Paramount+ Star Trek: Discovery - Official Thread (6 Viewers)

[BobO'Link]

In S1 what the creators and writers of Discovery needed was someone familiar with Star Trek and just *why* people like it. Someone who understands it's not all visual effects and battle of the week stuff. It's like all they ever saw was the last 3 Star Trek movies and based everything on those without bothering with "history" of the series and universe at all and ignoring any who tried to tell them that was needed. What they had was a complete disconnect from what makes Star Trek what it is and what it should be. I'd say they didn't know Trek history and also didn't care.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I have my issues with season one of Discovery, but I'm not sure it's fair to say that they didn't have anyone familiar with Star Trek working on it.

Nicholas Meyer was credited as a producer on each and every episode. Nicholas Meyer wrote Star Trek II, IV and VI, and directed II and VI. I think he knows about Star Trek.

Bryan Fuller, as much as I dislike the cult of personality stuff that surrounds him, was a freelance writer for Deep Space Nine and staff writer for Voyager. I think he knows about Star Trek.

Joe Menosky was a writer and producer on season one of Discovery. Prior to that, he wrote for TNG, DS9 and Voyager and produced as well. I think he knows about Star Trek.

Eugene Roddenberry is an executive producer on the series. Surely he knows something about Star Trek.

Like I said, I have my issues with season one of Discovery, but I don't think it was caused by the show not hiring Trek veterans.

 

[Carabimero]

I don't think the current producers should have felt obligated to continue using exclusively Okuda designs.

I'm not talking about using Okuda's designs (if anything Jefferies's designs should have been the primary source material here). I am talking about taking advantage of Mr. Okuda's vast knowledge of Star Trek and its timelines. There's no disadvantage to having the world expert on all things Trek at your disposal. I'm talking about striving toward an informed, unified tone that smacks of Trek. More than any Trek alum, having Mr. Okuda on the payroll would instantly say something about DSC's commitment to Trek integrity.

Not having him on the payroll certainly does.

 

[Jason_V]

Meyer's involvement with Trek stopped at ST VI. He won't know anything beyond what he saw on the screen for the following four series.

Fuller was bounced from Discovery. How much input he had on the series following the concept stage is really unknown.

Roddenberry had literally nothing to do with any of the six series or movies aside from being Gene's son.

I'll give you Menosky.

When I get home, I'll dig out the quote that summed up how much the producers didn't know about the franchise. It's included in the special features on the Blu-ray and caused me to turn the featurette off the minute it was uttered. I'm not talking minutae; this was big, major stuff.

 

[tempest21]

The concept of the first season was a decent concept that was needed to breath new life into televised Star Trek. But, they dropped the ball when it came to the design of the Discovery. From the get-go, when they released the first pre-visual design of the Discovery, it was met with heavy criticism from the fans (and rightly so). Then, when everyone saw what the Klingons looked like, they dropped the ball again.

CBS failed to learn the lesson that Sony Pictures was forced to learn: that even if you have the mind-set not to listen to the feedback from the fans, it's those same fans of your franchise that are going to determine just how your franchise is going to be received by the fans. This is a lesson that Sony Pictures learned after producing the Ghostbusters 2016 reboot and after the lesson learned by Fox Studios from the Fantastic Four reboot.

The other problem that CBS had with this new Star Trek series was that some idiot at CBS thought it was a good idea to lock the series behind a paywall after the pilot episode. While I have no doubt that a lot of new subscribers signed up for CBS All Access, I doubt that the bulk of Star Trek fans opted for that decision. For myself, I didn't purchase a subscription, I was able to watch the series through "alternate" means. But, there were serious missteps in the production and release of this series that CBS decided wasn't of interest to them.

Personally, I liked it better when Paramount was producing these Star Trek shows, which is why I prefer Star Trek, The Next generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise over that of Discovery. Only time will tell if CBS had the forethought to have the show's production redesign the Klingons, which should be the first step in the right direction. The other thing they need to do is destroy the Discovery at the end of the second season and re-design the ship with the classic Federation design.

The season premiere was a good episode in the right direction but it has a very long way to go. That is, if they expect to win back those fans they lost over what was seen in the first season. There are just things you don't mess with, as far as the design goes for classic franchise shows and/or properties. The season premiere also shows just how desperate CBS is to bring back its core audience back to this show. I'm referring to Mr. Spock, Christopher Pike and the U.S.S. Enterprise. Everyone is free to dispute this but I think this was done solely to bring back fans of the original shows and to boost their subscribers. I may sound skeptical about this, but, I think that most fans are going to take a wait and see approach to see how CBS is going to treat the new direction.

