Star Trek changing direction

[CharlesPhipps]

I admit I don't want to explore the far future anymore than I'd want to watch a Terminator show set in the future or A Days of Future past X-men series.

I'd like them in the "present"

But different strokes.

I liked DISCO as was. I wanted to seriously see how Saru reacted to his race's changes now that they had technology, more Sarek/Michael, and perhaps recovering Lorca from the Mirror Universe. None of that will happen in the future.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I'm more just glad they have a simple answer for why these people don't exist except in the show. Discovery got away with two seasons with the universe at stake, just try not to bring any more attention to yourself with more alien races and intimate relationships.

To Boldly Go should be a great show considering TOS is remarkable more as an adventure show rather than a political one. There's a lot of room between the TNG/DS9 format and the dangerous species of the week format, especially with how they made Pike have somewhat lofty principles compared to Kirk. I believe the original casting of Jefferey Hunter had to do with him being a more expected Sci-Fi lead, but I may be mistaken.

[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.

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.

I don't see it as weird, because all those TOS connections are pretty much getting their own show now. Even before the finale to the second season I never assumed Pike and Spock would be mainstays on DISCO beyond the storyline for the second season because that point was made pretty clear with Pike's intro being temporary.

[Makeshift Python]

I admit I don't want to explore the far future anymore than I'd want to watch a Terminator show set in the future or A Days of Future past X-men series.

I'd like them in the "present"

But different strokes.

I liked DISCO as was. I wanted to seriously see how Saru reacted to his race's changes now that they had technology, more Sarek/Michael, and perhaps recovering Lorca from the Mirror Universe. None of that will happen in the future.

One aspect I do like about these CBS is show is that there no longer is a "present" era for Trek, like how in the 90s the "present" was the 24th century because we had three different shows set during the same time. I guess for Berman that just made production cheaper since they could keep the general aesthetic the same. Whereas now we'll be having shows set in different centuries (DISC in the 32ndm, PICARD in the 25th, with LOWER DECKS 20 years prior, and STRANGE NEW WORLDS in the 23rd).

[GreyICE]

I admit I don't want to explore the far future anymore than I'd want to watch a Terminator show set in the future or A Days of Future past X-men series.

I'd like them in the "present"

But different strokes.

I liked DISCO as was. I wanted to seriously see how Saru reacted to his race's changes now that they had technology, more Sarek/Michael, and perhaps recovering Lorca from the Mirror Universe. None of that will happen in the future.

Sarek. TOS used him excellently to comment on the gender roles of the 1960s. The emotionless father who didn't show affection for his son was deconstructed using an alien race and a loving human mother. It was a great commentary on family relations, and remains one of the great episodes of TOS. Yet again why DC Fontana could write rings around Gene. Then in TNG they almost one upped it, showing what happens when a capable, intelligent person's old mind betrays them.

Two of the greatest episodes of Star Trek ever produced, showing a complex, caring, proud, distant, troubled man who never expressed how much he loved his son, and died in many ways filled with regrets, despite having a son who turned out so like him - driven apart as much by their similarities as their differences. I never liked how Sarek was used in Discovery, it felt like a pale echo of superior material. It felt like writing fanfiction about two great episodes, and oh boy am I much more open to rewriting episodes when they suck ass through a Jefferies Tube.

Lorca can die in a fire with all the mirror universe crap, him and his storyline were dead to me when he turned into a Trump metaphor. And I hate Trump. Just whoever wrote that must be cousins with the ding-dong that wrote The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords because boy they love dropping anvils. And this is by the normally anvilicious standards of Dr Who/Star Trek, but no, we got extra large looney toons anvils.

I'll miss seeing how Saru's race evolves, but guess what? Not into major members of the Federation, because we don't see them in TOS/TNG/DS9/Voyager so oh well. And not into major rivals or an independent power.

Again, 29th century gives me much more NEW stuff. If I lose a few things I liked? Well, I lose a lot of flaming horseshit at the same time, and keep most of the good (aka the cast).


P.S. Star Trek suffers none of the issues that present day series that jump into the future face. That's a very unique problem that requires amazing, insanely good writers to solve, and I don't think I've ever seen it actually solved well. Even the matrix sequels managed to trip on that one.

[Link8909]

Personally, while I was ok with Star Trek Discovery being a prequel, but I do like that we are exploring the 29th century.

For me anyway I wasn't bothered by the new elements added in by Discovery and even genuinely enjoyed them, and there was enough justification for why we have never seen these before, Spock has always kept his personal family matters to himself, and the Spore Drive has so many variables to make it a viable means of propulsion that it simply couldn't be mass produced.

