Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:

I get the sense that the prequel-to-TOS situation is an awkward artifact of the creative troubles behind the series.

Bryan Fuller pitched DISCOVERY as an anthology show with each season to be set in a different time period. As it was an anthology, it makes sense that Fuller wanted the first season to be set close to the most iconic, culturally defining era of the franchise by making it 10 years before the original series. Later seasons would move forward.

The original intention was to render the 60s era STAR TREK with modern materials and technology the way the rebootquel movies have done it. The uniforms were to resemble those in "The Cage." Fuller posted photos of gold, scarlet and blue turtlenecks on Twitter.

But Fuller left, the people who took over have stuck with Fuller's plot and time period but are executing it with their own production aesthetic instead and they changed the uniforms to look more like ENTERPRISE.

The new producers have decided to render the 23rd century as they see fit and then sort out the discrepancies later. The current producers have said in interviews that the contradictions will be explained. http://www.cbr.com/star-trek-discovery- … y-changes/ It does leave me wondering why they would create supposed errors in the first place.

Anyway. I'll finish Season 1 before I give an opinion. I don't think there's anything wrong with one season as a TOS-prequel, but doing an entire show like this astounds me for all the reasons Slider_Quinn21 expresses.

I agree with all of that.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

You mean you agreed with me agreeing with you?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Well, and all the extra stuff.  I went online after you mentioned the Fuller stuff and did my own research, and I agree with what you're saying regarding the new producers.  I think Fuller left them a skeleton that they used (timeline, Sarek, etc) and he filled in the gaps.

Now questions I have...

1. I read some rumors from Fuller's time that Burnham might've been Number One from the Cage.  I wonder if that was ever considered.

2. I couldn't find his art for the uniforms on his Twitter.  Were they deleted?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

This was the photo.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrY99ojUMAAGJZe.jpg

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I think that would've been pretty cool.

I feel like Fuller has a great fondness for Star Trek and perhaps TOS, but he's shown the ability to take something he loves and make it his own.  The Discovery writers seem very interested in doing something decidedly not-Trek, and they simply used some of Fuller's notes to make the show they want to make.

It's what's made Discovery the fantastic show that it is and the headache it is to analyze within the boundaries of Trek itself.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I haven't been watching Discovery simply because I have so many streaming services as is and it is difficult to keep going with them, not to mention adding new ones! Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime (not to mention Google Play for music and as free YouTube, as well as my desire to get  Brit box for Classic Who and Broadway Tonight for my love of musicals). I think I may subscribe after the season is done and then pay for it for a month and see if I can just binge it, if they are offering the whole season still by then (or maybe they'll do a Hulu, and only offer the latest episodes instead?).

I saw a YouTube video discussing Discovery and it was intriguing. To explain the advanced tech and uniforms and such, they theorized that Discovery is actually the origin story of Section 31. Gotta admit, that fan theory gave me pause and makes me interested if that is the case because of course, S31 would have access to advanced tech and such.

I'm not really into the darker aspect of the series, and is a reason why I never got much into DS9 which always felt so much darker and brooding than TNG. But Section 31 was always a neat concept to me, and the darkness of it didn't bother me, so if this is THAT story, I'll be coming aboard at some point I think.

Ireactions, I like that comment you mentioned of Seth McFarlane's and how all the Trek officers were just perfect all the time. The Orville definitely represents his view of a realistic Trekverse.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

The most recent episode of Discovery was tons of fun.  I actually don't know if I remember anything of Mudd from TOS.  I might have to go back and watch those because he's a blast on Discovery.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Always good to see tom2point0 here, he doesn't show up often enough. I have been listening to REWATCH PODCAST cover THE FLASH (90s series) with pleasure, but I didn't have time to watch the actual show, so I can say nothing other than noting that I continue to enjoy Tom and Cory's banter during my commutes and hikes.

DISCOVERY, however, most definitely does not present the secret origin of Section 31. Their name, Section 31, comes from the original 22nd century Starfleet charter: Article 13, Section 31 allows extraordinary measures against extreme threat. Starfleet and Section 31 pre-date the Federation and DISCOVERY.

Section 31 appeared on ENTERPRISE in the year 2155 as a secret cabal within the United Earth government and Starfleet with Enterprise-armsmaster Malcolm Reed a former member. Given that DISCOVERY takes place in 2256, it's clearly not Section 31's starting point. But this does give me an excuse to talk about Section 31.

The reason the DS9 creators came up with Section 31: they were telling war stories and needed to show that the Federation, like any government, would engage in bloody and covert black-ops missions. But Gene Roddenberry's TNG-era declaration that the future was a perfect world had become so entrenched in the franchise that the writers couldn't overturn it. So they introduced Section 31.

From their debut in "Inquisition":

                    BASHIR
            So, are you going to tell me who
            you are? Who you work for?

                    SLOAN
            I would think it's obvious -- the
            same people you work for. The
            Federation. Starfleet.

                    BASHIR
            You don't expect me to believe
            you're with Internal Affairs, do
            you?

                    SLOAN
            Of course not. Internal Affairs
            is a competent department, but...
            limited.

                    BASHIR
            Then what department are you with?

                    SLOAN
            Let's just say I belong to another
            branch of Starfleet
            Intelligence... our official
            designation is Section 31.

