Paramount+ Star Trek: Discovery - Official Thread (3 Viewers)

[Blimpoy06]

To ignore the history of the Trek universe is to court disaster.

 

[Josh Dial]

The thing is the more hard core fans noticed the issues...It just doesn't ring true to people who know better.

[edits mine]

I see similar posts here and elsewhere. Fans insisting or implying they are the "true" or "real" fans (here, it's "hard core" and "people who know better"). It's not very nice.

I'm a real Star Trek fan; I'm a huge Star Trek fan. I've watched every series live except for TOS and the animated series (you'll forgive me for being born at the end of gen x). I've seen every series multiple times (many episodes 30+ times). I've seen every movie first run in theatres except TMP, Wrath, and The Search for Spock. The movies were on repeat on VHS in my house every weekend, and I spent one of my first paycheques on the laserdiscs. I read through Sternbach and Okuda's technical manual so many times the cover literally fell off. I built model ships and collected the trading cards. I even played the absolutely terrible VHS game "A Klingon Challenge".

I also like Discovery. I really like Discovery. I think it's great Star Trek. I'm not missing some sort of key piece of Star Trek knowledge that is preventing me from thinking clearly. I'm allowed to like Discovery: it doesn't make me any less of a "real" fan.

Edit: Obviously this thread is for genuine discussion of the series, and I don't mean to criticize anyone who is engaging in good faith debate on the show's merits and flaws. Alan and Josh S, in particular, have noted a number of issues and have managed to do so in a respectful and thought provoking manner. I just don't think the cries of "it's not real Star Trek!" and the subtle comments on who is and who isn't a real fan have no place here.

 

[TJPC]

I think too many people on this thread are really visitors from the future where they are full time professors in the History department at Star Fleet Academy!

 

[tempest21]

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.

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?

That is probably the best news that any of us could appreciate. Hopefully the departure of everyone involved with the first season will change how the series is produced moving forward. Like the slow redesign of the Discovery but the most important change that producers should begin with is to give us the classic look of the Klingons. But, judging from what we saw in the season premiere, the series is already off to a good step, moving forward, that is.

 

[Josh Dial]

the classic look of the Klingons.

For what it's worth, the Klingons' look was dealt with off-screen by Mary Chieffo (who plays L'Rell).

Remember back to the TNG episode "Rightful Heir" (the one where Kahless returns--which, as an aside, is a pretty crazy development that goes virtually unexplored thereafter). Kahless tells the story of how he cut off a lock of his hair and plunged it into a river of molten rock flowing from a volcano. The hair began to burn, and so Kahless plunged the hair into a lake and twisted the hair into the first bat'leth. Mary Chieffo explained that at this point in the Klingons' history, when they are at war they each shave their heads in honour of Kahless using his hair to form the first bat'leth (the "sword of honour"). Only when the war is over are they permitted to grow out their hair.

This rationale was also based partly on Chieffo's interpretation of General Chang from Star Trek VI. She saw that character as a traditionalist--almost devout in his following of Kahless--and that is why Chang is bald. She also went on to say that during the Dominion War, the Klingons were not bald partly because, in her interpretation, lost culture and the homogenization (by the Federation) that T'Kuvma warned (i.e. they didn't "remain Klingon").

Now the always negative complainers will continue to say the Klingons were "wrong" and may even dismiss Mary Chieffo's comments. However, for me, her comments demonstrate the exact sort of respect and understanding we should get from Star Trek actors. Here we have an actor who did research and made choices about her character and her character's background. Mary Chieffo, like so many of the Discovery actors, has bought into her role and is absolutely not phoning it in.

 

[Sam Favate]

Mary Chieffo explained that at this point in the Klingons' history, when they are at war they each shave their heads in honour of Kahless using his hair to form the first bat'leth (the "sword of honour"). Only when the war is over are they permitted to grow out their hair.

That's a fine rationale for them being bald, but not for why their heads are shaped like swollen footballs, why their skin is so many different colors and textures and why they have four nostrils.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The point about head shaving makes sense in this context and I can accept it, but...