So while I do enjoy many of the elements of Season 2, it does feel like the main story is there to explain something that didn't need that much explanation because many fans jimmies were rustled, and as CharlesPhipps said there is a lot of missed opportunity's.

However, a series of a starship from the 23rd century stranded in the 29th century, that's to good of an idea to not do something with, and the potential stories from not just seeing what becomes of many Star Trek races, but also the new races and advances in technology.

And with how weird the Star Trek universe is, it is possible that some elements could still be explored like Mirror Lorca returning, or even future seasons might have the crew return back to the 23rd century, and of course we are getting Strange New Worlds that could pick up some of those elements like with the Klingons or Sarak.

Something I will say, while I'm not keen of Alex Kurtzman's directing of the camera or story writing, I do think it's a smart move to have multiple Star Trek series with their own unique feel to them, not only does it mean we're getting more Star Trek, but because each series will be unique mean we see different aspects of the Star Trek universe, plus each series can stand on it's own merits and bring something new, much like Deep Space Nine did with The Next Generation, also I really like the Short Treks and the story potential from this format, and as someone who also really enjoyed Harry Mudd in Discovery I hope we see him return, both "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" and "The Escape Artist" are fantastic.

[GreyICE]

I do agree it was insane to put Kurtzman as the director of Discovery. He's directed shitall. Handing a new director a huge budget is an experiment, and it's an experiment that's guaranteed to be bumpy. I'm not even going to blame Kurtzman - his freshman debut should have been something with a fifth the budget of Discovery. That way he'd get to learn things slowly, on a small set, and when he did spend money he'd know exactly what effect he'd been salivating for years to be able to do, rather than going "wee, spiny camera go spin spin!"

Breaking Bad worked its way up to its $3 million per episode budget. I don't know what Season 1 cost, but it wasn't that (I'd estimate like the entire season cost $5 million, one of their big sets was a beat up trailer in the middle of nowhere). Discovery, Kurtzman was dropped into an $8 million per episode budget. That's fucking insane. You can cash checks for random crap because "eh, we've got $8 million" while other directors are trying to figure out how $500k makes an hour of compelling TV

[Link8909]

Yeah, once Chuck brought up the cinematography of Season 2 of Star Trek Discovery, I could not unsee it, it was unnecessary and didn't add anything, also I do not like the Turbolift traveling shots, it makes the ship look empty inside, there were some good shots like when Michael and Ash were talking to each other and their locations where merging in "Point of Light", and Star Trek Picard had much better cinematography, the shot of Picard looking at Locutus with the image overlapping Picard's face in "The Impossible Box" is fantastic.

I'd also say while one of the sets was a beat up trailer in the middle of nowhere, many of the sets are super elaborate with interesting details to them, Pahvo, Kaminar and Talos IV really feel like alien worlds, the Borg Cube looks vast and intricate like a Borg Cube should be, and I hope we get to see more sets with this calibre in Strange New Worlds.

[GreyICE]

I was talking about Breaking Bad, and how it went from a skimpy budget and simple sets (a classroom, a suburban home, a trailer) into very elaborate ones as the budget grew. Discovery was stuck with a huge budget and a director who had very big numbers all of a sudden. It's a recipe for odd things happening, like excessive Klingon, wacky cameras, and unnecessary special effects.

Remember, Kurtzman was a writer, and a good one, but a writer is always thinking "oh damn, wouldn't it be cool if we could see X?" They don't have the same idea of shots and framing a director has, and until you make something without X you don't start asking questions like "do we really need X, what is it bringing to this shot?" Remember, there's a lot of great directors who go very low-tech, and it's often because they don't want all the toys getting in the way of their show/movie.

[Link8909]

That's fair, though I think one thing to take in to consideration is while Breaking Bad is set in modern day and has ready made locations, any Sci-Fi series needs to be more elaborate and outright built from scratch and even heavily reliant on special effects, and Star Trek has had a long history of its set and effects being not very convincing, so it's easy to see why more money was sunk into Discovery to try to give the series more polish, and this is not new for Star Trek, after listening to the Delta Flyers Podcast I found out that back then when Voyager was being made, the creators tried to give the series a cinematic quality that shows nowadays strive for, and I imagen it was the same for every series, but time marches on and sets and effects start to age, I remember that the effects in Season 1 of The Next Generation was cutting edge for its time.

But yeah, while I'm not keen on Alex Kurtzman's directing of the camera, I do think he has good ideas like having multiple Star Trek series, and I personally think he'll do well managing Star Trek, as long as he gives the creative freedom to the producers of each series so they can go and do their own unique thing.