Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Just finished watching all 15 episodes. Overall I liked it, if I was able to ignore things that are so out of whack with the original series, like the tech, the fact of many kinds of aliens in Star Fleet, (TOS I think Spock was as alien as SF got).  Does anyone know what Sarek meant by going to Vulcan to pickup the Discovery's next Captain?  Oh and the Spore Travel, I guess it's gonna have to be like midi-chlorians in the Star Wars prequel trilogy and how there was no mention of them in the (later) original trilogy.

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

QuiGonJohn wrote:

Just finished watching all 15 episodes. Overall I liked it, if I was able to ignore things that are so out of whack with the original series, like the tech, the fact of many kinds of aliens in Star Fleet, (TOS I think Spock was as alien as SF got).  Does anyone know what Sarek meant by going to Vulcan to pickup the Discovery's next Captain?  Oh and the Spore Travel, I guess it's gonna have to be like midi-chlorians in the Star Wars prequel trilogy and how there was no mention of them in the (later) original trilogy.

Discovery is a massive quarry where you get to dig for inconsistencies in canon, character, storyline, and production, so if you keep digging you'll just keep finding more, most of which you don't need to dig very deep to find.

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Yeah, I mean since this is just a little before Kirk's time, you would think the Klingons would look like they did on TOS. I read where the show makers just decided to do their own thing with the Klingons.

129 (edited by paisley1 2018-03-08 22:56:31)

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

QuiGonJohn wrote:

Yeah, I mean since this is just a little before Kirk's time, you would think the Klingons would look like they did on TOS. I read where the show makers just decided to do their own thing with the Klingons.

They decided to do their own thing with ALL of Star Trek!  If this show wasn't called Star Trek, and just called Discovery, and was a serialized science fiction action drama on board a spaceship at war with an alien group that wasn't called Klingons, I'd probably passively enjoy it, but because of the inconsistencies of the canon, characters, story and production, it makes it almost impossible to fully enjoy and not complain about.  What I've thought about for a while regarding the canon, is that Section 31 has never been fully explored, so many things we think are canon may not apply to the section 31 Mavericks who don't listen to the prime directive and answer to no one, because we don't know what they know.  As an origin story of Section 31 though, do you like the story?  I can't really cue into any of the characters and the story hasn't explored the side of space that I've yet to care about.  Give me Voyager any day over this!

My only hope is that Star Trek Discovery will produce an episodic Star Trek spin off series, that begins with:

"Captains Log, star date 81153.7, we have entered the Delta Quadrant on a peacekeeping mission with the...."

I get goose bumps just thinking about it.

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

You know what there is inconstancy in the canon but I am so happy to have some sort of Star Trek on TV and to have The Orville on TV also......nice

paisley1 wrote:
QuiGonJohn wrote:

Yeah, I mean since this is just a little before Kirk's time, you would think the Klingons would look like they did on TOS. I read where the show makers just decided to do their own thing with the Klingons.

They decided to do their own thing with ALL of Star Trek!  If this show wasn't called Star Trek, and just called Discovery, and was a serialized science fiction action drama on board a spaceship at war with an alien group that wasn't called Klingons, I'd probably passively enjoy it, but because of the inconsistencies of the canon, characters, story and production, it makes it almost impossible to fully enjoy and not complain about.  What I've thought about for a while regarding the canon, is that Section 31 has never been fully explored, so many things we think are canon may not apply to the section 31 Mavericks who don't listen to the prime directive and answer to no one, because we don't know what they know.  As an origin story of Section 31 though, do you like the story?  I can't really cue into any of the characters and the story hasn't explored the side of space that I've yet to care about.  Give me Voyager any day over this!

My only hope is that Star Trek Discovery will produce an episodic Star Trek spin off series, that begins with:

"Captains Log, star date 81153.7, we have entered the Delta Quadrant on a peacekeeping mission with the...."

I get goose bumps just thinking about it.

