Star Trek Discovery

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by trevanian

It would still be under the auspices of Kurtzman, which taints it. Plus Meyer hasn't done anything spectacular with Trek since 1982, and hasn't done anything more than engaging with it since 1986 (not a fan of the character assasination in TREK VI at all.)

In 2009, Alex Kurtzman has a different mandate, to produce a commercially viable Star Trek Film. This was accomplished.

We know the politics from the studios about not making things "too Star Trek" here.

At CBS things may be a little different, now that they are trying to foster a new generation of Star Trek. There will at least be a little more creative freedom.

Of course, nothings happened yet.,

The only absolute here is everyone is a decade older

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by Arawn

So they've learned nothing.

Yes, you're a yuge fan of TWOK, WE KNOW.

haha yes an effective "no comment"

[L-Rouge]

For most of this year ST: Discovery has actually remained in the top 10 digital originals

Since the release of the trailer there has been a sharp spike in interest.


Expressions explained
https://support.parrotanalytics.com/...d-Expressions-

[LordCrumb]

Bloody dope smokers keeping SpongeBob at the top hahah

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

Well, regardless of what you may think about his work post TWOK, we *were* supposed to see new Trek writing from Meyer in the 2nd episode of Discovery, but his teleplay was completely rewritten by the two writer/producers who were recently fired from the show for abusive behavior to the staff.

That missing Meyer script was something I brought up quite a bit on trekmovie's site, but nobody ever shed any light on whether it was ever completed or if he was cut-off or the story actually junked in favor of what aired.

I find it slightly amazing that those two got fired for being abusive to the staff when it seems they were just as abusive to the viewing public. Squandering the running of a TREK series is a pretty big deal, even if you take into account those post-DS9 misfires from Berman (and I'm no fan of much TNG either.)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by trevanian

it seems they were just as abusive to the viewing public.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by trevanian

That missing Meyer script was something I brought up quite a bit on trekmovie's site, but nobody ever shed any light on whether it was ever completed or if he was cut-off or the story actually junked in favor of what aired.

IIRC
the paramount CBS takeover hit a snag, and I believe Nicholas Meyer's project was placed on hold until things were settled. I can't quite remember the words from Nicholas himself, but it sounds as if they were well into development on the project, before things hit a snag.


I've only just remembered this.

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by L-Rouge

IIRC
the paramount CBS takeover hit a snag, and I believe Nicholas Meyer's project was placed on hold until things were settled. I can't quite remember the words from Nicholas himself, but it sounds as if they were well into development on the project, before things hit a snag.


I've only just remembered this.

That's a separate project though -- the Khan one. We were discussing Meyer's script to the second half of the Discovery premiere, "Battle at the Binary Stars."

As trevanian says, it remains unknown exactly what happened there. Bryan Fuller himself said Meyer was writing it. Meyer was listed on IMDb with a writing credit on that episode, then upon airing, the show only had Berg & Harberts credited with the teleplay (with a story credit for Fuller).

It's possible they changed his script so much he asked for his name to be removed. We just don't know.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

That's a separate project though -- the Khan one. We were discussing Meyer's script to the second half of the Discovery premiere, "Battle at the Binary Stars."

As trevanian says, it remains unknown exactly what happened there. Bryan Fuller himself said Meyer was writing it. Meyer was listed on IMDb with a writing credit on that episode, then upon airing, the show only had Berg & Harberts credited with the teleplay (with a story credit for Fuller).

It's possible they changed his script so much he asked for his name to be removed. We just don't know.

Gotcha!!

[Geoff D]

Completed watching S1 and I liked it. Not head-over-heels or anything but it was nice to have Trek back again. Loved the look of the photography though, all moody lighting with pin-sharp detail, and the wobbly-cam didn't bother me one iota. Those bridge sets are GIGANTIC though, I'm so used to the tighter confines of previous vessels but I guess they went with a lot of width to fill the 2:1 ratio. (Yes pedants, I KNOW THAT ALL THE MOVIES WERE IN AN EVEN WIDER RATIO but they had a certain style and layout to adhere to, often building atop the bones of existing Trek sets, and even the embiggened 1701-D bridge slapped in a few extra consoles at the sides rather than truly opening up the set.)

