hepcat wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 7:01 pm
I suspect some of the casting choices might have something to do with that. Mark Wahlberg really isn't cutting it as an elderly Gowron.
"I will die with honor! Oh, hey, say hi to your mother for me."
He's got such range!!!
Also you have to understand that in episode 15 it gets revealed that Gowron's true backstory is that he was the actual Mark Wahlberg who meets Q in 2024 Los Angeles and convinced him to snap him to the 24th century along with the Picard crew. Only because Q is dying, the snap accidentally sends him to Q'Onos decades before the events of TNG. There he meets Gowron's father, who is impressed with his pluck and honor. Gowron's father finds a genetic surgeon who transforms him into a Klingon, and bestows on him the name Gowron. From there he rises to leadership of the Klingon Empire.
Really inspiring stuff.
I tried to get them to work this into season 2 of Picard, but for some reason instead of responding to my e-mails they sent me a restraining order by accident.
After all of these years, I finally decided it was time to watch Discovery. I've never seen it. I had decided to tackle all of Trek in chronological order, and just finished Enterprise this morning, so Discovery was next. I just finished the first episode.
I hated it. I mean, I absolutely despised it. It is supposed to be set in the same universe, but it just didn't work that way. We know how that universe worked 90 years prior, and we know how it worked 10 years later, and this... isn't that. It's straight up contradictory. I'm not just talking the aesthetics. It really feels like what Abrams did with his reboot, vaguely acknowledging the source material but completely reinterpreting it - but at least it was acknowledged as an alternate timeline and not part of the regular universe.
It would be like if a book set between The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings was set on a steam train and the hobbits were purple. It might be a great story, but it it just doesn't fit in with the source material.
I actually feel they did a disservice to themselves and the show by making the first two episodes be a prologue. It's not until the 3rd that you actually get to the Discovery, and IMHO the tone is far different in the first two episodes compared to what follows.
It gets different, but I wouldn't say it gets better. There are definitely parts that are good, or good enough. Some good acting in places, and some intriguing ideas. But I find it to be continually frustrating and close to an optimistic hate-watch for me. It's not for nitpickers or Trek classicists/purists. It's probably best to watch it as if it's removed from canon completely, but that's impossible for those of us who have been watching Trek all our lives. Especially when the writers are committed to inserting every reference possible. You will be told the general tone of the show changes at some point, but it still hasn't found the right tone for me.
I saw a commercial on late night TV. It said, "Forget everything you know about slipcovers." So I did. And it was a load off my mind. Then the commercial tried to sell me slipcovers, and I didn't know what the hell they were. -- Mitch Hedberg
I would say it gets better. By a large margin. If we judged all Star Trek entries just on their first seasons, i doubt anyone would be a big fan of the franchise.
Discovery took the wrong tone right out of the gate. It wasn’t until the beginning of season 2 that they realized this and started to fix it (they pretty much issue an apology early in season 2 for season 1’s misteps by directly going after and fixing the Klingon issue that pissed me off). By season 3 it has found its footing and gets back to being a Star Trek series in spirit.
Sudy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 7:21 am
It's not for nitpickers or Trek classicists/purists. It's probably best to watch it as if it's removed from canon completely, but that's impossible for those of us who have been watching Trek all our lives. Especially when the writers are committed to inserting every reference possible.
I’m a Star Trek fan who has watched Star Trek probably longer than you have, and I enjoy Discovery. So this statement is just flat out wrong. As I’ve pointed out frequently, there is nothing you’ve complained about with this show (past the first season) that hasn’t been done in other, older shows. I would say this show isn’t for people who don’t remember what Star Trek was really about: hope, tolerance, exploration and adventure. In that order. The Abram’s stuff forgets the first two, and the first season of Discovery admittedly stumbles along trying to get there, but eventually it does after that.
Do I miss the original shows? Of course I do. But I’m old enough to remember that every entry in the franchise has been met with people who hated them simply because they weren’t exactly like previous entries. DS9 got slapped around for being too dark, or having a story arc (“oh, they’re just trying to be Babylon 5!”); and TNG for not having enough action, or for Wesley Crusher being the focus for too many things.
You will be told to hate it by people who wanted to hate it before it even aired its first episode. But try to keep an open mind. And if you still hate it after season 2, don’t spend your time trying to tell everyone they’re not really a Star Trek fan if they do like it.