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

That could be interesting.  I must confess I don't really remember much of Section 31.  Just that I had heard it.  And I have watched all the various Star Trek shows at least once.  But some things stick with you and others not so much.

Like I said, I mostly enjoyed Discovery, just had to keep telling myself you can't really compare specifics to the other series.

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

As for the inconsistencies in canon, they travelled to an alternate dimension, perhaps this takes place in a different version of the original ST universe....or you can just tell yourself that so you can just relax and enjoy it without nit picking it.

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

inkblot wrote:
proteinnerd wrote:

As for the inconsistencies in canon, they travelled to an alternate dimension, perhaps this takes place in a different version of the original ST universe....or you can just tell yourself that so you can just relax and enjoy it without nit picking it.


When you have to make excuses to like a show or pretend its taking place someplace else you have lost.

I love anything Trek, this was just bonus to me. Can't wait for season 2.

While I enjoy ST and have probably watched every episode at least once (except for enterprise) I'm not really a purist, so the "excuses" I'm making aren't for me, its for the trekkies that felt cheated by Discovery that it wasn't "trek" enough for them. Just a light hearted suggestion for them to just enjoy it for what it is and not take it so seriously.

I really enjoyed it, its obviously a new direction for the franchise but then again, it needed to do something to invigorate itself.

Plus how can you say pretending the show takes place someplace else means you have "lost" when a major part of the storyline was that they were someplace else... its sci fi, its supposed to have elements of that in it otherwise its just boring fiction

Bring on season 2

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

One element that's confused fans throughout season one is the timeline. We've seen major differences between what's happening in Discovery and how it'll eventually line up with the original series (which starts 10 years after the events in Discovery) – but we shouldn't worry too much as Kurtzman clearly has a plan.

"We are wildly aware of everything that appears to be a deviation from canon. We will close out each of those issues when we close out our ten-year period and hit TOS," he said.

SPOILER Show
Part of that plan was the big reveal at the end of the first season that saw the USS Discovery answer a distress call from none other than the USS Enterprise and Captain Pike.

Kurtzman was aware that this reveal would just lead to further timeline questions from the fans and promised that the show will solve them. "I think with _____________ arrival in the finale we recognise that the audience has a lot of questions about our synchronicity with the original series, which really means our synchronicity with canon," he outlined.

Star Trek: Discovery season 2: Release date, cast, timeline and everything you need to know...

https://next-episode.net/img/ne-link.png
http://next-episode.net/sig/sig.php?alias=default&kk=9c3d70de238ebfb2f7ddda60d4ab6e5e
http://pile.randimg.net/0/198/49621/next-episode.png
https://widgets.trakt.tv/users/1052a0e024e050a140d1f4b950dcc292/watched/thin@1x.jpg

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

As I follow the news on DISCO it appears they may be heading for the more traditional route of exploration

I rather hope they don't as although S1 had it's lows the highs were extremely good

Fuller was the driving force who got laid off so it's extremely possible that CBS may want the episodic ST

I have no expectations either way - though I hope they go for the arc stuff which almost worked in S1

I consider Arc more likely owing to the Ash thing being unresolved (and all the other loose ends)

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

paisley1 wrote:
QuiGonJohn wrote:

Yeah, I mean since this is just a little before Kirk's time, you would think the Klingons would look like they did on TOS. I read where the show makers just decided to do their own thing with the Klingons.

They decided to do their own thing with ALL of Star Trek!  If this show wasn't called Star Trek, and just called Discovery, and was a serialized science fiction action drama on board a spaceship at war with an alien group that wasn't called Klingons, I'd probably passively enjoy it, but because of the inconsistencies of the canon, characters, story and production, it makes it almost impossible to fully enjoy and not complain about.  What I've thought about for a while regarding the canon, is that Section 31 has never been fully explored, so many things we think are canon may not apply to the section 31 Mavericks who don't listen to the prime directive and answer to no one, because we don't know what they know.  As an origin story of Section 31 though, do you like the story?  I can't really cue into any of the characters and the story hasn't explored the side of space that I've yet to care about.  Give me Voyager any day over this!