And I understand that people haven't liked the look of the Klingons, he asked rhetorically. Me, I thought they looked great. Perhaps a bit TOO ornate but if anything it actually helped to bring some mystery back to a race that has been rinsed to death in this franchise thus far, and the decision to subtitle their stuff also added to that feeling of them being truly alien.

As with so many prequels it has to jump through certain hoops when referencing known phenomena so as not to contravene what we know from the previous shows, but they've got some balls to not only have Starfleet expunge the Mirror Universe from their records (despite letting MU Georgiou run around unchecked, that deleted scene was aces) but for wiping Burnham's mutiny as well. The Klingon War thing I can take or leave, you'd think that an actual conflict that left the Federation on the brink of annihilation would still be referenced during Kirk's era a mere ten years later, but I suppose it fits in with the established narrative of the Klingon Cold War if only by virtue of not specifically contradicting anything major, like how the Xindi War from ENT S3 was never referenced prior to that.

Feeling suitably Trekked-up I followed S1 with The Tholian Web from TOS and the Mirror, Darkly two-parter from ENT, it was verr interesting to have the question of a mutiny aboard a starship immediately answered in that very same TOS episode. Also interesting to have Spock theorising about the existence of parallel universes, he is one smart cookie! The ENT romp has always been a barrel-load of fun and it was cool to see how the Terrans seized the Defiant in the first place. (Not related to that comment, I loved the specific reference to Archer and the NX-01 in the DISCO finale)

Something that tickles me is how the TOS era sets and costumes still seem futuristic in their own way, in terms of both inside the ENT episode when compared directly and also just following on from DISCO when watching an episode of TOS as I did. Some people will never be able to get around the disconnect but as so much of the tech is there, albeit in a clunkier primary-coloured form, I can increasingly accept it as a stylistic choice rather than the tech hurtling backwards by decades. (The ENT novels tried to explain this away by saying that the tech had to be regressed in order to neutralise the Romulan remote hijacking weapon.) That said, it'll be interesting to see how the Enterprise's interiors stack up in DISCO S2....if we see them at all, that is. Was Burnham in Spock's quarters? That set looked a bit TOS movie-ish.

[jaaguir]

I loved Discovery S1. I thought it felt very Trekky in its themes (unlike some of the movies, maybe), but updated to contemporary tropes of serialized narrative. I thought it had the perfect mix of plot and characterizations for the genre. I understand the second-half of the season might have more turns and might be more entertaining (just as it should be, on the other hand, tension should always steadily ratchet up til the climax), but I cannot understand the criticisms the first episodes got. However I'm not a die-hard trekky and all those references to previous series an the like, just fly over my head.

[gettodamoofies]

Originally Posted by jaaguir

I cannot understand the criticisms the first episodes got. However I'm not a die-hard trekky and all those references to previous series an the like, just fly over my head.

I think you just answered your own question there. I liked the first season alright, but as a die hard Trekkie there were so many elements that didn't reconcile with with what was already established. In essence, it wasn't references to previous series that was the issue - it was the fact that it *didn't* reference the other series or take cues from it. It was the fact that it went out of its way to NOT be reverent to what's already been established.

That's one thing I think Enterprise did quite well. They managed to walk the tightrope of canon and the need to be creative. When it comes to Discovery - my main issue is that they seemed to have disregarded canon where they needn't have. Would it have destroyed the show if their Klingon designs (people and ships) were quite close to previously established designs? No, I don't think so. Take this example:

This Klingon vessel featured in The Original Series films (a more detailed version of a basic model from the 1960's Original Series):



This version featured in J.J. Abrams' 2009 alternate reality reboot:



And this is the version of the same class of ship from Discovery:




As you can see, there's absolutely no visual continuity whatsoever. It's supposed to be in the same universe as The Original Series and films but it retains absolutely nothing of the original designs. Even JJ's reboot is more faithful. Would it have killed them to give it a little modernising like JJ but leave the design relatively faithful? No. It just seems like they went out of their way to wipe the slate clean. Sure it makes it easy for them, but why stay in the same universe then? If they had just said "we're rebooting the Star Trek universe" it would explain everything. Would everyone be happy about that? Of course not. But there wouldn't be these sorts of issues.