How is someone's opinion flat out wrong? I was just restating some of my broadest thoughts in light of Blackhawk starting the series and having a sour first impression. I presume he's been avoiding relevant posts up until now for the sake of spoilers, and I also presume he's going to forge ahead regardless. I also assumed you'd pop in to defend the show, and that my view would therefore be counterbalanced.
I dislike Discovery for many reasons. But I don't continue watching it because I'm trying to piss anyone off. I'm a completionist and an optimist. As mentioned, there are aspects of the show I enjoy. We've really got to agree to disagree. If I could pause time I'd re-watch the entirety of the franchise and write a dissertation defending my views (or admit where I was wrong), but I can't. So you'll just have to trust my differing viewpoint is rational and I'm not high on moon dust.
I saw a commercial on late night TV. It said, "Forget everything you know about slipcovers." So I did. And it was a load off my mind. Then the commercial tried to sell me slipcovers, and I didn't know what the hell they were. -- Mitch Hedberg
If you’d simply stated an opinion, I wouldn’t have said you were wrong. But you didn’t. You once again said it’s not for Star Trek fans basically. You don’t like it, that’s fine. But stop trying to justify that dislike by insinuating it’s not for fans of “classic” Star Trek.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:09 am
After all of these years, I finally decided it was time to watch Discovery. I've never seen it. I had decided to tackle all of Trek in chronological order, and just finished Enterprise this morning, so Discovery was next. I just finished the first episode.
I hated it. I mean, I absolutely despised it. It is supposed to be set in the same universe, but it just didn't work that way. We know how that universe worked 90 years prior, and we know how it worked 10 years later, and this... isn't that. It's straight up contradictory. I'm not just talking the aesthetics. It really feels like what Abrams did with his reboot, vaguely acknowledging the source material but completely reinterpreting it - but at least it was acknowledged as an alternate timeline and not part of the regular universe.
It would be like if a book set between The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings was set on a steam train and the hobbits were purple. It might be a great story, but it it just doesn't fit in with the source material.
So, my wife and I initially had the same reaction to Season 1. We even wondered if it was set in the "Abramsverse" given the major changes. Over time, we just watched it as a new story putting aside the changes from TOS. The first season picks up steam and gets pretty good by the end but - again - you are going to have to put aside some of the differences from TOS and think of them as "creative changes."
Season 2 of Discovery is, IMHO, phenomenal. They "fix" a few of the things from Season 1 (for example, they make the Klingons look more like actual Klingons and explain a little of their visual differences). They introduce some familiar faces and the actors do a good job of reinventing known characters (this is our third Spock, but I feel like Ethan Peck captures Leonard Nimoy much better than Zachary Quinto). They even explain a little (at the end) why Discovery seems "out of place" in the TOS timeline. It isn't a perfect explanation, but it works.
Discovery Season 3 and 4 are awful. Season 4 may make me stop watching the show completely, but I imagine I will at least try to watch some of Season 5.
Which brings me to Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. If you watch Discovery Season 2, you get to see the introduction of Anson Mount's Pike and Rebecca Romijn's "Number One." Both are excellent. I may catch flak here, but I might say that Anson Mount is the best captain since Janeway. He takes the best of Kirk and the best of Picard and wraps it in this sort of Midwestern swagger meets futuristic compassion. ST:SNW also manages to capture a lot of what made TOS great (avoiding being all about ship battles and focusing on crew conversations, much like TOS). They are also more of a "Crisis of the Week" style, like TOS, which is cool. Lastly, the TOS easter eggs are all over, which is fun. It can be a bit dry at times (but then again, that is also like TOS), but overall I am digging it. Visually, too, there are nods to TOS - I was so pleased to see the kaleidoscope thing at the Science Station!
baelthazar wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 9:08 am
So, my wife and I initially had the same reaction to Season 1. We even wondered if it was set in the "Abramsverse" given the major changes. Over time, we just watched it as a new story putting aside the changes from TOS. The first season picks up steam and gets pretty good by the end but - again - you are going to have to put aside some of the differences from TOS and think of them as "creative changes."
Season 2 of Discovery is, IMHO, phenomenal. They "fix" a few of the things from Season 1 (for example, they make the Klingons look more like actual Klingons and explain a little of their visual differences). They introduce some familiar faces and the actors do a good job of reinventing known characters (this is our third Spock, but I feel like Ethan Peck captures Leonard Nimoy much better than Zachary Quinto). They even explain a little (at the end) why Discovery seems "out of place" in the TOS timeline. It isn't a perfect explanation, but it works.