My only hope is that Star Trek Discovery will produce an episodic Star Trek spin off series, that begins with:

"Captains Log, star date 81153.7, we have entered the Delta Quadrant on a peacekeeping mission with the...."

I get goose bumps just thinking about it.

So you would like TOS or TNG being repeatedly remade?

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Patrician, no.  But for example, the Klingons could have looked much like they did in TOS.  Since this is only 10 years before.   Aliens in Star Fleet could have been much more minimal.  During TOS I think Spock was as alien as we saw in Star Fleet.  The transporters could have worked much more like they did in TOS.  Those sorts of things.

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

If they wanted to make Discovery so different to everything that came before it, why didn't they just make a new sci-fi show?  Something else and not call it Star Trek?

I think if they are going to do Star Trek, it has to follow the same rules, things have to make sense, after all, it's set in the same universe, it's all cannon so it has to feel like Star Trek.

I'm not saying remake TOS or TNG, but then TNG was not a remake of TOS, and that really worked and felt like Star Trek.

That's the second biggest X I've ever seen.

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

And TNG came much after TOS, so a lot of the "improvements" made sense (better tech, etc.)

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

graybags wrote:

I'm not saying remake TOS or TNG, but then TNG was not a remake of TOS, and that really worked and felt like Star Trek.

Exactly, as did DS9 and Voyager, but what really worked was that they were all consistently moving forward in the timeline. That's the problem I have when it comes to the franchise most recent content. Too much backpedaling in the timeline. We already went back 100 years before TOS, and now 10. Whats next? 30, 50 years prior...? You can only play that card but so many times before things go poof... This is why you have so many fans concerned with continuity and deviation from canon. It's time to let go of the snooze button and move forward in the timeline, beyond Voyager. Although technically speaking it would be beyond Nemesis, chronologically speaking that is, and Star Trek (2009), before they traveled back in time to 2233, if you factor in the movies. I'm only concerned with moving forward beyond Voyager atm though.

I mean think about it... for starters, new galaxies can be explored, that much we know regarding the Delta Quadrant, that they barely scratched the surface of, and even then, there still exist the Voth who have an animosity towards Earth. The Hirogen, prolific hunters who see humans as beneath them. The Vidiians, a nomadic species suffering from a pandemic known as the Phage, which destroys their tissue, are notoriously known to harvest organs from corpses and living beings to stall the progression of the Phage, and experiment on other alien species in an attempt to develop a cure. The Sikarians, a technologically advanced race, having produced unusual technologies like their atmospheric sensor, and the spatial trajector, which could instantaneously transport a person up to 40,000 light years. The Kazon are still there and there is no reason to think the Borg are gone. The Unimatrix, yes, but not all of the Borg Collective everywhere. Even more scenarios come into play if you start factoring in the liberated drones, civil war, and some of the ST novels involving the Borg King.

And then we have the Gamma Quadrant, just about as unexplored as the Delta Quadrant. The Dominion weren't just the Changelings (who still exist and could become a villain again), Vorta, and Jem'Hadar. The Dominion was a collective of 100's of worlds; some which were subjugated by the Dominion but I think it's safe to assume that there were also some who were loyal followers and could seek revenge for the Founders.

Not to mention that there are also millions of worlds out there (more than we can possibly imagine) and we haven't even come close to encountering millions of species in Star Trek. So there's millions more out there who could potentially be either friend or foe. Last but not least, we have the Mirror Universe, a prime source of potential new enemies as we all know so far from watching DISCO. It's also worth pointing out that the focal point of the premise doesn't always have to be about dealing with some sort of antagonist or existential threat. Most of TNG's best episodes didn’t involve fighting other empires for control, they were about exploration and discovery of new life and new civilizations. I see absolutely no problem with a new Star Trek television show taking on the same episodic mission statement and continuing on for years after Voyager ended.