Are we to believe that her character was held prisoner onboard Discovery for months and that her hair didn't start to grow at all? Or that the good people of the Discovery honored her (offscreen) request to be presented with a razor? It makes sense to me that her character wouldn't have hair at the beginning of her story arc, as per this explanation, but it seems a little shortsighted that the hair growth wasn't then portrayed as something noticed during her imprisonment.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

A. E. van Vogt wrote two series of space exploration stories which are considered 'Star Trek' before STAR TREK. In the MIXED MEN stories, written during WWII, the starship was so huge that matter transmission was used to move about its interior.

And other authors (Ian Banks) have vessels the size of planetoids.

None of which changes the fact that in Trek, a series where we have established blueprints of the vessels of that period in time (NCC-1701 et. al.), we know they dont have wasted space in that proportion.

Nice avatar. It has been the lock screen on my PC for over a year now.

 

[Carabimero]

For me there are too many inconsistencies that have to be explained away, beyond what's seen on the screen. It's one thing when visual entertainment (or any kind of entertainment or art for that matter) intimates something bigger and grander beyond its presentation. I think that's what every artist strives for. But when actors and writers and executives have to continually explain the disjunctive nature of their art, and when those explanations themselves generate more questions about inconsistencies, that says a lot to me about what's lacking in the original expression: authority of subject, logic and internal consistency on the face of things. In my opinion, season one of DSC largely fails at accomplishing this, as manifested by too many attempts through external explanations to explain what should have been more conjunctive on the screen to begin with.

That's why I never bought the Blu-rays. I saw DSC S1 twice, once when it first aired, week by week, then again when I binged the entire run. I will probably never watch season one again simply because when I combine its propensity for error with its fractured structure, irrationality and robotic slickness, its lack of authenticity across the board makes it hard for me to respect.

 

[BobO'Link]

Edit: Obviously this thread is for genuine discussion of the series, and I don't mean to criticize anyone who is engaging in good faith debate on the show's merits and flaws. Alan and Josh S, in particular, have noted a number of issues and have managed to do so in a respectful and thought provoking manner. I just don't think the cries of "it's not real Star Trek!" and the subtle comments on who is and who isn't a real fan have no place here.

Since you took my comments out of context and edited them to apparently serve your own purpose I feel I need to detail what I said more clearly so you understand.

First of all - I've *never* said "It's not real Star Trek!" I *have* said essentially "It's not pre-TOS Star Trek" and I stick to that. It's not. I'm also not making any "subtle comments on who is and who isn't a real fan." I'm calling out the S1 show runners for not appearing to know anything about Trek. So maybe I'm saying *they* are not "real fans." Could be. It wasn't intended that way but if the shoe fits...

Now... the dissection.

The thing is the more hard core fans noticed the issues.

This is partially in response to Andy commenting he'd not known of the 3 seasons of war in previous series but not intended as a slight of any kind. If Andy thinks so then I'll gladly apologize as that was not my intent. It simply states there is a group of fans who do notice those things and sets up what follows.

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.

I continue by saying that I'm *not* as hard core as many. I'll agree that it was stated poorly but that's the way it is. I'm a huge fan and I want things done right. In my book that puts me somewhat in hard core territory. This references one of Jason's posts in which he quoted one of the show runners as saying:

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."

A *show runner* made a claim that "There had never been a season devoted to war." I've not watched DS9 repeatedly like others but know enough to know there were seasons where war was the main topic. I've also watched Enterprise with its full season devoted to a war. Yet here's a show runner, who should *know* Star Trek, saying essentially that "It's not been done before." That's the basis for:

To play in this sandbox you must know as much about the universe as do those hard core fans.

To reiterate - that's *not* me. Notice use of "those" instead of "us." I'm *not* hard core but seem to know more about the pre-TOS universe than the people CBS hired for the job.

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.

I'd think that part is pretty plain. I call out the original show runners for not knowing or just ignoring Trek history. And I'm not a true hard core fan - just a guy who loves Star Trek.

Yes, it looks very good.

And it does look good. It's slick, it's just not true to the TOS feel. Updating the look is OK. They rewrote the design book and introduce or provide tech that's more advanced than what was used in TOS. That's not OK.

It just doesn't ring true to people who know better.

And those changes do *not* "ring true" to any who's followed the series for any length of time. Frankly, I'd think just about anyone who's watched any Trek series falls into that group. It's not exclusive. It's anyone who's called out the show runners for the missteps in the series.

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.

