Star Trek changing direction

[Link8909]

I think it's the question of what exactly people want to measure success by. Is it a critical, viewership, financial, or what success. DISCO seems to be a bit like the Kelvinverse in that everyone seems to love it except a certain hardcore subset of fans. Except it hasn't hit it's Beyond yet (which was a financial bomb but liked by the hardcore fans).

But yes, I used Ron Howard and the bags of money for a reason. People should argue the artistic merits of DISCO but not try to argue the financial as it may have well saved CBS' otherwise failed platform.

Because it's both In-Demand AND being watched--which is a big boost for finances for the channel. The data shows people sign up for CBS and pay real money directly to them purely to watch Star Trek and then either let their subscriptions expire or watch the next Star Trek show.

Absolutely, I'd definitely say the recent Star Trek are financially successful, the fact that multiple series have been green lighted alone should be a good indication, but as far as the online discussions where people absolutely hate the new series, they argue that because of what they personally hated about the show is enough to justify why supposedly they are not doing financially well, ranging from the nit-picking continuity so hard, and then you get with all due respect Zargon, the absolutely stupidest diatribe bulls[RED ALERT]t types of "critical comments" like this:

CBS is not going to stop making Star Trek shows, the idea is just they want to move away from the whole Woke SJW 'white man hate filled" shows, and move back to "hey lets just make good Sci Fi with a social message or two(and specifically the more "make up your own mind" and not the "think this way comrade" type).

First: Star Trek has alway been a progressive series from the start by design, it's literally one of the reasons why the franchise is so beloved, or have people really forgot about the time Martin Luther King Jr. went up to Nichelle Nichols and told her that she was an inspiration.

Second: "Just make good Sci Fi" is never a good criticism, thats the television equivalent of back seat driving/gaming.

And Third: Star Trek is famous for it's social messages being "think this way comrade" as you describe, I'm ok with that because those social messages are positive ones that we should take to heart.

So can we please leave this kind of "critical comment" back in the 50's where it belongs.

I'm all for discussing what works and what doesn't with any Star Trek series, and while I personally do enjoy both Discovery and Picard I'm not blind to some of the choices made in those series where not good, I just want to talk about them so that they can learn, change and improve for the future, rather than as a reason for cancelling them, image if this mentality was listened to back with The Next Generation and the series was cancelled after Season 1, we would have been deprived of so many great episodes not just from The Next Generation, but Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise, it's the equivalent of this scene of The Simpsons, with Homer as the new series and Grandpa as those online criticisms:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnBr56xFCzk

[CharlesPhipps]

I admit I'm confused when Star Trek has ever let you "make up your mind." Every single moral episode is ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY CLEAR about what lesson you're supposed to take from it. As a theist, I absolutely disagree with the "Who Watches the Watchers" message but I have no doubt its lesson is "Religion is stupid and won't it be great when we outgrow it."

I mean, "Measure of a Man" isn't about how maybe Data is a person or not.

Anvilicious is the order of the day.

[Link8909]

I admit I'm confused when Star Trek has ever let you "make up your mind." Every single moral episode is ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY CLEAR about what lesson you're supposed to take from it. As a theist, I absolutely disagree with the "Who Watches the Watchers" message but I have no doubt its lesson is "Religion is stupid and won't it be great when we outgrow it."

I mean, "Measure of a Man" isn't about how maybe Data is a person or not.

Anvilicious is the order of the day.

Absolutely, Star Trek has rarely had episodes that are up to interpretation, for example both "In The Pale Moonlight", "Nothing Human" and "Damage" while having the heroes doing something morally wrong is very clear that what that they are doing IS wrong, I can only think of one episode where to message is up to interpretation, "The High Ground", and even then I personally feel that it has a clear message about the cycle of violence that should be broken.

Also I want to expand on the "Just make good Sci-Fi" quote by reposting CaptainCalvinCat's post:

German comedian Mike Krüger started his career with the song "Mein Gott, Walter" (My god, Walter) which dealt with a hapless guy named Walter, and every time, something went wrong, someone near to him said "Mein Gott, Walter". Originally, Krüger wanted to be an architect, but he was into comedy and music and so he was singing that song in a little Hamburgian pub called "Dennys Pan". A record company got curious, he sang the song for them, then they put the song on the radio and when Krüger returned from his vacation - that song "Mein Gott, Walter" was a hit.

But his second album didn't sell that well, and he and his girlfriend were invited to the record company and there, he was told "Write another hit like Mein Gott, Walter".

Why am I telling you this little story about a comedian, you probably never heard from?
As difficult, as it is to come up with another Mega hit like "Mein Gott, Walter" for Mr. Krüger, I'm sure the sentence "Just tell good stories" is something, he, me, and all other people, who are creatively inclined say "Hey, good idea, why didn't anyone tell me?!"

Sure, "tell good stories" - how? What are good stories? And if "telling good stories" should be the goal, why do so many people just not... tell good stories, but waste their time with telling mediocre or bad ones?

Might it have something to do, with the fact, that each story might resonate with people on their personal level?

[Madner Kami]

There's a flaw in so far in that arguement against "Just write a good story", that at least parts of what makes a good story is quantifiable, considerably more than with songs. Character-focusing, a clean telling of the story without much meandering, adheering to canon at least in the broad terms and avoiding to bring in elements that have no business being there (if your show is about a bunch of "highly developed" people, then you can't have them be bigots or not being called out for it and so on). So many mistakes of so many stories are visible if you just think about what happens on the screen, that they can be avoided. You can not manufacture a mega-hit, but you can protect yourself from pit-falls.