Don't get me wrong I love DISCO but a huge chunk of my adoration stems from the possibility of a Section 31 backstory (or side story depending on ones perspective) tucked away somewhere inside there. So much potential there and the clues are staring us all in the face. It would be nice to see the showrunners build off of that at some point.

graybags wrote:

If they wanted to make Discovery so different to everything that came before it, why didn't they just make a new sci-fi show? Something else and not call it Star Trek?

And this is exactly the reason why I absolutely adore The Orville. They couldn't call it Star Trek but still managed to make it feel more Star Trek, than Star Trek. smile

https://next-episode.net/img/ne-link.png
http://next-episode.net/sig/sig.php?alias=default&kk=9c3d70de238ebfb2f7ddda60d4ab6e5e
http://pile.randimg.net/0/198/49621/next-episode.png
https://widgets.trakt.tv/users/1052a0e024e050a140d1f4b950dcc292/watched/thin@1x.jpg

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

scorpius074 wrote:
graybags wrote:

I'm not saying remake TOS or TNG, but then TNG was not a remake of TOS, and that really worked and felt like Star Trek.

Exactly, as did DS9 and Voyager, but what really worked was that they were all consistently moving forward in the timeline. That's the problem I have when it comes to the franchise most recent content. Too much backpedaling in the timeline. We already went back 100 years before TOS, and now 10. Whats next? 30, 50 years prior...? You can only play that card but so many times before things go poof... This is why you have so many fans concerned with continuity and deviation from canon. It's time to let go of the snooze button and move forward in the timeline, beyond Voyager. Although technically speaking it would be beyond Nemesis, chronologically speaking that is, and Star Trek (2009), before they traveled back in time to 2233, if you factor in the movies. I'm only concerned with moving forward beyond Voyager atm though.

I mean think about it... for starters, new galaxies can be explored, that much we know regarding the Delta Quadrant, that they barely scratched the surface of, and even then, there still exist the Voth who have an animosity towards Earth. The Hirogen, prolific hunters who see humans as beneath them. The Vidiians, a nomadic species suffering from a pandemic known as the Phage, which destroys their tissue, are notoriously known to harvest organs from corpses and living beings to stall the progression of the Phage, and experiment on other alien species in an attempt to develop a cure. The Sikarians, a technologically advanced race, having produced unusual technologies like their atmospheric sensor, and the spatial trajector, which could instantaneously transport a person up to 40,000 light years. The Kazon are still there and there is no reason to think the Borg are gone. The Unimatrix, yes, but not all of the Borg Collective everywhere. Even more scenarios come into play if you start factoring in the liberated drones, civil war, and some of the ST novels involving the Borg King.

And then we have the Gamma Quadrant, just about as unexplored as the Delta Quadrant. The Dominion weren't just the Changelings (who still exist and could become a villain again), Vorta, and Jem'Hadar. The Dominion was a collective of 100's of worlds; some which were subjugated by the Dominion but I think it's safe to assume that there were also some who were loyal followers and could seek revenge for the Founders.

Not to mention that there are also millions of worlds out there (more than we can possibly imagine) and we haven't even come close to encountering millions of species in Star Trek. So there's millions more out there who could potentially be either friend or foe. Last but not least, we have the Mirror Universe, a prime source of potential new enemies as we all know so far from watching DISCO. It's also worth pointing out that the focal point of the premise doesn't always have to be about dealing with some sort of antagonist or existential threat. Most of TNG's best episodes didn’t involve fighting other empires for control, they were about exploration and discovery of new life and new civilizations. I see absolutely no problem with a new Star Trek television show taking on the same episodic mission statement and continuing on for years after Voyager ended.

Don't get me wrong I love DISCO but a huge chunk of my adoration stems from the possibility of a Section 31 backstory (or side story depending on ones perspective) tucked away somewhere inside there. So much potential there and the clues are staring us all in the face. It would be nice to see the showrunners build off of that at some point.

graybags wrote:

If they wanted to make Discovery so different to everything that came before it, why didn't they just make a new sci-fi show? Something else and not call it Star Trek?