                    BASHIR
            Never heard of it.

                    SLOAN
            We keep a low profile. It works
            out better that way... for all
            concerned.

                    BASHIR
            And what does "Section 31"
            do -- aside from kidnapping
            Starfleet officers?

                    SLOAN
            We search out and identify
            potential dangers to the
            Federation.

                    BASHIR
            And once identified?

                    SLOAN
            We deal with them.

                    BASHIR
            How?

                    SLOAN
            Quietly.

                    BASHIR
            So if I had turned out to be a
            Dominion agent -- what would've
            happened to me?

                    SLOAN
            We wouldn't be standing here
            having this conversation.

                    BASHIR
            And Starfleet sanctions what
            you're doing?

                    SLOAN
            We don't submit reports or ask for
            approval for specific operations,
            if that's what you mean. We're an
            autonomous department.

                    BASHIR
            Authorized by whom?

                    SLOAN
            Section 31 was part of the
            original Starfleet charter.

                    BASHIR
            That was two hundred years ago.
            Are you telling me you've been
            operating on your own ever since?
            Without specific orders?
            Accountable to nobody, but
            yourselves?

                    SLOAN
            You make it sound so... ominous.

                    BASHIR
            Isn't it? If what you say is
            true, you function as judge, jury
            and executioner. I'd say that's
            too much power for anyone.

                    SLOAN
            I admit it takes exceptional
            people to do what we do -- people
            who can sublimate their own
            ambitions to the best interests of
            the Federation.
                (a beat)
            People like you.

                    BASHIR
            Me?

                    SLOAN
                (nods)
            We're on the same team. We
            believe in the same principles
            that every other Federation
            citizen holds dear.

                    BASHIR
            But you violate those principles
            as a matter of course.

                    SLOAN
            In order to protect them.

                    BASHIR
            I'm sorry. But the ends don't
            always justify the means.

                    SLOAN
                (calmly)
            Really? How many lives do you
            suppose you've saved in your
            medical career?

                    BASHIR
            I don't see what that has to do
            with anything.

                    SLOAN
            Hundreds... thousands? Do you
            suppose that those people give a
            damn that you lied to get into
            Starfleet Medical? I doubt it.

    Bashir is momentarily thrown by Sloan's argument --

                    SLOAN
            We deal with threats to the
            Federation that jeopardize its
            very survival. If you knew how
            many lives we've saved, I think
            you'd agree that the ends do
            justify the means.I'm not afraid
            of bending the rules every once
            in a while -- if the situation warrants
            it. And I don't think you are either.

                    BASHIR
            You've got the wrong man, Sloan.

                    SLOAN
                (confident)
            I don't think so. In time, you'll
            come to agree with me.

With Section 31, DS9 could show the Federation engaging in assassination, fraud, genocide, false flag operations, propaganda, facism, torture, psychological manipulation, violation of civil liberties and sheer ruthlessness -- but because Section 31 was a disavowed branch of Starfleet with no official sanction or existence, the writers left themselves an out. They could say the Federation's hands were clean by putting all the responsibility on Section 31. As seen in "Inquisition":

                    SISKO
            There's no record of a Deputy
            Director Sloan anywhere in
            Starfleet. As for Section 31...
            that's a little more complicated.
            Starfleet Command didn't
            acknowledge its existence. But
            they didn't deny it either.
            They simply said they'd look into
            it and get back to me.

                    BASHIR
            When?

                    SISKO
            They didn't say.

                    KIRA
            Sounds like a cover-up to me.

                    BASHIR
            Is it possible that the Federation
            would condone this kind of
            activity?

                    ODO
            Personally, I find it hard to
            believe that they wouldn't. Every
            other great power has a unit like
            Section 31... the Romulans
            have the Tal Shiar, the
            Cardassians had the Obsidian
            Order...

                    BASHIR
            But what would that say about us?
            That we're no different than our
            enemies? That when push comes to
            shove, we're willing to throw away
            our principles in order to
            survive?

                    SISKO
            I wish I had an answer for you,
            Doctor.

Perhaps the greatest Section 31 story (there were only three) is "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges" where Section 31 manipulates Dr. Bashir into staging an assassination and framing an ambassador to maneuver a more controllable ally onto the political chessboard.

Dr. Bashir figures out the plan and needs Admiral Ross to stop it. Admiral Ross has always been an ally: he's allowed our heroes to skirt rules; he's tacitly encouraged the cast's crazier ideas; he's been the most pleasant and supportive admiral ever seen in STAR TREK.

Ross is Professor Arturo. Ross is Dr. Harry Wells. Ross is Dr. Martin Stein. Ross is Temporal Flux. Ross is Dad. Ross is suddenly debilitated by an illness and unable to help, and Section 31 wins. Later, Bashir confronts Ross, having realized: Ross faked his illness to allow Section 31 to proceed with its plans.

                    BASHIR
            And how long have you worked for
            Section 31?

                    ROSS
            I don't.

                    BASHIR
            Just a temporary alliance?

                    ROSS
            Something like that.

                    BASHIR
            And you don't see anything wrong
            with what happened?

                    ROSS
            I don't like it. But I've spent
            the last year and a half of my
            life ordering young men and women
            to die. I like that even less.

