingons was emotional torture as well, and now Michael is put in to a situation where not only is she having to face torturous memories with Georgiou, but her maintaining a façade in order to preserve her mission. Her composure in the MU is what has to save them.

Yes, she does make an emotionally rash decision because while she has made peace with her Klingons demons (for the most part) she hasn't with her failure with Georgiou. And she makes a mistake with the Empress. And Burnham has to own that. It is a mistake.

Now, do I think that it is perfectly executed? No, I don't. I think the Klingon War deserved its own full season dedication and the MU another. I don't know if Section 31 was necessary but I think it was completely inevitable? Why? Because that's what Star Trek has explored in the past is darker aspects of power. And not just in the show; I'm reading "Collison Course" by William Shatner and guess what's in it? A dark, shadow ops, organization that sees all the bad things about space exploration and is working to protect the Federation. Not Section 31. It has a much more innocuous sounding name.

But, I do think there is character development for Burnham.

 

[dupersuper]

And yes, there are many predetermined plots too. Gorn v Kirk - yup Kirk's gonna win. (Though it's redeemed by the not-kill-today speech.)

The not-kill-today speech sounds more like the one from Taste of Armageddon...

 

[plynch]

He wants to finish off the Gorn but chooses not to. He does have animal instinct but controls them.

 

[dupersuper]

He wants to finish off the Gorn but chooses not to. He does have animal instinct but controls them.

I'm aware, but that specific line was in the other episode.

 

[DigificWriter]

There's no such thing as a "soft reboot" in fiction...

But even if there were, the writers choosing to take DSC's characters and setting into the far future wouldn't qualify because it's not 'rebooting' anything.

 

[Noname Given]

IIRC she is too much believing in her rightness at first? and becomes more humble?

So...her character is just like Jean Luc Picard - except for the fact Jean Luc Picard NEVER became humble - even during and afterv the events in 'Picard'.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Why did DIS set itself in the 23rd century in the first place. All of its stories could have been 25th without many rewrites and none of the canon issues.

Was it insecurities that made them feel they needed nostalgia tie ins ?

 

[The Wormhole]

Why did DIS set itself in the 23rd century in the first place. All of its stories could have been 25th without many rewrites and none of the canon issues.

Was it insecurities that made them feel they needed nostalgia tie ins ?

Bryan Fuller wanted the show to expand on a line of dialogue from TOS, though we have no idea what line that was since the subsequent showrunners who took over when he left abandoned that idea and never incorporated it into the show.

Also, they really wanted Michael to be Spock's sister for some reason.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Also, they really wanted Michael to be Spock's sister for some reason

That's kinda what I mean. Do they think no one will watch if they don't drop famous names and faces in. Same with PIC obviously you need Picard but I couldn't care less if any other old faces pop up like the best thing about seeing the Rulers was a kid we never met before

 

[fireproof78]

Was it insecurities that made them feel they needed nostalgia tie ins ?

I doubt it was insecurity, so much as this what the fan base appeared to want. I mean, we saw the success of Abrams Trek, set in an alternate TOS era, as well as Star Trek Continues and New Voyages/Phase 2. So they wanted to explore an era that fans had expressed interest in.

I don't think its insecurity so much as it is wanting to expand the lore, but not taking too much of a risk.

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Star Trek Continues and New Voyages/Phase 2. So they wanted to explore an era that fans had expressed interest in.

Fair enough. I've never heard of any of these things which is probably why DIS was such a suprise when I first heard about it

 

[EnderAKH]

That's kinda what I mean. Do they think no one will watch if they don't drop famous names and faces in. Same with PIC obviously you need Picard but I couldn't care less if any other old faces pop up like the best thing about seeing the Rulers was a kid we never met before

All we can really say is the story of Spock's sister was the story Bryan Fuller wanted to tell and sold CBS on. What his motivation was for wanting to tell that particular story, you would have to ask him. Everyone else was just playing with the toys he set up before he quit.

 

[eschaton]

All we can really say is the story of Spock's sister was the story Bryan Fuller wanted to tell and sold CBS on. What his motivation was for wanting to tell that particular story, you would have to ask him. Everyone else was just playing with the toys he set up before he quit.

While I think Michael was meant to be raised Vulcan, I don't think we can conclude she was always meant to be Spock's sister.

The scenes with Sarek in the opening two episodes were oddly constructed. They were totally unnecessary for the narrative. It seemed like they may have been added later.