And this is exactly the reason why I absolutely adore The Orville. They couldn't call it Star Trek but still managed to make it feel more Star Trek, than Star Trek. smile

What he said smile

That's the second biggest X I've ever seen.

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

How does Short Treks' 'Runaway' change Star Trek canon?

As one of four mini-episodes set in the Star Trek: Discovery universe, the very first of the Short Treks, "Runaway," is charming, simple and heartfelt. Spotlighting everyone's favorite up-and-coming Starfleet officer, Ensign Sylvia Tilly (Mary Wiseman), the story of the mini-episode has enough verve to act as a miniature pilot episode for anyone who might be on the fence about the newest iteration of Star Trek. As Tilly might say: "you guys, this is so f***ing cool!" But, does this mini-episode violate Trek canon? And when does it even take place?

Meh hmm

https://next-episode.net/img/ne-link.png
http://next-episode.net/sig/sig.php?alias=default&kk=9c3d70de238ebfb2f7ddda60d4ab6e5e
http://pile.randimg.net/0/198/49621/next-episode.png
https://widgets.trakt.tv/users/1052a0e024e050a140d1f4b950dcc292/watched/thin@1x.jpg

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

graybags wrote:

If they wanted to make Discovery so different to everything that came before it, why didn't they just make a new sci-fi show?  Something else and not call it Star Trek?

I think if they are going to do Star Trek, it has to follow the same rules, things have to make sense, after all, it's set in the same universe, it's all cannon so it has to feel like Star Trek.

I'm not saying remake TOS or TNG, but then TNG was not a remake of TOS, and that really worked and felt like Star Trek.

TNG started off as a remake of TOS, there are almost direct episodes lifted and reworked. Only when they moved past that and did their own thing did it really take off.

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

gazhay wrote:
graybags wrote:

If they wanted to make Discovery so different to everything that came before it, why didn't they just make a new sci-fi show?  Something else and not call it Star Trek?

I think if they are going to do Star Trek, it has to follow the same rules, things have to make sense, after all, it's set in the same universe, it's all cannon so it has to feel like Star Trek.

I'm not saying remake TOS or TNG, but then TNG was not a remake of TOS, and that really worked and felt like Star Trek.

TNG started off as a remake of TOS, there are almost direct episodes lifted and reworked. Only when they moved past that and did their own thing did it really take off.

Eh?  What?  TNG started off as a remake of TOS?  I've never heard anyone say that before, and I'm pretty sure Rodenberry would have never allowed that.  Have you got anything to back up your "almost direct episodes lifted and reworked" comment?

That's the second biggest X I've ever seen.

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

graybags wrote:
gazhay wrote:
graybags wrote:

If they wanted to make Discovery so different to everything that came before it, why didn't they just make a new sci-fi show?  Something else and not call it Star Trek?

I think if they are going to do Star Trek, it has to follow the same rules, things have to make sense, after all, it's set in the same universe, it's all cannon so it has to feel like Star Trek.

I'm not saying remake TOS or TNG, but then TNG was not a remake of TOS, and that really worked and felt like Star Trek.

TNG started off as a remake of TOS, there are almost direct episodes lifted and reworked. Only when they moved past that and did their own thing did it really take off.

Eh?  What?  TNG started off as a remake of TOS?  I've never heard anyone say that before, and I'm pretty sure Rodenberry would have never allowed that.  Have you got anything to back up your "almost direct episodes lifted and reworked" comment?

To be fair quite a few TNG S1 episodes were rehashes of or sequels to TOS episodes and none of them are good..