                    BASHIR
            That's a glib answer. And it's a
            cheap way of avoiding the fact
            that you've trampled on the very
            thing those men and women are out
            there dying to protect. Doesn't
            that mean anything to you?

                    ROSS
            Inter arma enim silent leges.

                    BASHIR
            "In time of war, the law falls
            silent." Cicero. So is that
            what we've become -- a twenty-
            fourth century Rome? Driven by
            nothing more than the certainty
            that Caesar can do no wrong?

                    ROSS
            This conversation never happened.
            You're dismissed.

Ross didn't kill anyone, didn't frame anyone; he simply chose to do nothing to prevent it and is therefore complicit. That's what makes 31 terrifying.

Despite the writers having left themselves a backdoor to say Section 31 is a rogue agency, it would be reasonable to take the view that Section 31 is the Federation and always has been.

Captain Lorca represents their values rather well. I think Lorca is one of them although there's the possibility that he doesn't know he's one of them. Section 31 has often maneuvered unwitting Starfleet officers into acting on their behalf.

Anyway. DS9's first two Section 31 episodes were great and can be read here:
http://www.st-minutiae.com/resources/scripts/542.txt
http://scifijaz.com/t/565.txt

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

One of DS9's few missteps was the end of the Section 31 mini-arc.  I thought "Extreme Measures" didn't live up to the first two episodes.  "Inquisition" and "IAESL" are two of the best episodes in Trek History.  The final episode...is fine.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I'd forgotten that Ronald Moore worked on Voyager, briefly.  I wonder if he could've made something out of the final two seasons of Voyager.  Barge of the Dead is one of the more unique episodes in Voyager's history.  I wonder if more like that would've been made.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Barge of the Dead was originally conceived for TNG, as a Worf story

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Brian Fuller has left American Gods.  Dude has trouble keeping a showrunner job for too long.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Meanwhile Tarantino said to be working on a Star Trek film.  Wow.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Finished watching the first half of Discovery, and it feels more like Trek now.  For me it started in earnest with the Harry Mudd episode where he’s trying to take over the Discovery.  All told, that’s a faster turn around than the other modern Trek series; it took each of them a good two years to settle in.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Today marks 25 years since the premiere of Deep Space Nine...

http://variety.com/2018/tv/features/sta … 202648047/

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Discovery returned last night.  Pretty exciting episode if you ask me.

But people were very upset about the (SPOILER) of (SPOILER).

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

What is Discovery?

In watching the show, it's decidedly not-Trek.  I know it's set in the regular Trek universe, but it feels a lot more like the Abrams universe.  Even with tie-in novels that try to connect this to 1960s Trek, it just doesn't feel like Shatner and Nimoy are out there (even if they aren't working on the Enterprise together, yet).

It's busy for Trek, but that's because it's the first show that's really serialized.  But at the same time, I think it's busy even for a modern show.  Is the show about the war with the Klingons?  Is it about what a good man will do to win a bad war?  Is it about a woman torn between two worlds trying to make up for a very costly mistake she once made?  Is it about a man torn between two worlds and two women he claims to love?  Is it about trying to stay good in a world gone insane?  Or is it about exploring a new way to travel?

None of these things are really Star Trek.  And in a year when the Orville decided to be a modern (less Roddenberry) version of Star Trek: the Next Generation, it feels even less like Star Trek.

The show is good.  But I struggle to really identify what it is or where it's going.  Is it too late to go the anthology route?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I think DISCOVERY is an interesting exploration of Starfleet's dual purpose as a military and exploratory force. The scripts are strong. But the production is so distant from the 1960s STAR TREK that it's hard to grasp why it's a prequel. Bryan Fuller seemed to be pushing hard for including hints of the classic designs (red/blue/gold turtlenecks) and I imagine that under his control, DISCOVERY would have had a modern look but with orange highlights to be reminiscent of the pastels of the original series and the tech would have *looked* state of the art but had a somewhat more primitive function compared to the original series. Cooks instead of food slots, drones instead of holo simulations, etc.. The writing is perfectly in tune with the original series, but the production is at odds and many of Fuller's aesthetic wishes seem to have been discarded.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Spoilers for this week's Discovery:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So we got to the end of the Terran arc.  I thought it was pretty good, but then they came to the end.....and I thought they were going to make everything right.  There were a couple of lines of dialogue that seemed like they'd be solving the puzzle.

1. They talk about the Terrans destroying the network.  I thought...."okay, here's how they fix the spore problem.  The Terrans destroy the network for everyone, across all universes, and then no one can ever use it.  People could try and recreate it, but it'll never work again.  That's why we never hear of it again."

But, nope.  They save it.  And the spore network....controls all life in the multiverse?  I'm sure they mentioned something about it in a previous episode, but I started getting visions of midichlorians.

2. (summarized) "We're back in the Alpha Quadrant in our universe, but we missed the time by a little bit" - I thought "YES! This is when they move this to the future.  Maybe they end up in the 25th century and we can take this beyond the TNG era into a new place.  We can have this ship out of time, and maybe the fact that the Discovery vanished without a trace convinces the Alpha Quadrant species to come together and agree not to research the spores or something."

But nope.  They're a few months in the future and they're sticking with the Klingon War stuff.  I understand that it's the crux of the show (and, specifically, Michael's character).  But if they're gonna play with time travel, why not move the show into the future if they can?