 

[fireproof78]

Fair enough. I've never heard of any of these things which is probably why DIS was such a suprise when I first heard about it

Yeah, looking at fan productions that were very successful they all revolved around the TOS era. Plus the Abrams films.So the interest may have been based on that.

 

[Noname Given]

Why did DIS set itself in the 23rd century in the first place. All of its stories could have been 25th without many rewrites and none of the canon issues.

Was it insecurities that made them feel they needed nostalgia tie ins ?

Why did Alex Kurtzman go to Patrick Stewart (Who at the time was 79 years of age) to talk him into reprising Picard?

Why is it so hard for TNG fans to believe that TOS is still a popular and lucrative series and era to tell stories in?

Star Trek Discovery doesn't have half the nostalgia that Picard has. Hell, TNG fans were over the moon that Jonathan Franks and Marina sirtis and Brent Spiner we're all reprising roles; and for all Patrick Stewart's claim of oh we're not doing TNG 2.0 - in 10 episodes they crammed more TNG nostalgia than Discovery did from TOS era in 25 episodes.

Yet Star Trek Discovery is the only series a lot of fans see as "using nostalgia to get viewers".

 

[TimeIsAPredator]

Why did Alex Kurtzman go to Patrick Stewart (Who at the time was 79 years of age) to talk him into reprising Picard?
Why is it so hard for TNG fans to believe that TOS is still a popular and lucrative series and era to tell stories in?

Star Trek Discovery doesn't have half the nostalgia that Picard has. Hell, TNG fans were over the moon that Jonathan Franks and Marina sirtis and Brent Spiner we're all reprising roles; and for all Patrick Stewart's claim of oh we're not doing TNG 2.0 - in 10 episodes they crammed more TNG nostalgia than Discovery did from TOS era in 25 episodes.

Yet Star Trek Discovery is the only series a lot of fans see as "using nostalgia to get viewers".

Try reading my posts as I mentioned how pointless the Rikers were too. It's always dumb whataboutery with DIS fans.

And I never said TOS wasn't popular just that placing DIS in that time has its problems. And just to clear it up because everything has to be qualified for DIS fans I thought there were also issues with ENT and Kelvin for the same reason

 

[Turtletrekker]

I have absolute zero problem with Michael Burnham being Spock's foster sister. Michael Burnham is the best thing to happen to Spock since the Genesis device

 

[BillJ]

Michael Burnham is the best thing to happen to Spock since the Genesis device

You mean since the Genesis Device was on a countdown and caused Spock to kill himself getting the mains back online?

From my perspective, it was awkward and unnecessary. Spock already had interesting family dynamics long before either Sybok or Michael Burnham came along. It felt like they were trying to make their character special without really putting in the work. Though that isn't why the character doesn't work for me, the reason she doesn't work is that she is just flat dull.

 

[Lord Garth]

The Abrams Films were popular. TOS merchandising was selling the best. But CBS's bread-and-butter was the Prime Timeline. Thus DSC took place in the TOS Era, was branded as Prime Timeline, and advertised Burnham as Spock's Foster-Sister to rope in TOS and Abrams Fans at the same time. That's the real-life boring answer for why they set DSC right before TOS.

Maybe Bryan Fuller had creative reasons for setting it there, but CBS approved of it for business reasons.

At some point, I have no idea when, they decided it would be better if DSC wasn't a prequel. They wanted to do Big Scale Events and constantly butting up against TOS was preventing them from being able to go all-out. If they'd set the series during the same time as Picard, it would've been the same problem: having to share with PIC. In the Far Future, none of that is an issue.

Bryan Fuller's original pitch for DSC was that first it would take place in the TOS Era, then the TNG Era, and then in The Future, each with a different crew. So the Discovery crew was only originally meant to be seen for one season and there was no long-term multi-season plan for them.

They ditched that idea and kept the same crew but, either by accident or design, they found their way back to the original idea that DSC would take place in different time periods. That was the original plan, and that's what they found their way back to, so the natural compass for DSC was and is The Future.

.
.
.

Anyway, had they not set DSC in the 23rd Century at first, they might not have chosen to recycle the ship design from Planet of the Titans. I always loved that design and always thought it was a waste that they never used it before. If they'd set DSC in the 25th Century, Discovery would've looked like some shitty jelly fish. I'm sorry, I know this is an Unpopular Opinion, but I don't like 24th/25th Century ship designs.

And having Pike in DSC is what really greased the wheels to get Strange New Worlds going.

So things happen for a reason.