Discovery Season 3 and 4 are awful. Season 4 may make me stop watching the show completely, but I imagine I will at least try to watch some of Season 5.
I had kind of the opposite reaction. Season 1, I think we all agree, got off to a rocky start. I liked what they did a bit towards the end, but ultimately it felt like the writers were struggling against the shackles of the themes of Star Trek.
Season 2 was better, and they did make some amends to the fans with their work on cleaning up the Klingons and getting away from the grim dark universe; but it still felt like they were fighting a bit.
Seasons 3 and 4 they changed things drastically...and in doing so, it actually allowed them to embrace the core values of Star Trek again. The Federation is once again a beacon of hope, the show concentrates on finding ways to coexist and even make allies of former enemies, and the new frontier of space becomes even newer. It's these seasons that made me realize that Discovery really is a Star Trek show in spirit.
...but of course, we all know it just comes down to Stamets and Reno.
And I'm still loving Strange New Worlds because it embraces its TOS connection...even if the Freaky Friday episode was annoying.
Last edited by hepcat on Mon Jun 06, 2022 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
First, I think it relegated Stamets a bit and made his and Culber's relationship a bit "cringey." I don't know if the actors had a disagreement but the chemistry was a bit off in Season 4, particularly in comparison to earlier seasons. Which is a shame, because Culber really became a good central focus of Season 4 and their dynamic was always a great watch.
Reno is one of the main reasons I enjoy Discovery. I'm a big Tig fan, so that helps.
I liked the end aliens and the VERY Star Trek resolution to that arc. But there were some plot holes that I had trouble with. Yes, I know this is TV, but their resolution was TOO quick and relied on "hey, I know we have major scientists here, but this crewperson on Discovery who makes the coffee is brilliant so they will crack the code in like 10 minutes." Ok, that was an exaggeration, but you get it. I also wasn't happy with the Book arc and sort of think that it would have been stronger to NOT have the Deus Ex at the end with him (and had Michael have to deal with the fallout from that next season). Instead, he got futuristic community service. Meh.
The Stamets relationship didn't strike me as off at all. They did change the focus from a mostly superficial one to that a loving couple exploring what a relationship means in terms of the individuals within that relationship. So I think if anything, it's become more nuanced and thoughtful.
(spoilers for BlackHawk in case he decides to continue watching Discovery)
Spoiler:
The Book arc felt off a few times. I think he was too quick to go rogue...but then again, he had just lost his entire race and planet, so who am I to say how someone should react in that situation, but ultimately he found his way back home again. I didn't feel that his arc was ultimately all that rushed. Plus, it gave us prime Reno.
The solution to the final situation in season 4 that you mention was them trying to show that the Federation isn't about one person solving everything, but rather that everyone contributes. So in that, it was a success. Whether or not it felt like a bad plot hole in its execution is debatable though. However, as I've noted before, it wouldn't be Star Trek without some questionable science. But we love Star Trek in spite of that.
Last edited by hepcat on Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
hepcat wrote: ↑Sun Feb 28, 2021 6:19 am
Oof, Below Decks was a big swing and a miss home run! I could barely make it through any wait for episodes of that one. Talk about sloppy awesome writing.
I fixed a few things for you...
I also enjoyed Discovery a lot but Saru should have kept his captaincy and Tilly needs to be promoted to Lieutenant. I’m hoping that after Saru’s leave of absence perhaps he’ll take back the captain’s chair and Michael was just keeping it warm for a bit.
And I must now apologize to Siljanus. Lower Decks (which I constantly referred to as Below Decks for some reason) grew on me as I watched it. I think it was just so jarring to see an animated Family Guy version of Star Trek (my first impression). But I went back and watched it all recently and I realized that it eventually becomes a pretty decent Star Trek entry. Sure, I still grimace at some of the humor, but it's actually kind of fun to watch this show and view it as one big easter egg for old time fans.
hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 8:27 am
If you’d simply stated an opinion, I wouldn’t have said you were wrong. But you didn’t. You once again said it’s not for Star Trek fans basically. You don’t like it, that’s fine. But stop trying to justify that dislike by insinuating it’s not for fans of “classic” Star Trek.