It was still a great episode, but I was hoping it'd take this thing in a new direction.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Not sure if anyone else is watching this or not, but the finale was pretty good.  I think if this had been the first season of an anthology series then I think it went pretty well (outside of one thing).  It leads right into the TOS-era stuff, and it ends with a cool little nod to the original series.  It's the Enterprise!  And Spock!

(Except that it's a Discovery-ized version of the Enterprise....which sorta goes against the tie-in novel, right?  ireactions?)

The only thing that wouldn't work (and still doesn't) is the spore drive.  The season ends with the spore drive still very-much in Starfleet hands and very-much a part of Starfleet plans.  They've already said that if the spore network collapses, all life will be destroyed....so it's not like they can use that as their Get Out of Jail Free card.

I have no idea how they're going to fix this plot hole.  I think using the Terrans to destroy the network made perfect sense.  Starfleet mastered this amazing technology, and now it's destroyed and no one can ever use it again.

All in all, I think it was a good season.  I'm looking forward to season 2.

***************

All that being said, I'm still shocked that we have so much material taking place in Kirk's lifetime.  I get that TOS is considered the gold standard for Trek, but I don't understand why.  Yes, it was the classic.  Yes, it has nostalgia for a lot of people.  But it would've had even more nostalgia for people back in 1987, and TNG didn't lean on TOS as much as Discovery has.  The people who watched the 60s Trek as kids are all retired now.  The people who grew up watching Trek that are working now would've grown up with TNG, right?  Shouldn't we be in the middle of a TNG nostalgia craze?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

(Except that it's a Discovery-ized version of the Enterprise....which sorta goes against the tie-in novel, right?  ireactions?)

How does the DISCOVERY-style Enterprise fit in with DESPERATE HOURS declaring that Constitution class starships have a different design style and uniforms? GO FUCK YOURSELF, that's how.

... I'm sorry. Slider_Quinn21 has jokingly needled me about how I take media tie-ins like novels, comics, video games and audioplays as canonical and invest emotionally in them and refuse to ever call them 'unofficial,' constantly asserting that this plothole or that unfinished arc is addressed in this comic and that novel. Unfortunately, when it comes to DESPERATE HOURS and DISCOVERY, I must concede defeat.

This is a difficult time for me as I must confess the unspeakable -- STAR TREK novels aren't canon. It was really hard to type that.

What happened here: David Mack was writing DESPERATE HOURS when Bryan Fuller was working on the show. Fuller suggested that Mack write a Spock/Burnham story as Fuller didn't want to do a crossover. As Mack was writing the novel, Fuller left and the costumes changed from the neo-Cage look to the more ENTERPRISE-styled uniforms.

Mack described the onscreen Enterprise exactly as it appeared in the 60s and point-blank had Spock declare that the Enterprise looks more advanced than the 'older' DISCOVERY ships. But now, Fuller's successors have chosen a route Fuller wasn't going to use; they want to do a crossover and DESPERATE HOURS no longer fits.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Which sucks, by the way.  I actually really like the idea of Starfleet "softening" their look as they move toward a more exploratory-based mission.

I like the show.  I really do.  In fact, if Discovery was a Orville-type show taking place out of continuity, I think I'd legitimately love it.  The problem is that the show wants me to believe that it's taking place during a period of Trek history that is VERY known to people.  And they keep showing us stuff that is unknown or doesn't fit or was needlessly changed.  We've had the "they should've set this in a different time period" conversation enough that we don't need to re-hash it.

But damn.  It's Trek but it's not.  It's good but it could be great.  It wants to belong but doesn't really.

The people in charge say it'll all make sense.  I don't really believe them, but I'm going to try not to care anymore.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I honestly don't mind. The DESPERATE HOURS novel still exists and is still a great read. It was a terrific volume for the time in which it was published, presenting a very amusing thought experiment by having the 1960s sets and costumes right alongside the 2017 sets and costumes and having the characters declare that the 1960s design is more advanced.

But it is equally valid to declare that the 23rd century through DISCOVERY is a visual re-interpretation in the way a SPIDER-MAN comic looked one way when Steve Ditko drew it in the 60s but looks another way when Steve McNiven draws it in the 21st century.

From a scripting standpoint, nothing's at odds with the original STAR TREK except for aspects that should be ignored anyway like "Turnabout Intruder" saying no woman has ever captained a starship. Gaffes like "Vulcan Hello" contradicting "Tholian Web" (in which Spock said there's no record of a mutiny aboard a starship) have been patched with Burnham's record being expunged. Spock has never been forthcoming about his family, not even acknowledging his parents when they were standing right in front of him.

It kind of reminds me of SPIDER-MAN and IRON MAN comics. In SPIDER-MAN comics, flashbacks almost always reprint panels from the 1960s comics even though they're completely at odds with the 21st century designs because the 1960s issues are so iconic. With IRON MAN, however, flashbacks tend to take place in the modern world with scenes always redrawn and updated because Iron Man wasn't terribly popular when he first began. DESPERATE HOURS took the SPIDER-MAN route, but the DISCOVERY finale took the IRON MAN path.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:

From a scripting standpoint, nothing's at odds with the original STAR TREK except for aspects that should be ignored anyway like "Turnabout Intruder" saying no woman has ever captained a starship. Gaffes like "Vulcan Hello" contradicting "Tholian Web" (in which Spock said there's no record of a mutiny aboard a starship) have been patched with Burnham's record being expunged. Spock has never been forthcoming about his family, not even acknowledging his parents when they were standing right in front of him.