I, and several others, have said this repeatedly. It's pretty clear. S1 of Discovery does *not* fit in the time frame the show runners would have us believe.

Is it "great" Star Trek? IMHO, not by a long shot. Is it "good" Star Trek. Yes, it's good and could have been much better. Had the show runners put the show in the proper time/universe I'd consider it to be much better than what I do currently.

 

[Mark McSherry]

Nice avatar. It has been the lock screen on my PC for over a year now.

I agree with your point on wasted space. Would it have been more creative to use transporter tech to move longer distances within the ship? I don't think so considering it's pre-ST:TOS. Matter transmission was still buggy tech during the original series. But maybe a yes, a hundred years later in the time-line,

Thanks! Stanley Meltzoff painted some awesome covers for Robert A. Heinlein paperbacks in the 1950's. As you well know, this is from RAH's THE GREEN HILLS OF EARTH. And I even bought this.

 

[benbess]

.....That's why I never bought the Blu-rays.... I will probably never watch season one again simply because when I combine its propensity for error with its fractured structure, irrationality and robotic slickness, it's hard for me to respect it.

+1

Also for my family the first season of Discovery was what my 22-year old son and fellow Trek fan calls "Trauma TV." There was drama (and once-in-a-while trauma) in the various Treks from 1964-2002, but the focus in Discovery on awful stuff that just went on and on was a bit much for the people in my family. At times it seemed almost like it was trying to be a sci fi Game of Thrones or something. And I'm a fan of Game of Thrones, but Star Trek should not be GoT in space imho.

That having been said, the somewhat positive reviews here of the first episode of the second season means that my family will probably try again at some point.

 

[Josh Dial]

First of all - I've *never* said "It's not real Star Trek!" I *have* said essentially "It's not pre-TOS Star Trek" and I stick to that. It's not.

Yes, you did. Here we go:

I hope it's better. I don't like the new Trek films, at least not as Trek stories. They're "OK" as SF/Action films but Trek they're not.

To be fair, that was about the Kelvin universe. My general point still stands.

Here's another about Discovery:

From the article:
I just finished watching episode 5 of The Orville. It was a better Star Trek episode than any I've yet seen on Discovery. If you've been reading my comments about The Orville in its thread you know the significance of that statement.

While I agree you didn't specifically say "it's not Star Trek" that is certainly the implication. The same implication is in this quote:

As far as current Trek series go, The Orville is more Star Trek than Discovery. All those guys need to do is lose the dick jokes and they'll have a series that's more true to Prime timeline Trek than Discovery pretends to be.

And another were Discovery doesn't "feel" like Star Trek. Again, the implication is that it's not Star Trek, but something else:

It still doesn't feel like Star Trek to me. At all. It still feels like a rather generic SF program with Trek themes/aliens/tech grafted on.

Here's one where you literally write that they could change the name and you would like it as good or passable science fiction, but it's not passable Star Trek:

I'm liking the series less *as Star Trek* with each episode. If they want to change the name and call it something else I'd likely call it "good" or at least "passable" SF. It's *not* passable Star Trek.

And here's a quote where you say the score (of all things) is not Star Trek:

I still don't like the score. It's not Star Trek, doesn't invoke a Star Trek feeling, is overly ponderous, and seems to take itself far too seriously.

One more where you write that it doesn't feel like Star Trek (though, fairly, you say you put yourself in the mindset of future Trek and that helps):

It's serviceable SF but still doesn't feel like Star Trek. When watching this episode I put myself in the mindset that it's actually future Trek and not a prequel show. That helped quite a bit. It didn't make for a better episode, just a more watchable one.

Here you write that the producer has no idea what makes truly good Star Trek (you do, apparently).

They failed. Not only do I feel it wasn't the best episode of the season it's nowhere in the league of quality, plotting, or goodness, that is "Balance of Terror." The producer proves again that he has no idea what makes truly good Star Trek.

And finally, this is a quote where you literally write that it's not Star Trek (paragraph presented in its entirety). Yes, you do temper your comment with "[o]r at least pre-TOS Trek" but frankly I think your position is otherwise clear.