I think it's safe to assume that remarks such as these made on an internet message board are statements of opinion. I shouldn't have to begin each sentence with the equivalent of "I believe", though I essentially did in most cases anyway:
Sudy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 7:21 am
It gets different, but I wouldn't say it gets better. There are definitely parts that are good, or good enough. Some good acting in places, and some intriguing ideas. But I find it to be continually frustrating and close to an optimistic hate-watch for me. It's not for nitpickers or Trek classicists/purists. It's probably best to watch it as if it's removed from canon completely, but that's impossible for those of us who have been watching Trek all our lives. Especially when the writers are committed to inserting every reference possible. You will be told the general tone of the show changes at some point, but it still hasn't found the right tone for me.
Anyway, I do believe Discovery was in large part not written/designed for existing Trek fans. Or in as much as it was, it has generally failed. That's how I feel. But this obviously doesn't apply to you, so great. Enjoy it. I'm endlessly happy for you to enjoy it and to try to convert anyone who doesn't, except me at this point.
I saw a commercial on late night TV. It said, "Forget everything you know about slipcovers." So I did. And it was a load off my mind. Then the commercial tried to sell me slipcovers, and I didn't know what the hell they were. -- Mitch Hedberg
Sudy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:04 am
Anyway, I do believe Discovery was in large part not written/designed for existing Trek fans. Or in as much as it was, it has generally failed. That's how I feel. But this obviously doesn't apply to you, so great. Enjoy it. I'm endlessly happy for you to enjoy it and to try to convert anyone who doesn't, except me at this point.
That's cool. Still not sure why you continue to watch it, but that's your call. I feel it's written for existing Star Trek fans who remember what Star Trek was really about, and not for those who are the equivalent of what we call Constitutionalists here in the States.
Last edited by hepcat on Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
To touch on one point - I'm perfectly fine with artistic changes. How Klingons look mysteriously changed dramatically between 2269 and 2272 (TOS and The Motion Picture.) And Enterprise was clearly more modern that TOS.
The difference was that they didn't openly contradict what was out there. The Klingons having visually changed was directly addressed several times, and was clearly a change that happened in-universe vs "they're just different because" (and there was eventually a complete arc dedicated to explaining what had happened and how.) Enterprise had more modern visuals and styles than TOS, but they were careful to not have more modern technology - they were more cramped, the consoles still had push-buttons and moving parts, they didn't have shields, the transporters were experimental and rarely used, etc - despite all of those things constricting the plot. And both TNG and Enterprise (the two series that had completely different settings from anything that had come before) went to great lengths to acknowledge what had been established. For example, Enterprise had several episodes featuring Romulans, but they were very careful to never let one be seen, as the first time a Federation member saw a Romulan was during a TOS episode. And it had plenty of Klingons - but they did not have cloaking technology, since it had already been established what year they got those (it was also during the Original Series - Discovery Klingons wouldn't have them.)
Discovery, on the other hand, makes no attempt to respect existing canon. They are set ten years before The Original Series, but they are so far removed from it stylistically that it just doesn't make sense that Kirk's Enterprise could come from that same Federation. Some stuff I've already seen makes things in the rest ofAnd they don't just change the looks of the Klingons. They completely change their culture, personality, and history. This isn't a minor race - they could make that kind of change with the Tellarites or the Bolians all day long and nobody would care. But Klingons are probably the second best developed species in the series history behind Vulcans. We've had two Klingon main characters (Worf and Torres), and multiple Klingon supporting characters (Alexander, Martok.) We've had dozens of Klingon-focused episodes dedicated to their history and culture. We know how Klingons work. They're iconic.
When it comes down to it, there were about 550 hours of Star Trek before Discovery spread out over the course of 55 years. Most adult Star Trek fans have spent their entire lives visiting the Federation, repeatedly. It's a universe that we know really, really well. Changing a few details is fine. But what they've done makes it feel like a film set in your home town in the midwest that was filmed in Riyadh.
Again, I'm not saying it's a bad show, it just isn't set in the Trek universe that has been established. My impression from what I've seen (and now, read) is that they didn't set out to continue the Star Trek universe, they set out to make a modern show based on the Star Trek universe - in other words, a reboot. Which is fine - but they really should have just set it in the Abramsverse, or given it its own universe rather than claiming it was canon to the existing universe, then ignoring that universe. I may watch Discovery, but not as part of the rest of my Trek viewing. I may actually be able to enjoy it that way, just ignoring the fact that they've claimed it to be canon.