 

[John*Wells]

The other problem that CBS had with this new Star Trek series was that some idiot at CBS thought it was a good idea to lock the series behind a paywall after the pilot episode. While I have no doubt that a lot of new subscribers signed up for CBS All Access, I doubt that the bulk of Star Trek fans opted for that decision. For myself, I didn't purchase a subscription, I was able to watch the series through "alternate" means. But, there were serious missteps in the production and release of this series that CBS decided wasn't of interest to them.

Personally, I liked it better when Paramount was producing these Star Trek shows, which is why I prefer Star Trek, The Next generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise over that of Discovery. Only time will tell if CBS had the forethought to have the show's production redesign the Klingons, which should be the first step in the right direction. The other thing they need to do is destroy the Discovery at the end of the second season and re-design the ship with the classic Federation design.

I agree on these points .. When I heard Star Trek was coming back to TV, I thought Ok Cool. But, I was turned off by the Idea that I had to Pay 9.99 Per month or a Yearly fee to watch it. I subscribed to All Access for a few months for reasons having nothing to so with Star Trek. Saw what I wanted to see and Canceled my Subscription. To this point, I will say at least CBS wasn't so short sighted to say it would not be released on DVD/ Blu Ray as You tube has done with Cobra Kai.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

To this point, I will say at least CBS wasn't so short sighted to say it would not be released on DVD/ Blu Ray as You tube has done with Cobra Kai.

I'm not sure that I agree that it's short-sighted. Just depends on what the goal is for the rightsholder.

In this case, YouTube wants to use the program to drive subscriptions. If the YouTube producers announced that their new exclusive show was coming to DVD shortly, viewers would have little incentive to sign up for that service to watch it. They could just wait until it became available on disc, or on another platform. By announcing that it will remain exclusive to their platform, it allows them to more accurately gauge exactly what kind of audience is there and interested in the content, and allows them to monetize that interest immediately.

I'm actually surprised that any streaming service would release an exclusive bit of programming onto a physical media format. It makes sense to me why any linear distribution outlet, like broadcast TV, would allow a disc to be released. Once CBS, for instance, shows a new episode of Hawaii 5-0, that's it for them. Maybe they'll repeat it once, but generally, it's one and done. There's no reason to hold back the physical product, because releasing a disc of Hawaii 5-0 episodes a year after they've aired isn't taking eyeballs away from CBS. But streaming services work differently; content doesn't air once in a linear fashion and disappear, but rather, stays there forever. So, when CBS puts Discovery onto a disc, it takes away the incentive for me to remain subscribed to CBS All Access once the season has wrapped. CBS obviously has access to a lot of marketing data that I don't, so I'm sure what they're doing makes sense for their business, but it seems counter-intuitive to me.

For myself, I didn't purchase a subscription, I was able to watch the series through "alternate" means.

I never understand this type of comment. Generally, when someone says something like this, it usually means, "As a customer, I decided I shouldn't have to pay for something, but I've also decided that I'm entitled to it anyway, therefore, I will steal it." We wouldn't brag about shoplifting, but for some reason, it seems almost a badge of pride for people to describe how they've stolen intellectual property. We all have the right to pick and choose what we watch, of course, but we don't have the right to steal something if we don't like the price.

That is a general reaction to piracy in general and not meant to suggest that your definition of "alternate" is referring to anything other than viewing CBS All Access content on a legitimate subscription following all properly established terms of services as established by the rights holder.

 

[John*Wells]

Is Discovery on a 5 to 7 year Story plan the way Voyager and DS 9 were ?? I seem to remember somewhere in the Extras in DS9 or Voyager Season sets, I heard reference made to the 5 to 7 Season timeframe ..

 

[tempest21]

From the way I understand it, back when the majority of television shows ran for 22 episodes or more, that five seasons worth of episodes were what was needed to syndicate a television series. Most television shows would have a series run of around seven seasons worth of episodes. I imagine it's much different for streaming shows or cable run shows, which tend to run in length from 10-13 episodes per season.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Is Discovery on a 5 to 7 year Story plan the way Voyager and DS 9 were ?? I seem to remember somewhere in the Extras in DS9 or Voyager Season sets, I heard reference made to the 5 to 7 Season timeframe ..

Actually, it's almost the opposite with Discovery.