For me, as a lifelong Star Trek fan this is the sort of stuff that is the essence of Star Trek. The characters, their behaviours, the look of the ships/aliens/uniforms. Within the space of the first episode you've got characters pulling weapons on their captain and assaulting them, lying to others, wanting to fire weaponry first against an alien species, ships that look nothing like what's come before and uniforms that don't look like the time period.

People might write that off as minutiae that's the domain of lifelong Star Trek fans like myself, but perhaps there's a reason we're lifelong Star Trek fans. Maybe it's because some of this stuff has stood the test of time and it shouldn't all be discarded just because someone wants to do something cool and different. Hell, they could've just set the series in the 25th century after all the series and said "this is what comes next!" and there wouldn't really be much established to go against. Just seems like they picked the hardest option for themselves...

[Josep5349]

For me, as a lifelong Star Trek fan this is the sort of stuff that is the essence of Star Trek. The characters, their behaviours, the look of the ships/aliens/uniforms. Within the space of the first episode you've got characters pulling weapons on their captain and assaulting them, lying to others, wanting to fire weaponry first against an alien species, ships that look nothing like what's come before and uniforms that don't look like the time period.

For me, as a lifelong fan the look and designs are not the essence of Staf Trek. In terms of behaviours I find Discovery far closer to the behaviours of the Original Series than the softer TNG, VOY and ENT behaviours.

[BluPat]

I'm sure it's been asked already but any peep about a Blu-ray or 4K Blu-ray release of Season 1?

[Indiana Jones]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Completed watching S1 and I liked it. Not head-over-heels or anything but it was nice to have Trek back again. Loved the look of the photography though, all moody lighting with pin-sharp detail, and the wobbly-cam didn't bother me one iota. Those bridge sets are GIGANTIC though, I'm so used to the tighter confines of previous vessels but I guess they went with a lot of width to fill the 2:1 ratio. (Yes pedants, I KNOW THAT ALL THE MOVIES WERE IN AN EVEN WIDER RATIO but they had a certain style and layout to adhere to, often building atop the bones of existing Trek sets, and even the embiggened 1701-D bridge slapped in a few extra consoles at the sides rather than truly opening up the set.)

And I understand that people haven't liked the look of the Klingons, he asked rhetorically. Me, I thought they looked great. Perhaps a bit TOO ornate but if anything it actually helped to bring some mystery back to a race that has been rinsed to death in this franchise thus far, and the decision to subtitle their stuff also added to that feeling of them being truly alien.

As with so many prequels it has to jump through certain hoops when referencing known phenomena so as not to contravene what we know from the previous shows, but they've got some balls to not only have Starfleet expunge the Mirror Universe from their records (despite letting MU Georgiou run around unchecked, that deleted scene was aces) but for wiping Burnham's mutiny as well. The Klingon War thing I can take or leave, you'd think that an actual conflict that left the Federation on the brink of annihilation would still be referenced during Kirk's era a mere ten years later, but I suppose it fits in with the established narrative of the Klingon Cold War if only by virtue of not specifically contradicting anything major, like how the Xindi War from ENT S3 was never referenced prior to that.

Feeling suitably Trekked-up I followed S1 with The Tholian Web from TOS and the Mirror, Darkly two-parter from ENT, it was verr interesting to have the question of a mutiny aboard a starship immediately answered in that very same TOS episode. Also interesting to have Spock theorising about the existence of parallel universes, he is one smart cookie! The ENT romp has always been a barrel-load of fun and it was cool to see how the Terrans seized the Defiant in the first place. (Not related to that comment, I loved the specific reference to Archer and the NX-01 in the DISCO finale)

Something that tickles me is how the TOS era sets and costumes still seem futuristic in their own way, in terms of both inside the ENT episode when compared directly and also just following on from DISCO when watching an episode of TOS as I did. Some people will never be able to get around the disconnect but as so much of the tech is there, albeit in a clunkier primary-coloured form, I can increasingly accept it as a stylistic choice rather than the tech hurtling backwards by decades. (The ENT novels tried to explain this away by saying that the tech had to be regressed in order to neutralise the Romulan remote hijacking weapon.) That said, it'll be interesting to see how the Enterprise's interiors stack up in DISCO S2....if we see them at all, that is. Was Burnham in Spock's quarters? That set looked a bit TOS movie-ish.

Yep she was in Spock's quarters on the Enterprise so the interior of that ship will have a similar style to that of Discovery.