Disclaimer: I'm still autistic, and autistic people tend to get really into the details of the things that interest them. For a number of years, Star Trek was my 'special interest', and it was a big influence on me during certain times of my life when I was trying to define who I was. Autistic people also don't like change and contradictions to what has been established, so I may be a little more sensitive to that sort of thing than most. Still, even with that perspective, I don't think my observations were too far off base.
Reminder: you've watched one episode in a season that everyone agrees starts off rocky.
And as far as explaining inconsistencies like the Klingons looking different post TOS, that wasn't done until much, much later. Discovery tried to fix its stupid decision with klingons in season 2. So I think it's a bit unfair to claim older Star Trek addressed its inconsistencies, while not acknowledging that Discovery has also done so, or that the previous shows took sometimes years to do so.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:08 am
Disclaimer: I'm still autistic, and autistic people tend to get really into the details of the things that interest them. For a number of years, Star Trek was my 'special interest', and it was a big influence on me during certain times of my life when I was trying to define who I was. Autistic people also don't like change and contradictions to what has been established, so I may be a little more sensitive to that sort of thing than most. Still, even with that perspective, I don't think my observations were too far off base.
Then you must have really disliked going from TOS to TNG and then to DS9. Which one is the show you consider "Star Trek"?
hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:10 am
Reminder: you've watched one episode in a season that everyone agrees starts off rocky.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:08 am
Disclaimer: I'm still autistic, and autistic people tend to get really into the details of the things that interest them. For a number of years, Star Trek was my 'special interest', and it was a big influence on me during certain times of my life when I was trying to define who I was. Autistic people also don't like change and contradictions to what has been established, so I may be a little more sensitive to that sort of thing than most. Still, even with that perspective, I don't think my observations were too far off base.
Then you must have really disliked going from TOS to TNG and then to DS9. Which one is the show you consider "Star Trek"?
I would have hated TNG if they'd set it ten years after TOS, but they set it almost 100 years after TOS. It made sense for things to work differently. And yet they still respected the TOS canon. They elaborated on what was already there rather than ignoring and contradicting it. And there were some minor contradictions, yes, but nothing like what I've already seen in Discovery. And lets' be honest - TOS didn't really put a ton of emphasis on the various species history and culture beyond Vulcans. Going into TNG, all we had of most races histories and cultures were a few throwaway lines and 'caricature' personalities.
And I don't see the problem with going from TNG to DS9. They were different types of settings and stories, yes, but again - they kept the continuity and simply elaborated on aspects of it. They didn't reinvent existing species to tell their stories, they picked a few relatively undeveloped species (Ferengi, Bajorans, Trill, Kardashians) and used them instead.
Discovery could have done the same. In the example of the Klingons, they could have used the Nausicaans and done exactly the same story while still being respectful to the fans and the setting. Nausicaans were never more than minor characters, and very little of their history and culture was established. Blank slate!
I elaborated further in my post while you were typing your reply, I believe.
But it basically comes down to this still: you've watched one episode in a season that everyone agrees starts off rocky.
And things didn't just work differently in TNG vs. TOS. The overall tone of TNG is different than TOS. That's what happens when a show is made years later, and cultural and societal changes occur. TOS was much more of an action series than TNG. But that's what audiences wanted back in the 60's. By the time TNG premiered, audiences were more accepting of a more thoughtful show. What I care about with each entry is that it embraces the core values of Star Trek, which is what TNG did with TOS, DS9 did with the others, and Discovery (eventually) does.
As I've said before, I can go back and find the same arguments being made here as to why Discovery isn't really Star Trek...but about TNG and DS9 at the time of their debuts. It's to be expected, I guess.
Last edited by hepcat on Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sudy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:04 am
Anyway, I do believe Discovery was in large part not written/designed for existing Trek fans. Or in as much as it was, it has generally failed. That's how I feel. But this obviously doesn't apply to you, so great. Enjoy it. I'm endlessly happy for you to enjoy it and to try to convert anyone who doesn't, except me at this point.
That's cool. Still not sure why you continue to watch it, but that's your call. I feel it's written for existing Star Trek fans who remember what Star Trek was really about, and not for those who are the equivalent of what we call Constitutionalists here in the States.