When Bryan Fuller was originally hired to create a Star Trek show for CBS, his initial conception was that it would be an anthology series (like Fargo or American Horror Story) where each season told a unique story that wasn't related to other seasons. Fuller's conception was that the series would begin with Discovery and would spend that first season exploring a part of the Trek universe that hadn't been covered in-depth before, but that other seasons could cover different time periods.

Essentially, all of the shows that we're now hearing about, like the Picard show, could have been a season of Fuller's anthology show.

But at some point (either before or after CBS fired Fuller), CBS decided that Discovery should be a recurring show.

If you look at some of the things in Discovery, some of the season one choices make more sense from a technical storytelling perspective if you imagine that it had been intended to be a single self-contained season. Burnham's character arc, from disgraced traitor to savior of the Federation, seems complete in and of itself - I wonder if the original conception would have had her being pardoned for her crimes but then leaving Starfleet (or perhaps dying in service of stopping the war). The idea that Discovery's captain could be both an imposter and traitor seems like an idea best examined in a single season of storytelling. I wonder if some of the awkward writing and what feels like a rushed ending to me could have been the result of the writers desperately trying to re-open an ending which had originally been conceived as something more closed.

 

[Jason_V]

From Aaron Herberts in "The Voyages of Season 1" on the last disc of the set:

"Setting this particular season against the backdrop of war was something that, you know, tonally, was very interesting.

There had never been a season devoted to war.

I mean, there has always been conflicts and battles in Star Trek. But this was...this was our spine."

Okay, never a season devoted to war. This comment from one of the EP's and showrunners. This tells me everything I need to know about what the people leading the show know about Trek.

This isn't a little, insignificant "slip" of the tongue. At least three Trek seasons were devoted to war...and I'm sure we can all recite them. DS9 Season 6 and 7 and then Enterprise Season 3. (The latter can be argued as "not a war," but, come on, it was.)

Why am I even mentioning this? Because these conversations are filled with "forget the franchise/continuity/history" arguments. That Discovery is showing us what TOS would be like if they had the budget. That these creative folks know what they're doing and "some fans" are being way too nitpicky.

Sorry, but if you don't even know the general outline of any of the series that came before yours..and you're playing in the same franchise...then you have no right play in that universe.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Harberts is no longer employed by CBS All Access, having been fired from Star Trek Discovery for cause. You won't have to worry about him for the second half of this season or any future seasons.

That said, I know that Enterprise and DS9 had seasons where war was a big part of the storytelling, but the type of war shown in Discovery felt different to me from what we had seen before. I think that's probably what they were referring to.

I think it's also important that the showrunners have a certain amount of freedom in telling their stories; that's why I wanted the show to take place after all other shows, so that they could have the freedom they wanted while at the same time relieving me of any ability to nitpick, as much as I might try not to.

I feel much better knowing that Kurtzman is now officially at the helm. It's not that I think he's the greatest storyteller of all time, but I've been a fan of many of his previous projects, and he strikes me as a guy who understands the mechanics of storytelling and television. At the very least, he's a professional, whereas Harberts by his conduct has demonstrated that he is not. The Discovery writers room should be running much smoother now that the writers no longer live in fear of being verbally abused or physically struck by their boss.

 

[Carabimero]

From Aaron Herberts in "The Voyages of Season 1" on the last disc of the set:

"Setting this particular season against the backdrop of war was something that, you know, tonally, was very interesting.

There had never been a season devoted to war.

I mean, there has always been conflicts and battles in Star Trek. But this was...this was our spine."

Okay, never a season devoted to war. This comment from one of the EP's and showrunners. This tells me everything I need to know about what the people leading the show know about Trek.

This isn't a little, insignificant "slip" of the tongue. At least three Trek seasons were devoted to war...and I'm sure we can all recite them. DS9 Season 6 and 7 and then Enterprise Season 3. (The latter can be argued as "not a war," but, come on, it was.)

Why am I even mentioning this? Because these conversations are filled with "forget the franchise/continuity/history" arguments. That Discovery is showing us what TOS would be like if they had the budget. That these creative folks know what they're doing and "some fans" are being way too nitpicky.

Sorry, but if you don't even know the general outline of any of the series that came before yours..and you're playing in the same franchise...then you have no right play in that universe.

In almost every phase, there has never been a team so under qualified to bring us Star Trek ten years before Kirk in the Prime Universe. I do, however, think this would have been a decent (if not a very good team) to strike out in new directions post Nemesis. But why be rational about such consequential choices....

Ugh.