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

It's no well-kept secret that the first two years of TNG, riddled with problems (both onscreen and behind the scenes), were much bigger than a few rehashed episodes lifted from TOS. Star Trek: TNG was almost canceled before it even started! There were severe problems between Paramount, Roddenberry, Leonard Maizlish, the producers, and the writers. I'm not going to sit here and bash Roddenberry because, in his defense, he wasn't around to defend himself against the onslaught of accusations made against him at the time. However, it's also worth pointing out that most people (if not all), myself included, were totally oblivious to this, and it wasn't really public knowledge until it was brought to people's attention several years later in books, DVD/Blu-ray featurettes, the internet, and of course, William Shatner's documentary Chaos On The Bridge.

Some fans didn't particularly care for the first season of TNG because it felt really "campy and cheesy," but with TOS and the early seasons of TNG, there was still a sense of awe and mystery to the galaxy. The first season of TNG was devoted to recapturing the fans of TOS. To accomplish that, it loosely followed the storyline and theme of the original series; "planet stories," monster-of-the-week episodes, plot retreads, and recycled ideas. The most obvious example is The Naked Now, in which the crew encounters the same weird "make everyone kind of drunk" virus from The Naked Time TOS episode. Some less obvious examples include characters -- Riker and Troi’s relationship was based on Matt Decker and Ilia’s relationship from old Phase II scripts (and those characters were previously recycled into The Motion Picture as well). And the Phase II Vulcan character Xon served as the basis for Lieutenant Commander Data. Then there was the 1988 Writers Guild of America strike, which shortened the 2nd season to 22 episodes, and was later blamed for the lack of quality of the first few episodes. The strike also resulted in the writing team using an unused script from the Phase II project to open the season, entitled The Child. Budgetary changes also allowed for individual episode funding to be carried between episodes, but this resulted in a lack of funding towards the end of the season, which the crew attempted to solve by creating a clip show, Shades of Grey.

What really changed the landscape was Michael Piller stepping in as a writer late during season two (his episode eventually became season three's premiere episode, Evolution) and by the third episode of season three (when Michael Wagner quit) he was primarily promoted to head writer. As soon as he was in charge, Piller instituted an open-door policy for scripts, assembled a solid team, took control of the writer's room, and as a result, the show started to take off from that point on. Michael Piller and Ira Steven Behr were a huge reason why season three turned out so well.

Star Trek is an entertainment serial at its root, with much more of its overtones credited to and influenced by Wagon Train, with a dash of Horatio Hornblower and Gulliver's Travels thrown in, than anything else. In fact, Gene Roddenberry used Wagon Train to the Stars as a working title, with CBS purchasing it and running it specifically to rival the lock on Westerns that NBC had at that time. If anyone should get sole credit for TOS, it should be Gene L. Coon. Most of the ideas we take for granted such as Starfleet, the Federation, the Klingons, Spock and McCoy's love-hate relationship, and the heart of the show all came from him. TOS was a collaboration of different writers' ideas. Gene L. Coon, Dorothy Fontana, David Gerrold, Bob Justman, and Fred Freiberger, to name a few. Roddenberry came up with the idea, but others refined it and turned it into classic sci-fi TV.

Personally, when it comes to TNG, I tend to overlook the problems associated with the first two seasons because while I was watching it live during the late 80's, I wasn't aware of any of it anyway. So when I go back to rewatch TNG, I don't purposely skip the first two seasons, I watch all seven like it was meant to be. I enjoyed the first two seasons of TNG, but this is also coming from someone who watches Dr. Who so I might have a high threshold for bad episodes, lols. Besides, IMHO, the first two seasons of TNG are still better than probably 90% of the content within the genre that came out on television in the last 20 years. Perhaps it's one of the reasons why most fans consider the entire series (as a whole) to be the gemstone of the franchise, and also one of the most popular shows of all-time in general.

https://next-episode.net/img/ne-link.png
http://next-episode.net/sig/sig.php?alias=default&kk=9c3d70de238ebfb2f7ddda60d4ab6e5e
http://pile.randimg.net/0/198/49621/next-episode.png
https://widgets.trakt.tv/users/1052a0e024e050a140d1f4b950dcc292/watched/thin@1x.jpg