Linkara wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:47 am
While I've been one of the defenders of Discovery, I will say that making Georgiou the Captain is just... dumb and nonsensical.
Classifying the Mirror Universe to the rest of Starfleet made sense with the explanation they gave. But Discovery was in the Mirror Universe. Everyone onboard Discovery knows what the Mirror Universe is. Who the hell are they trying to fool with this deception? It's just utterly pointless.
I echo the sentiment that the show feels a lot like Stargate Universe - trying to do something different, but sometimes that difference is... not needed or wanted, or at least goes too far in places. A lot of this can be traced back to Battlestar Galactica, IMHO - that super-gritty style seems to influence A LOT of sci-fi even now.
I'd argue that since Universe was so close to the end of SG1 and Atlantis had become more like SG1 as it went on, it was a better call than going new and different with discovery. It also doesn't help that it's another prequel and one that isn't even close to the aesthetics of TOS despite being set around that time.
I mean I think they could have avoided a lot of the initial backlash if they made it a sequel series, and had the "Klingons" be a new species. The only thing that would really need to be changed would be Harry Mudd into another character, and replacing Sarek with another Vulcan and both would be fine as the Rainn Wilson gives a good performace of a character that very much isn't TOS's Harry Mudd, and Micheal as Spock's adopted sister shrinks the universe too much.
It wouldn't have fixed all the structural problems, like the weak ensemble, but it would have let it start on a stronger foot and let the growing pains pass more naturally. Actually having it be on a real platform in America might have also helped as I for one am not paying money for a platform that thinks Big Bang Theory Babies is any kind of acceptable flagship show.
I think the biggest missed opportunity of STD was trying to tie Enterprise and TOS together, explain why Archer is never mentioned, and maybe show Klingon research into trying to get their forehead ridges back, which they could handwave would "take another twenty years," setting up for TMP. How did they botch that much with such a raw goldmine of potential? Again, that tells me it's not real Star Trek fans working on the franchise. I think I could have done a better job, and I am NOT a professional writer at ALL.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Robert April is never mentioned in any of the spin-offs except DISCOVERY, but I don’t need an explanation for why that’s the case, much as I don’t need an explanation for why Archer or the NX-01 and its crew is never mentioned in previous shows. There’s likely tons of galaxy changing events that likely happened in between all shows that were never mentioned by characters, at least until the writers concoct a storyline that ties in with a past event that we hadn’t heard before. Claiming that as a “botch” is just an overreaction and more evidence that you seem to just be looking for more reasons not to like the show, no matter how silly.
We never heard of Cardassians for four seasons until the “The Wounded”, and only by then do we learn they’re a major power that the Federation was in a bloody conflict with, with Picard having experienced incursions in his days on the Stargazer. Is it odd that all previous episodes never allude to such a major power? Maybe, but that’s how the Trek universe evolved over time.
Given that Archer was the original pioneer, and made a huge deal about it, with his "Super Captain Instinct" that he knew history would be on his side Berman and Braga thought about him, it's strange no one's ever tried to explain this away, with even a token effort. The problem with taking away the pioneering moments from Kirk is you need to be prepared to explain why no one ever mentions him. And then Archer is never mentioned again, past a holodeck simulation that's retconned into TNG, and boom. I don't buy. As a second prequel series, STD was a golden opportunity to try and bring up how Archer was forgotten, and they blew it.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Why does Archer’s presence take away from Kirk’s pioneering? That’s such a ridiculous notion. Does that imply that there were no pioneers among Starfleet captains for a hundred years before Kirk? That just sounds like fanwank. Just like fan made notion that Spock was the first Vulcan to serve in Starfleet, even though we never heard that stated in any episode of TOS or beyond.
To date, I have never heard anyone claim Spock was the first Vulcan to serve in Starfleet, but... are you someone who actually likes Enterprise? Archer made a huge show about being the first, about being remembered, about being the big pioneer on par with Kirk even though Kirk never sought it... and throughout the rest of the franchise, he's never mentioned again, ignoring the TNG retcon. That's a huge contradiction if they admired him as much as Kirk. Why is it people look up to Kirk with respect and awe and not Archer, given he was the first on a long-range deep-space exploration mission? People still remember Buzz Aldrin, Lance Armstrong, and the astronauts who walked on the moon, and who was first. Why did that get transferred to Kirk and not Archer past the obvious, that Enterprise was a prequel series set after all those?
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Hell, he's not mentioned in TMP. The Enterprise NCC-1701 is treated as the first. This was their chance to address this big screw-up, and they chose not to.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
Simple: ENT was produced after those shows were made. I don’t need to assume he was wiped out of the history books just because older shows never mentioned him. I assume there’s much of Starfleet history we’re completely unaware of.
No one is obligated to “explain” why Archer isn’t mentioned, just as they weren’t obligated to mention why Klingons looked different from TMP (which I still feel is unnecessary, as there’s other races that have yet to be “explained”).
I already said that shouldn't be an explanation! I want one within universe, and STD never delivered on that.
This is one area Enterprise actually addressed its own flaws and showed the Klingon foreheads changing shape within universe. I just wish that kind of care had been shown within STD, and it wasn't. And you know, maybe this could have been a chance to explain those races too? It was not.
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
DISCOVERY isn’t obligated to address stuff like that, and neither was ENT, or any of the previous shows for that matter. It’s just a fictional franchise, you’re not supposed to nitpick the canonical inconsistencies in stuff like that beyond just poking at them for fun, which DS9 did tastefully when addressing how Worf doesn’t look like a TOS Klingon. It was a fun in-joke for the fans to address the elephant in the room and then resume on without ever having to look further.
If you’re really going to put DISCOVERY over hot coals for stuff like that, you might as well hold any other upcoming series to the same standard.
As for my opinion on ENT... I thought the first two seasons felt too much like a dull reheat of VOYAGER, which was already a dull reheat of TNG. “The Expanse” and the third season was the needed shot in the arm and probably the best the series did, even if it was such a radical departure from its original premise because it did it well (and yes, I’m not bothered that the Xindi war was ever addressed in the previous shows). I like fourth season fine, not as good as the third.