I continue to watch because:
- I'm a lifelong fan of the franchise, and bad Trek is better than no Trek unless we're talking The Final Frontier
- There are some aspects of the show I do like (e.g. Saru, some plotlines and action sequences are very imaginative even if I tend not to like how they're written, it's just a visually pretty show)
- I enjoy critiquing/criticizing it... I usually try to do so constructively, though I recognize I have a tendency toward hyperbole and grumpiness. I can see why some of my posts may be exhausting if you're all-in on the show.
- I keep hoping it will become more like what I want it to be
I 100% see the effort to focus on "hope, tolerance, exploration and adventure" in recent seasons; I just commonly find it to be written and accomplished quite differently than in previous series. Sometimes it only feels like lip service to me. But I may just be too cynical and out of tune with aspects of the cultural timbre of this era that are being woven into the show by the writers. I don't mean that with regard to tolerance/acceptance, but mainly the way in which the characters act and behave in general. And I get it; I sometimes feel I was born a little after my time, and if they're trying to build an audience of Generation Zs some stuff isn't going to appeal to me. Or, maybe a lot of the writing is just mediocre (in my opinion).
I saw a commercial on late night TV. It said, "Forget everything you know about slipcovers." So I did. And it was a load off my mind. Then the commercial tried to sell me slipcovers, and I didn't know what the hell they were. -- Mitch Hedberg
That's better. The only time you raise my hackles is when you insinuate (or just outright say) that liking this show means you're not a fan of Star Trek. I'm just as much a Star Trek nerd as the next loser. I think I just have a less Constitutionalist (to reuse that word) view of things. I believe all previous Star Trek entries have changed their tone or approach to some degree in order to reflect the times.
You're right, I just feel Discovery has done so... poorly. Or perhaps it is indeed the Trek this moment in time deserves. The test will be, as you say, how it's thought of in a couple of decades. Enterprise was commonly ridiculed when it first aired (frequently by myself), but its reputation has improved in recent years. I dunno if I agree as I don't want to sit through that series again, but I know from memory I'd be happier watching new episodes of Enterprise than Discovery (most of the time; theme song and all). But de gustibus non est disputandum.
I saw a commercial on late night TV. It said, "Forget everything you know about slipcovers." So I did. And it was a load off my mind. Then the commercial tried to sell me slipcovers, and I didn't know what the hell they were. -- Mitch Hedberg
hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:10 am
And as far as explaining inconsistencies like the Klingons looking different post TOS, that wasn't done until much, much later. Discovery tried to fix its stupid decision with klingons in season 2. So I think it's a bit unfair to claim older Star Trek addressed its inconsistencies, while not acknowledging that Discovery has also done so, or that the previous shows took sometimes years to do so.
I haven't watched Discovery yet. Does it also explain the changes to their culture? Why they suddenly care about what happens to their dead? Why they have cloaking technology more than a decade too early, directly contradicting a later episode?
hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 10:41 am
And things didn't just work differently in TNG vs. TOS. The overall tone of TNG is different than TOS. That's what happens when a show is made years later, and cultural and societal changes occur. What I care about is that it embraces the core values of Star Trek, which is what TNG did with TOS, DS9 did with the others, and Discovery (eventually) does.
Yeah, the tone changed. But again, societies (in-universe) change over the course of a century. It's the difference between comparing a change in tone between Victorian England and 1980s England. It just doesn't make sense for the universe I've seen in Discovery to be the same one that Kirk flew through ten years later.
Tone is only part of what distinguishes a show. The setting matters, too. It's why The Orville, which is great Trek - it embraces the core values, and it has the right tone - isn't Star Trek.
And note that I didn't make the argument that this isn't Trek. I made the argument that it isn't part of the same Star Trek universe as the TOS/TNG era shows, anymore than the Shatnerverse novels (in which Kirk is brought back to life by nanoprobes in the TNG era, along with an elderly Spock and a holographic McCoy) are part of the same universe, despite (from what I hear) being really good Trek.
And again, I wouldn't have many of these issues if they'd just
Spoiler:
started the sucker 900 years in the future (where I understand they ended up.)
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:02 am
I haven't watched Discovery yet. Does it also explain the changes to their culture? Why they suddenly care about what happens to their dead? Why they have cloaking technology more than a decade too early, directly contradicting a later episode?
Not yet, but we didn't learn why there was a change to Klingon's actual physical appearance for years after the change. And if they don't explain it? Well...do you really think Star Trek has never had a problem with continuity?