Well, the biggest thing to me is the Spore Drive.  There are a few ways they could've written it so that it would work, but they seem to be doubling down on it.  They're especially backed into a corner with the idea that the Spore Network essentially drives all life.  Therefore, since life exists in TNG/DS9/VOY, the Spore Network (hypothetically) must exist in some form.  And no one is using it for....reasons?

Maybe it's a little like Bruce Wayne's fusion reactor from the Dark Knight Rises....maybe Starfleet mothballs it for "reasons" in hopes that it can be used better in the future.  But....wouldn't Section 31 use it during the Dominion War?  Now that the Klingons seem to know about it (in the Discovery Era), wouldn't they want it (in the same way every nation on Earth wants the nuclear bomb even though many don't intend on ever using it)?  If Starfleet has that kind of technology and simply don't use it, aren't there hundreds of examples where such technology would've saved lives?

Not only that....even if there's a "we can't take advantage of living creatures ever again" kind of reason for shutting it down....are we to suppose that no other Alpha Quadrant species could've figured it out on their own?  The Borg don't even seem to have it, and they'd probably treat the Spore Network, in some ways, with the same reckless abandon that the Terrans used it.

The hologram technology doesn't bother me as much.  Maybe people just don't like it and that's why the holograms aren't big in the later shows.  We have video phones now, but no one likes to use them, opting for the "less advanced" audio-only phone calls.

But the Spore Drive really bothers me.  For some reason.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Well, they have nine seasons until the 60s show to explain how the spore network went away?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Ha, possibly. I just worry they've written themselves into a corner.  I'll look forward to seeing how they pull it off.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, because I haven't been watching Discovery. Now that the finale has been released, I've signed up for the week of free CBS All Access, and now I'm watching the show.

I probably won't comment on every episode, but I just watched the pilot, so I will comment on that. Once I'm done, I'll go back and read everything else here.

One episode in, I'm still not sure what I think. Visually, I'm not sure that I like the show. The lens flares and odd angles work outside the ship, but it is just distracting inside. It makes it hard to get a feel for the ship itself. In fact, there has been an overall lack of setting the atmosphere of the series so far, as we started out on an alien planet and then jumped right into tension and action.

Visually, the show hasn't felt like Star Trek yet. I don't like the Klingons at all. They can barely speak with their giant teeth (an issue for the TNG era Klingons as well, but their teeth were smaller). They are covered in so much makeup that they can't emote. And there are no visual cues to connect us to these aliens and make them register as Klingons. Even when the original Klingons were redesigned, certain elements of their style remained.

Trying to put aside the jarring visuals, I'm trying to decide if the story feels like Star Trek. I'm guessing that the show won't have many stand alone episodes, which is a shame. Star Trek was about exploring people and concepts, so we'll see if they still do that.

If the story wasn't about the Klingons, I'd probably say that it felt more like an interesting Trek story (though I'd have preferred more time spent on establishing the setting). I'm not sure that I like the main character, Michael. The way she pushes people out of the way comes across as arrogant and rude. I can't picture Riker shoving Data out of the way while rolling his eyes.
Are they trying to make her seem super badass, or is she supposed to be arrogant and too emotional? I guess time will tell.

So far... Meh. They've done nothing to make this feel like the Star Trek that I grew up with, and that means that they have to build a relationship with me as a viewer from scratch. Which means that they have to convince me to let go of what I liked about the other Treks. This wasn't necessary, so I wish them luck.

Why do they constantly feel a need to go back in the Trek timeline and mess with it, rather than move forward? Now we have yet another alternate universe to deal with.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I've seen five episodes so far...

I'm a bit torn about it, honestly. The show doesn't feel like it was made by people who love Star Trek. It feels like it was made by people who want to cash in on Star Trek, and who are so unfamiliar with the Trek fandom that they think the only way to do this is to go backwards, time and time again. It is a massive mistake. And if they took out those throwback elements, the show would be so much better. Change the Klingons to a new species. Change Sarek to a different Vulcan (I swear, it feels like Vulcan has a population of about 6, and they just keep popping up). Change Mudd to a different character. Then set the series after DS9, because it already feels post-DS9. After all that, the series would work so much better. Even the idea of a Starfleet that is torn between soldiers and scientists feels like something that would come after the Dominion war.

The setting still hasn't been fleshed out enough, which is weird for Star Trek. They could change ships in every episode and I wouldn't notice, or care if it blew up. And similarly, the characters haven't been developed very well. It's a sad day when I think that Mayweather was a more developed character than most of the new crew.

That said, I really only wish they'd ditch one of the crew members this time (the engineer. I just don't think he connects with this world, and he doesn't handle technobabble well), so that's probably an improvement.

Whereas TNG suffered from an unwillingness to have conflict among the crew, Discovery sometimes has very forced conflict.