I truly want to like this series. After all, it is supposed to be Star Trek, my absolute favorite TV series of all time. But, for me, as it's being presented, it is not. It contains the trappings of a Trek series and shares terminology with past entries, otherwise, it's not Trek. Or at least pre-TOS Trek as the showrunners want you to believe. For the creators and writers to connect-the-dots and make it actually fit the advertised time frame will be a herculean task as the series now stands. The commonality that's needed to pull that off just isn't in place and will require massive retrofitting to accomplish. There have been far too many continuity issues presented to make syncing logical.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

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.

OK, then it was caused by not having anyone say, "This is wrong, you shouldn't do it" or they didn't care. I think the obvious point that people are bringing up, is that they didn't have someone in a role to tell them what they shouldn't do that they would listen to. This is beyond obvious, and what people mean.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

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.

This.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

I agree with your point on wasted space. Would it have been more creative to use transporter tech to move longer distances within the ship? I don't think so considering it's pre-ST:TOS. Matter transmission was still buggy tech during the original series. But maybe a yes, a hundred years later in the time-line,

Thanks! Stanley Meltzoff painted some awesome covers for Robert A. Heinlein paperbacks in the 1950's. As you well know, this is from RAH's THE GREEN HILLS OF EARTH. And I even bought this.

There aren't "long distances to move within the ship".
The turbolift is an elevator that can move horizontally as well as vertically.

NCC-1701 is about 947 feet long. Discovery is close enough in dimension that it doesn't matter.

The below gives you the scale.
It also gives you an idea of the number of decks in the ship.
Unless I forget, those vertical shafts you see here are the actual turbolift shafts.

So this is the scale of NCC-1701, this is the scale of Discovery.

This is what makes the turbolift scene in Discovery so repulsive.
Its wrong in the sense that starting a land war in Asia is not a good idea.
Its wrong in the sense that arguing that "At least Hitler revived the German economy" is not a good idea.

There is right, there is wrong, there is a grey area in between.
Then there is not being in the same plane of existence as the concept of right.
That is where that turbolift scene falls.

Its a pressurized spaceship and there is no wasted space. The Federation is a couple hundred years in advance of when Roddenberry invented it (the 1960s), not a couple millennia, which is what you need to have the huge amounts of wasted space as shown in STD available.

 

[Nelson Au]

Josh, I had posted a few weeks ago about comments I read that I believe were from Kurtzman. I didn’t know that Mary Chieffo had made these comments about the Klingon hair. As I said, I did read an interview with Kurtzman who said the lack of hair was because they were at war. Not sure you saw what I read, so you may not be aware of these comments from Kurtzman. I commented in my post that I was figuring a lot of you would read that as trying to retroactively explain away the hairless Klingons of Season One. On the whole, it’s a good idea. ( and I like the earlier post explained the connection with Kahless. ). But intellectually, I figured it’s a retroactive reason made to address fan concerns, and to do away with Bryan Fuller’s ideas that he wanted the Klingons on this version of Star Trek to be different then those before. ( I suppose in a way, you could say these Klingons are as different as the TMP Klingons are to the TOS Klingons! . )

Regarding the shape of their skulls, well, their hair did cover it before.

I see it as a strong message to the fans, they see they made a mistake and are trying to fix things.

 

[Nelson Au]

Regarding the scale of the ships; the cargo bay of the Enterprise in The Motion Picture was huge. It was connected to the hanger bay too and that was quite large. Though I agree the turbo shaft depicted in the second season premiere was not making sense. So I’m waiting to figure that one out. So I agree every Star Trek show and film has depicted the turbo lifts traveling through a shaft. Discovery is not doing anything conventional.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Don’t laugh at me but I don’t even remember the turbo shaft. I’ll probably rewatch it before this week’s new episode.

 

[Carabimero]

Don’t laugh at me but I don’t even remember the turbo shaft. I’ll probably rewatch it before this week’s new episode.

I'm not laughing. The first time I saw it the shot, I didn't realize what I was looking at. It couldn't be a turbo shaft, I reasoned, so I dismissed that crazy idea. It was only when I saw the episode a second time that I understood what it was supposed to be. I laughed out loud. Honestly I resisted turning off the episode right then and there. In season one, I might have. But season two has earned some goodwill with me. So I am giving good will back.

I'm having faith that these kinds of absurdities will be worked out.

The sad thing is, you can get all the roller coaster high velocity action you want and motivate it realistically. But it takes more than cavalier imagination. It takes intelligence and a respect the subject material.

I am trusting they will get there.