Yeah, the tone changed. But again, societies (in-universe) change over the course of a century. It's the difference between comparing a change in tone between Victorian England and 1980s England. It just doesn't make sense for the universe I've seen in Discovery to be the same one that Kirk flew through ten years later.
Remember how pissed off people were about the introduction of Section 31 in DS9? I do. "The Federation would never have that!" was the cry. I tend to view most of your complaints in the same vein. Every entry in the franchise has met resistance. It's just a fact of life at this point.
As to Section 31, that was never a contradiction. Throughout the entire era there was a subtle thread going on that the Federation wasn't as utopian as people thought it was, and that most of the citizens were so content with things that they didn't see it. It cropped up quite a bit.
Now we're just getting nitpicky. Every show has continuity errors. Go read about any episode on Memory Alpha - each episode has a dedicated section just for that. A cat changing actors, Kirk's middle initial changing, or Voyager firing more torpedoes than they would have carried aren't even close to what I was talking about. The way they use the Prime Directive was used/ignored would be a good example, as would major plotlines that had huge ramifications that quietly vanished (whatever happened to the brain leeches, anyway?)
The significantly changed the setting at a time when we know what the setting was like (we have seen the year before Discovery, and we have seen ten years later), and then called both states true.
KIRK: "Everything Harry tells you is a lie. Remember that! Everything Harry tells you is a lie!"
MUDD: "Now listen to this carefully, Norman: I AM LYING!"
I'm kind of done with "this isn't real Star Trek / Star Wars" complaints. I get it at some level, in that there are certain core characteristics that most people associate with Trek and SW (and other fictional universes), and if you change things too much then it's gibberish. Like I at least get why my "Captain Picard enrolls at Hogwarts" script didn't get picked up, even if it would have been amazing.
But like, I feel like if there's any lesson to be learned from The Force Awakens essentially remaking A New Hope, followed by a TV show or movie for every minor character in the original trilogy (even if the Aunt Beru / Figrin D'an road trip movie is going to be incredible), it's that you're better off if the IP owners are willing to innovate than one where they're hyper-focused on not diverging from the first entry to make money. Even if sometimes you get complete turds like Picard season 2.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:59 am
Like I at least get why my "Captain Picard enrolls at Hogwarts" script didn't get picked up, even if it would have been amazing.
The problem was your insistence that Dumbledore be played by Mark Wahlberg in Vulcan makeup. "Say hi to your ma for me, Pike...ooh, time for Pon Farr!".
Ok, this is going nowhere. You like it, I (and many other long-term fans) dislike it, and not for the reasons that people didn't like TNG, or Section 31, or a bald captain. The points that you're defending are not the same ones that I am making, and we're just going in circles because of it.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:06 pm
Ok, this is going nowhere. You like it, I (and many other long-term fans) dislike it, and not for the reasons that people didn't like TNG, or Section 31, or a bald captain.
I (and many other long-term fans) do like it. The only reason I get annoyed with this argument is because there's constantly an insinuation that if I do like it, I'm not a Star Trek fan. That's ridiculous.
Blackhawk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:06 pm
and not for the reasons that people didn't like TNG, or Section 31, or a bald captain.
You many not think so, but they are.
The points that you're defending are not the same ones that I am making, and we're just going in circles because of it.
You complained about continuity issues. I presented evidence that Star Trek has always had continuity issues. You yourself even noted that
Every show has continuity issues.
As far as I'm concerned, I put the car in park and it doesn't need to go in circles anymore.
Also, one last time, a reminder: you've watched one episode in a season that everyone agrees starts off rocky.
Although I suspect at this point, my vigorous rebuttals have probably made any future acceptance of this show impossible.
Last edited by hepcat on Mon Jun 06, 2022 12:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:59 am
Like I at least get why my "Captain Picard enrolls at Hogwarts" script didn't get picked up, even if it would have been amazing.
The problem was your insistence that Dumbledore be played by Mark Wahlberg in Vulcan makeup. "Say hi to your ma for me, Pike...ooh, time for Pon Farr!".
First, I'm still not sure what your issue is with the Marlon Brando of the 21st century.
Second, it sounds like you didn't even read my script note that this takes place in a dark mirror universe in the Kelvin Timeline. Of course Dark Kelvin Dumbledore is a Vulcan with a Boston accent.