I don't hate the show. I think it's better than Enterprise, and even Voyager in many ways, but I think that some flaws are just strangling this series right now. I wish the modern decision makers would respect the full history of Star Trek, because many of us grew up with the later shows, and that is what we are fans of.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

These new Klingons are just embarrassingly awful. The costumes are like bad alien Shakespearean crap. The makeup us ugly, bulky, and doesn't allow for performances. The dialogue sounds super processed.

I'm up to episodes where they are supposed to be deceitful and manipulative, and dangerous... And there's nothing there. Badly done CG villains would be preferable to this, because I'm getting nothing from them at all, except a general sense of annoyance. And this is not just me wishing they'd stayed true to the normal design (which they should have). This is all about the complete failure of these characters on every level. And being forced to read subtitles while watching characters who can't emote and have no expression in their voices just makes it worse.

Every single decision here was wrong.

Don't get me wrong, the show itself isn't a total failure. But some very basic things are unforgivably bad. I don't get how professionals allowed this to happen.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Finished.

Ultimately, the series seemed... careless. Like the people making it didn't care about Star Trek and its history, and they also didn't particularly care about telling the stories that they put out there.

Before the show came out, people related to the show spoke about how they drew inspiration from our world and our politics, and played up the idea of these characters representing Trump supporters, or those characters representing North Korea. And that was bullshit. The writers didn't put enough thought into the motivations or the politics within the show for me to find any sort of meaning in it. Even when they put in the "Make the empire glorious again" line in the mirror universe, I couldn't be bothered to care about yet another Trump jab by people who love them some Nazi solutes (which I imagine is just part of the union agreements in Hollywood at this point).

When they did the repeating day episode, it was halfhearted. Like they knew that the audience got which trope they were going for, so they didn't have to put much thought into it. Same with most of the other storylines. They give us a quick reference to which story they're playing with, and then fill out the hour without really exploring the stories very deeply. A Klingon grafted into a human body... okay. Sure. I'll go with that... if they actually bother to do something with that story. But they didn't. They wanted us to feel the emotional reaction, but they never invested in the story or character itself. I still don't even know what the hell they were talking about. The "Klingons" opened people up, crushed their bones, chopped up their insides, and... what the hell does this mean?! The guy passed a physical, so he obviously doesn't have an actual Klingon living inside of him.
And it doesn't matter, because that story ultimately went nowhere. He threw a couple of punches, spoke some synthetic Klingon words, and that was pretty much it. That was the grand plan.
Oh... then he ran off with the woman who brutally raped him in ways that we can't even imagine (and apparently the writers can't either). Because that's totally reasonable.

And right around the time that we discovered that he was a Klingon mole type sleeper agent type thing, we also learned that Lorka was a mole for a totally different cause. So now this is like 24, and everyone is a damn mole. And the one human male who wasn't written off of the show is the only one who I actually wanted written off of the show!

The show has a lot of interesting characters. The problem is, they have no interest in exploring them. They do nothing to balance big action stories with personal stories in the way that Trek shows normally do. So now we have a show that is set during a war, which they don't bother to explore. With technology that is ultimately a dead end, story-wise. And characters who they don't bother to explore (aside from Burnham, though I still don't get why everyone blames her for the war. She committed mutiny, but her actions didn't cause the war).

Going forward, I'd love to see more of Keyla Detmer. They could have explored her reaction to Burnham being there a bit more, as someone who was severely injured during a battle in which Burnham betrayed her people and lied to them. Yet, they didn't do that. They showed an odd moment where Detmer was happy to see (the fake) Captain Georgiou return, giving us the impression that she didn't know it was a fake. Yet there was no payoff to that beat.


Airiam is another interesting character, despite the fact that she looks a lot like Nebula, from Guardians of the Galaxy. I'd like to see more of her too.

Is it weird that a lot of the characters that I'm the most interested in are just recurring background characters?


The mirror Georgiou is pretty much just mirror Kira. I wonder if the writers genuinely think that they're exploring new ideas here, or if they just think that we won't remember the 500 hours of TV that came before this...?

The show has some potential. Most of the cast is fine (when they're not killed off or sent to live with their rapists), but I just don't feel like the people writing the show or making the design decisions actually care about it. It's like the show is being produced as a way to hold onto a licence, but nobody actually had an idea for it. But then again, some of the bad decisions seem deliberate. They didn't accidentally recreate the entire Klingon look and culture. They chose to take one of the most developed, fleshed-out species in Star Trek canon, throw them in a blender, and then dress the resulting mess in the Pennywise costume from the new It movie.

I'm trying to make sense of what was put on screen, and I just don't get what the point was. I had the song "Going Through the Motions" from the Buffy musical episode floating through my head through a lot of it.


I don't know. I'm still trying to decide whether or not I think it's a worthwhile series, but I'm pretty sure that it's not registering as "Star Trek" in my brain. It's probably not something I'd gather the family for, like when I watched TNG as a kid.


Okay, I'm going to to back and read through the rest of this thread when I get a chance. smile

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Yeah, you're hitting a lot of the nails on the head that we all hit.

- It'd be better if it took place in the future - not the Kirk era
- The Klingons should've been a new species
- It doesn't "feel" like Trek.

Did you watch the Orville?  It was more "Trek" than this was, although both took stabs at making Trek more honest and realistic (Orville was lighter and more sophomoric, this was more violent and sexual)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Yeah, The Orville was a fun show. I'm not sure how long it will remain entertaining, since it's a very particular type of fun and that could get old, but so far it's been interesting. They've actually done some thoughtful stories too, which is nice.