[Jeyl]

Originally Posted by Josep5349

For me, as a lifelong fan the look and designs are not the essence of Staf Trek.

I disagree. Looks and designs can define an era. You think an episode like 'Trials and Tribbleations' would have been as effective as it was if they simply made everything look like modern TNG and not stick with the design of TOS?

It took a lot of creative imagination, talented workmanship and filmmaking talent to bring this unique science fiction series to life. If design don't matter, why bother doing anything?

Originally Posted by Josep5349

In terms of behaviours I find Discovery far closer to the behaviours of the Original Series than the softer TNG, VOY and ENT behaviours.

Deep Space Nine wasn't so soft. And TNG took some real hard turns when the Borg were introduced. And Enterprise featured a lead Captain committing actual genocide on an alien species because he believed it was the better alternative than letting them live. Kirk never did anything like that.

Also, the crew of the Discovery are insufferable. Michael comes off like she has bi-polar disorder every time she deals with a critical situation.

"We should capture the Klingon leader to end the war so millions won't die due to my mistake!"
*3 minutes later*
*Michael sets her phaser to kill and murders the Klingon leader*

"This universal translator is not a weapon. I just want to talk!"
*10 seconds later*
"Let's fight to the death!"

And probably my favorite Michael line of them all...

"It's a Vulcan saying. No one really knows where it comes from."

Never... talk.... again....

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jeyl

I disagree. Looks and designs can define an era. You think an episode like 'Trials and Tribbleations' would have been as effective as it was if they simply made everything look like modern TNG and not stick with the design of TOS?

Because T&T had to fit into existing footage Forrest Gump style.

It took a lot of creative imagination, talented workmanship and filmmaking talent to bring this unique science fiction series to life. If design don't matter, why bother doing anything?

Because while it was a product of its time, technology & production value has progressed in the past 50 years. Why make it look more primitive than what is out there today, now?

"We should capture the Klingon leader to end the war so millions won't die due to my mistake!"

*Burnham's Captain is murdered in front of her*
*Michael sets her phaser to kill and murders the Klingon leader*

"This universal translator is not a weapon. I just want to talk!"
*Challenges the Captain to delay long enough for Discovery to map the cloaking algorithm*
"Let's fight to the death!"
Nobody is killed in that fight

Fixed for your brazen removal of context.

[Jeyl]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

*Burnham's Captain is murdered in front of her*

Umm, they invaded his ship.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Nobody is killed in that fight

Except for the part where Michael's whole entire purpose for being onboard that ship was to plant sensors to be used to KILL EVERYONE onboard! Don't feign diplomacy if you have no intention of seeing it through.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Jeyl

Umm, they invaded his ship.

Specifically to capture him.

Except for the part where Michael's whole entire purpose for being onboard that ship was to plant sensors to be used to KILL EVERYONE onboard! Don't feign diplomacy if you have no intention of seeing it through.

They were delaying them from destroying the planet. It wasn't "feigning" diplomacy, and they already showed the Klingons murdering the Federation diplomatic team and taking the Admiral hostage.

[Josep5349]

Originally Posted by Jeyl

I disagree. Looks and designs can define an era. You think an episode like 'Trials and Tribbleations' would have been as effective as it was if they simply made everything look like modern TNG and not stick with the design of TOS?

It took a lot of creative imagination, talented workmanship and filmmaking talent to bring this unique science fiction series to life. If design don't matter, why bother doing anything?

I didn't say it didn't matter, I said it wasn’t the essence of Trek for me. You’ll also note I started my post with the swords “For me...” as in, Star Trek is many diffrent things to diffeent people. It’s not a matter of right or wrong, it’s a matter of what we each prioritise.

Deep Space Nine wasn't so soft.

Which is why I never mentioned it in my post.

And TNG took some real hard turns when the Borg were introduced

Not really, it was great, but always felt safe. Even the awesome BOBW cliffhanger was kinda wasted within the first 5 seconds of part 2. Which is fine in a way because that’s the tone it set for itself and for the most part played to its strengths.

And Enterprise featured a lead Captain committing actual genocide on an alien species because he believed it was the better alternative than letting them live. Kirk never did anything like that.

No, he made a decision which condemned a species to extinction. That’s not the same as commitng genocide.