[Link8909]

There's a flaw in so far in that arguement against "Just write a good story", that at least parts of what makes a good story is quantifiable, considerably more than with songs. Character-focusing, a clean telling of the story without much meandering, adheering to canon at least in the broad terms and avoiding to bring in elements that have no business being there (if your show is about a bunch of "highly developed" people, then you can't have them be bigots or not being called out for it and so on). So many mistakes of so many stories are visible if you just think about what happens on the screen, that they can be avoided. You can not manufacture a mega-hit, but you can protect yourself from pit-falls.

That's fair, and what you say is good criticism because you've explained yourself, my problem is when someone doesn't do that, and just go on angry tirade of hyperbole, not only is this a case of someone being right but wrong at the top of their voice, but as my comment on this being the television equivalent of backseat driving/gaming, doesn't really say anything other that someone didn't like it, nothing that anyone could take away constructively and learn from or on how to actually get better, how can anyone get good if they don't know how to get good.

[CharlesPhipps]

Honestly, I AM kind of pissed off about what I've recently heard about DISCOVERY permanently moving to the 29th century. I really was enjoying the connections to the Original series and the relationships that DISCO was making and now they're moving the show to a post-apocalypse future.

Damn.

It seems it's designed to appease fans by making "canon" make sense by having DISCO classified and thus the spore drive be taken out of the equation but they were already doing that. I liked Mudd, Sarek, the possibility of Prime Lorca coming back, Spock/Burnham's relationship, Saru's people, and even Tilly and her mom.

To me, it's an enormous middle finger to the people who actually LIKED Discovery. The show didn't need a soft reboot.

[Makeshift Python]

I do think DISCO from the start really should have been set further in the future the way TNG was, with no immediate connection to the previous incarnations and setting up its own world dynamics. During the first season the TOS connections felt flimsy or wasn't really taken advantage of. The second season tried to rectify that, but it also it's clear that with Fuller and his hired writers gone that it allowed the show to take on an identity of its own. It just took two strange seasons to get there. I hope the third season will be able to enrich the characters in their new environment. We shall see.

Besides, for the 23rd century connections we at least have STRANGE NEW WORLDS to look forward to. And that will have a much stronger connection, since it's essentially the continuation of the rejected pilot with Pike and Number One being main cast members. Would love to see Boyce return.

[CharlesPhipps]

I do think DISCO from the start really should have been set further in the future the way TNG was, with no immediate connection to the previous incarnations and setting up its own world dynamics. During the first season the TOS connections felt flimsy or wasn't really taken advantage of. The second season tried to rectify that, but it also it's clear that with Fuller and his hired writers gone that it allowed the show to take on an identity of its own. It just took two strange seasons to get there. I hope the third season will be able to enrich the characters in their new environment. We shall see.

I disagree because the use of Pike and company really was fantastic. I also was a huge Mudd fan. "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" is one of my favorite episodes of Star Trek period. DISCO wasn't alwasy perfect but I liked the ultra-serious take on TOS wackiness.

It just didn't have enough of it.

Besides, for the 23rd century connections we at least have STRANGE NEW WORLDS to look forward to. And that will have a much stronger connection, since it's essentially the continuation of the rejected pilot with Pike and Number One being main cast members. Would love to see Boyce return.

That's nice but if you already liked Discovery then saying, "A completely different show will steal their stuff" is a weird defense.

[CharlesPhipps]

https://www.tvguide.com/news/features/100-best-shows-tv-right-now-2020/

Discovery and Picard are both rated in the Top 100 shows right now by TV guide.

21st and 58th or so.

[GreyICE]

I disagree because the use of Pike and company really was fantastic. I also was a huge Mudd fan. "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" is one of my favorite episodes of Star Trek period. DISCO wasn't alwasy perfect but I liked the ultra-serious take on TOS wackiness.

It just didn't have enough of it.

...

That's nice but if you already liked Discovery then saying, "A completely different show will steal their stuff" is a weird defense.

You know, I love Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad. It's the best groundhogs day loop since Groundhog's Day. It's a fantastically well written episode. It's well paced, well acted, well planned. And you know what Mudd added to it? About 15 seconds of Captain America "I got that reference".

You know how I'm a big fan of good stories over continuity? Well lets just say outside of Magic and the Talosians, continuity has been a millstone. Every Discovery story I've liked has followed a winning formula:
To explore strange new worlds
To seek out new life and new civilizations
To boldly go where no one has gone before

I never felt the Klingons were strange or new. They seemed like old life and old civilizations. With Section 31 it was worse, it was the War on Terror metaphor updated for 2019. It did beat when Enterprise tried that... barely.

Every cool thing I've enjoyed has been seeing our characters (minus broody mcbroodface) being tossed into some weird situation and trying to make heads or tales of it. Even Magic was that with a character we recognized.

And where do we go from here? Discovery secretly discovering the Romulans? Discovery secretly discovering the Cardassians? Discovery secretly finding the Founders, or the Borg (again?). Le sigh.

Lets see where the Klingons are in 500 years. Romulans+500. Cardassians+500. Don't you want to see the results of the Cardassian democracy movement? The Founders with 500 years to get used to solids? The Jem-Hadar? The Bajorans 500 years in the future?

Where were we in 1520? Being in the 29th century means we get to see both strange new worlds, and strange yet familiar worlds.

Do I want this, or some more prequel series? Hmmmmmmmmmmm