One more thing that I don't get about Discovery is the need to have one central character. Most Trek shows are ensembles, where different episodes could explore different characters. This was definitely Burnham's show, and the world kinda revolved around her. We're going into season 2 without a captain or doctor, and I'm not even sure that we've seen main engineering. Who is in charge there, because whats-his-name seemed pretty focused on the spore drive, even when it wasn't working.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Well, was Trek really an ensemble?  We had episodes for Troi or Kim or whatever, but the shows almost always focused on the captain and one or two crew members.

Alan Sepinwall speculated that maybe we'll get a big name (if Jason Issacs and Michelle Yeoh count as big names) captain for each season.  Not necessarily meaning that the captains will end up dead - maybe the ship changes continue - we've never followed one crewmember on multiple ships before - that could be interesting, actually.

But there's actually a decently fresh slate, and it all sorta ties into the idea that this was supposed to be an anthology show.  It'd actually be nice if the ship *wasn't* called the Discovery so it could actually just be about....discovery.  I think they're pretty committed at this point, but I'd be pretty interested in this cast with a new premise. 

I still sorta wish the Discovery had flung itself 400 years in the future.  Maybe they'd trick Starfleet and the rest of the Alpha Quadrant into thinking the spore drive was too dangerous, and that's why no one uses it.  Then they arrive safely in the future, and it's fair game again.  The crew would both be obsolete (a little like Scotty in Relics) and cutting edge at the same time.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Okay, I've read the conversation! Most of the stuff, I don't need to comment on. So, here's what I do want to respond to:

People keep trying to figure out how to reconcile Star Trek with the fact that we already have a lot of this technology. I don't think it's necessary, if they just kept moving forward. It's not the history of *our* universe, it's the history of the Star Trek universe, which is a world where Eugenics Wars and WWIII happened, and where San Francisco became a sancua--wait, that happened.

I don't think many people think that Star Trek is a historical document. While it might be fun to figure out why the "future" in the 1960's series is behind where we are today, it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the Star Trek universe was the story of that world, through different generations, always moving forward. Their past looks like our past. Their future looks like what we imagine our future will look like. By going back in time and pulling at all of those threads and altering the past of that story, they're destroying the foundation of something huge and beloved. And they do it without any care or a second thought.

Furthermore, by throwing this whole spore drive idea out there, they're essentially invalidating the central plots of both Star Trek DS9 and Star Trek Voyager. And why? Where did that story go? What ultimate purpose did it serve? It was just a Dark Matter rehash, but not handled as well.


I'm not letting Bryan Fuller off the hook so easily. He was involved with redesigning the Klingons, and no decision in that process was the right decision.


I do think that Star Trek is usually an ensemble (aside from TOS). Even if we view Picard, Janeway and Archer as the leads of their shows, there was usually a b-plot that explored the other characters. Or there would be an a-plot that involved them in trouble, but had a b-plot where the captain got to be human for a while. DS9 was definitely an ensemble. Discovery only used the supporting characters as a way to move Michael forward, and never really cared to explore them.

I did think about them possibly jumping into the future too, and either having to adapt, or find their way home. Or maybe explore the Star Trek multiverse, which would explain all of the different styles somewhat. But they didn't do that. Oh well.

It was fun seeing Clint Howard show up though. smile

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

To me, it's weird.  I feel like I would like Star Trek: Discovery and The Orville more if they were called "Discovery" and "Star Trek: Orville".  I think MacFarlane could've reigned in some of the more absurdist comedy but presented a fun sci-fi show that takes itself less seriously than shows in the past.

Meanwhile, Fuller could've had fun with his own mythology.  The Klingons and Vulcans could've appeared in another form with another name, and the show would've felt freer without stepping on the toes of previous continuity.

I like them both as is, but I feel like they're shows that are playing in the wrong sandbox.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Interesting. This video suggests the changes that we may see for season 2. But how many of these solutions will only deepen the problems?

https://youtu.be/4n5TlyBl5Cw

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

This video claims a high level of behind the scenes information that is based largely on empty supposition blanketed liberally in "allegedly"s and "we have received word that"s. God help us if the future of sci-fi news is portentous voiceovers declaring little or nothing over episode footage.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

True. But then again, most news programs today suffer from the same problems. I think this particular battle is already lost.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

http://www.superherohype.com/news/41775 … x-kurtzman

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Looks like some bottle episodes in the future!   Don’t look out the window this week; we can’t even afford the black curtain and Christmas lights!

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

If there were ever a show that was tailor made for bottle episodes, it was STAR TREK. I mean, the standing sets are built, they have to rent them regardless and the show is set on that ship. TREK has always been more about conversations than whizbang action; even the rebootquels courting Americans wanting to see things explode were largely oriented towards characters cracking wise and making jokes.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Honestly, one of my favorite episodes of Discovery season one was the Harry Mudd episode where he’s trying to steal the ship.  Unless I remember incorrectly, that was a total bottle episode.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I really don't see a scenario where the show can be salvaged, so I'm not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, it's great news that people responsible for season 1 are gone. On the other hand, the foundation is rotten. I thought Berman drove Star Trek into the ground, but the modern incarnations have been made with so little respect or love for the Star Trek universe that it's almost painful to watch.