DSC S1 looks beautiful. I will say that.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Fortunately, by and large, the people responsible for the questionable choices for season one have all been fired by CBS.

How often does that actually happen?

 

[Carabimero]

Fortunately, by and large, the people responsible for the questionable choices for season one have all been fired by CBS.

How often does that actually happen?

I think it's amazing DSC S1 was as comprehensible as it was given all the "questionable choices." It's technically a beautiful season. It sounds great. The set pieces have a certain power to them. The score was first rate. But for me, the fractured, often irrational approach to storytelling was too much to overcome.

 

[Jason_V]

Harberts is no longer employed by CBS All Access, having been fired from Star Trek Discovery for cause. You won't have to worry about him for the second half of this season or any future seasons.

Praise be for small miracles, if even half of what he was accused of is true.

That said, I know that Enterprise and DS9 had seasons where war was a big part of the storytelling, but the type of war shown in Discovery felt different to me from what we had seen before. I think that's probably what they were referring to.

I can only go by what was said, not the meaning behind it. There are three seasons of Trek where the focus was on a war and all the stories that go with them. They weren't a part of the storytelling; they were the storytelling. And they were about how our characters coped with war. Disco S1 didn't have that.

I think it's also important that the showrunners have a certain amount of freedom in telling their stories; that's why I wanted the show to take place after all other shows, so that they could have the freedom they wanted while at the same time relieving me of any ability to nitpick, as much as I might try not to.

We agree. Set this show post-Nemesis and most of the continuity issues are gone.

In almost every phase, there has never been a team so under qualified to bring us Star Trek ten years before Kirk in the Prime Universe. I do, however, think this would have been a decent (if not a very good team) to strike out in new directions post Nemesis. But why be rational about such consequential choices....

Ugh.

DSC S1 looks beautiful. I will say that.

I don't think there's every been such an unqualified team to bring any Trek to the screen. At least JJ was a fan and he was able to get Nimoy to participate, thereby giving his blessing. Everyone else ever involved with creating Trek was either hired by Gene or brought in by people who worked with Gene. Not saying that was always a great move, but the lineage was there.

I want Trek in any form to succeed. I have every series on the shelf (some on their third or fourth version). I have all the soundtracks, many ties over (including Discovery). Ditto on all the movies. I am a fan. I like to think I know Trek at least as well as, in not more than, how much I know about my job. I know I got into this thread last week to say how happy I was with Season 2. It's not perfect-and we all know that-but I felt Trek again. But I refuse to ever give something a pass because I'm a fan. Won't do it. The problems with Discovery were easily solved prior to production. Like Josh said, change the setting to post-Nemesis, make a story line tweak here or there and you're done. It is literally that easy. There is nothing that happened in S1 that could not happen post-Nemesis.

Upward and onward to episode 2 in a few days. I'll be working late and, after taking care of the pups and finding food, I'll be planted in front of the TV, lights off, phone on silent right where I'm supposed to be.

 

[AndyMcKinney]

At least three Trek seasons were devoted to war...and I'm sure we can all recite them. DS9 Season 6 and 7 and then Enterprise Season 3. (The latter can be argued as "not a war," but, come on, it was.)

Well, I couldn't have recited them, and I consider myself a fan. I just didn't happen to be interested in following DS9 or Enterprise, but just because I haven't watched every single Star Trek series (or every episode thereof), I don't consider myself any less of a Star Trek fan than anyone else.

Whether a person likes Discovery: Season One or not, some of the criticisms in this thread seem to be way beyond nitpicky. I almost get the feeling I'm in a Doctor Who forum.

 

[BobO'Link]

The thing is the more hard core fans noticed the issues. I'm not as "hard core" as many but I knew the seasons of the series that were about war. Wars just as serious as the one in S1 of Discovery. To play in this sandbox you must know as much about the universe as do those hard core fans. To not know is to court disaster. To ignore the history of the Trek universe is to court disaster. The creators and writers of Discovery are guilty of both and it shows in the final product. Yes, it looks very good. It just doesn't ring true to people who know better. As I said before - it's as if they were aiming this series at the people brought into the fold by the 2009 Trek series of movies but refused to admit the series was in that universe. They kept insisting it was "Prime" universe and then proceeded to ignore or throw out most of that history.

 

[Nelson Au]

On another question, I wonder if there will be an After Trek this season? I didn’t see it after the premiere or heard anything about it not returning. Maybe it just wasn’t in the plan this year.

 

[Nelson Au]

Edit: never mind, I see that After Trek was cancelled.