The movies are wacky fun and are entertaining enough, but they still don't register as Star Trek in my head.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

TemporalFlux wrote:

Honestly, one of my favorite episodes of Discovery season one was the Harry Mudd episode where he’s trying to steal the ship.  Unless I remember incorrectly, that was a total bottle episode.

You remember correctly. Don't you always? Isn't that your gimmick?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

http://www.superherohype.com/news/41791 … s-with-cbs

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Patrick Stewart is getting a bit long in the tooth, but could still be great.   I would just like to see something move the overall narrative forward instead of more prequels.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I agree 150%.  Let's do what TNG did and move the story a hundred years in the future.  Technology can be better, and we can see how TNG/DS9/VOY changed the galaxy.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

By the time TNG came along, some of TOS technology already was already becoming a reality and seemed dated for a show set so far in the future. People shrugged it off because TOS was an old show, and TNG presented a more modern look at what the "future" looked like.

Now, TNG-era technology is a reality. I'm using it to type this comment right now. Yet Star Trek keeps going back to pre-TOS, trying to make that era fit into our current vision of the future, and it doesn't work. It destroys the universe created for the franchise. It makes it feel weird to watch the new shows. It doesn't play along with the rules that we all agreed to play by, with a wink and a shrug, back in the 80's.

They're creating a new franchise, calling it Star Trek, and demanding that we ignore the fact that it's not Star Trek.


So yeah, I agree. That was me saying that I agree in as few words as I can possibly muster while avoiding work.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Back in 2011, I went to a convention where most of the TNG cast was there.  During the big panel, Michael Dorn (Worf) began talking about Trek technology.  Dorn mentioned how one day, not long before that panel, he was at his home reading something on his iPad, and he had a sudden realization.  He was now holding in his hand a real version of the fake pads they used to pass around on the Enterprise.  The future happened.

Trek just used to be more thoughtful about things; it gave people something to aspire to (which directly or indirectly led to innovation in the real world).  I think that’s one of the big things missing.  It takes visionaries to pull that off, though; and I don’t think we’ve had many of those connected with Trek in a long time.  Creators have been following technology instead of blazing ahead of it.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Completely agree about the discussion about what Trek used to represent.

This is really surprising. I wonder what form this would take? Would he command a new ship and crew?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

One of the problems with Trek is that they've abandoned good science fiction in favor of bad dramatic fiction.  I would concur with TF that it's time to move forward, in terms of continuity.  I love Patrick, but idk, inevitably would they bring other TNG actors along, the ones who so embarrassingly phoned in the last couple movies?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Finally binged Discovery.  Terrific show, really impressed with how they worked the story and whatnot.  My lone complaint are the Klingons.  They look and sound horrendous.  Terrible choice to alter them so much, yet leave pretty much every other race the same.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/star-t … 1202895410

At least they're finally moving forward again. However, Discovery has been a huge disappointment and I'm not sure that these people know how to tell a thoughtful story.


I want it to be good though. However, the rest of the cast probably won't appear. How would they handle Worf after the mess they've made out of the Klingons?

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

One has to imagine this project likely takes Picard off the Enterprise, and into some other role. Most of the other TNG actors have aged much worse, so I wouldn't expect much participation from them. There's also an animated series, an Academy series, maybe something Khan-related (Nicholas Meyer) possibly in the works. I think if they kept each to limited series, that could work. That said, I'll see how bad they make Discovery by focusing on Spock and Sarek in Season 2.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Glad to see Trek lore moving forward again, but I really wonder what this Picard series could even be about.  Maybe in retirement he focuses on archeology and finds something?  Kind of like his mentor did in that episode?  Of course, if they go with the tie-in comic to the Abrams reboot, then Picard is now the earth ambassador to Vulcan (probably a lingerng aspect of the Sarek meld leading him there).

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I was always sorta interested in human culture for people out of Starfleet.  Episodes about civilians were always interesting to me.  I'd be interested in Star Trek series set entirely on Earth.  Like TF said, maybe something with archaeology?  Like a future Indiana Jones?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I picture it as the winding down of someone who led this amazing, action-packed sort of life. I could see Picard coming closer to the end of his life, with no ship and all of his friends still out there doing what they do. Maybe Q comes to visit Picard and really sees the sadness and beauty of the human experience as he watches his closest friend move toward death.

But that sounds more like a two man play than it does a Star Trek series, so it probably isn't that.


New pitch: Picard and Q start a YouTube channel where they review movies.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Ha, someone on Twitter referenced Picard sitting at home watching Space Fox News big_smile

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

https://www.mediaplaynews.com/cbs-relea … n-blu-ray/

This pisses me off.  I mean, I liked both of those shows, but they can't spend the $ to upgrade Star Trek DS9 or Voyager?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I think that DS9 and Voyager would be better long term investments for them, since they have a fan base that is still strong. But they'd probably require more work than Charmed or McGyver because of the visuals.

HD or no HD, DS9 still holds up pretty well. Their space battles were impressive. I'm watching B5 for the first time now, and it is visually very dated.

Please be informed that the political, scientific, sociological, economic and legal views expressed in Informant's posts and social media accounts do not reflect any consensus of Sliders.tv.