Paramount+ Star Trek: Discovery - Official Thread (1 Viewer)

[Bryan^H]

I found this 77-minute interview with Burnett absolutely in tune with my feelings toward DSC. If you have the time, see what you think.

At the 49 minute mark are some of the reasons I gave up on the series, but from 1:08-end is spot on with how I feel about the series.

I'm really happy for the people that enjoy DSC, but it saddens me that I am not one of them.

 

[Carabimero]

At the 49 minute mark are some of the reasons I gave up on the series, but from 1:08-end is spot on with how I feel about the series.

I'm really happy for the people that enjoy DSC, but it saddens me that I am not one of them.

Now that they have a new time and place to set the show in, season three writers will have no excuse if they repeatedly violate the laws of physics or the principles of strong storytelling. Here's hoping.

 

[joshEH]

I found this 77-minute interview with Burnett absolutely in tune with my feelings toward DSC. If you have the time, see what you think.

Eh, Robert Meyer Burnett disappeared up his own ass a long time ago. Back in the '90s (during his Sci-Fi Universe days), he was actually quite reasonable and sane, but when you look at his Twitter-feed now, he's gone completely hyperbolic and hysterical, and he's basically saying outrageous stuff about current Trek just for the clickbait. Which makes me sad -- the guy also produced some absolutely amazing documentaries on the TNG and ENT Blu-rays, but now he's basically gone full Mark Altman.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Wasn’t he involved in Axanar?

I feel like that’s where the fan base is kinda split these days. A good number of the folks publicly involved with Axanar were extremely negative and hostile towards CBS and Paramount while they were actively stealing those companies’ intellectual property, and when they got busted for it, went all scorched earth not just towards CBS/Paramount but towards anyone who saw Star Trek as being something more expansive than their own incredibly limited view on what “real Trek” must be, whatever that means.

When I see Axanar backers (and Bill Hunt at the Digital Bits is another one) talking about modern Trek, it seems like there is a massive amount of sour grapes motivated not by the actual content but by their, I don’t know, jealousy that they didn’t get to anoint themselves the gatekeepers.

 

[joshEH]

^ Yup. He was. Very likely much of what's driving him now is (as you mention) residual Axanar sour grapes, pressed and squeezed into the same old tired bottle of whine.

Burnett and others have long styled themselves as Ultra-Elite-(More-Elite-Than-Thou) Trek Nerds™, and you can tell that it's probably some combination of either (A) bitterness over Axanar, and/or (B) Burnett having tried to land job on the DSC writing-staff and having gotten shot down by the network. Or something. Either way, dude's carrying some serious baggage here about the new entries in the franchise (going back to at least 2009 and the first J.J. Abrams film).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

sour grapes, pressed and squeezed into the same old tired bottle of whine.

I’m gonna steal that!!

The first season of Discovery was a bit rough, but my big objection is less costume designs and whatnot, and just that the extended journey to the Mirror Universe negated most of what I found interesting about the first half of that season. The second season, for me, has been nothing but joy.

I find it very difficult to watch things like Star Trek Continues because I think those fan made things, as well intentioned as they are, miss the forest for the trees. They feel weighed down by the past. I never feel that watching actual TOS episodes because to me it’s clear that Roddenberry and Co are trying to (and often succeeding) at transcending the time they’re making the show in. The ideas themselves are more important than the physical manifestation of those ideas, which are limited to what a crafty producer could pull off at a dying studio and indifferent network on a shoestring budget. When I see a program like Star Trek Continues, I see something bending over backwards to recreate limitations that Roddenberry would have shed if he could. That, to me, seems more disrespectful to Trek than the new movies or shows could ever could be. Star Trek Continues is like the guy who goes out on a date with a girl and spends the whole night staring at her chest; Discovery is the guy who goes on the date but engages the girl in an actual conversation.

 

[joshEH]

I’m gonna steal that!!

The first season of Discovery was a bit rough, but my big objection is less costume designs and whatnot, and just that the extended journey to the Mirror Universe negated most of what I found interesting about the first half of that season. The second season, for me, has been nothing but joy.

I find it very difficult to watch things like Star Trek Continues because I think those fan made things, as well intentioned as they are, miss the forest for the trees. They feel weighed down by the past. I never feel that watching actual TOS episodes because to me it’s clear that Roddenberry and Co are trying to (and often succeeding) at transcending the time they’re making the show in. The ideas themselves are more important than the physical manifestation of those ideas, which are limited to what a crafty producer could pull off at a dying studio and indifferent network on a shoestring budget. When I see a program like Star Trek Continues, I see something bending over backwards to recreate limitations that Roddenberry would have shed if he could. That, to me, seems more disrespectful to Trek than the new movies or shows could ever could be. Star Trek Continues is like the guy who goes out on a date with a girl and spends the whole night staring at her chest; Discovery is the guy who goes on the date but engages the girl in an actual conversation.

And you just touched on something that the makers of those web-shows (such as Star Trek Continues) keep on overlooking (and which is something I've mentioned several times in this very thread over the past year or so):

Many of them, including Robert Meyer Burnett, evidently just can't seem to move past (among other things) the visual look of Discovery (both TV series and eponymous starship), as it looks way more advanced then the original series Enterprise.

It should. The makers of TOS didn't want the ship to look like something from the 1960s; they wanted it to look like something from centuries in the future, but they were limited to 1960s technology in their approximation thereof. So to be true to their intent, a modern show should strive to look futuristic by today's standards. I certainly wouldn't mind if the DSC production design retained more of the aesthetics of TOS -- the use of shapes and colors and such -- but it only makes sense to modernize the tech for modern audience-expectations.

People complain about the "anachronistic" use of holograms in DSC, but I recently noticed that the 1968 book The Making of Star Trek, which was written with the cooperation of TOS's production staff, mentioned that the Enterprise's recreation deck was supposed to include message booths that could project lifelike, immersive three-dimensional images so that the crew's families could send them messages that would look like they were really there in the room.

So the TOS Enterprise was always meant to have holographic communication; they just never managed to depict it onscreen. (I wonder why, though. It would've been quite easy to simulate a lifelike hologram just by having the actor there in the room, and using a simple jump-cut to make them appear or disappear. And we saw similar things done with Landru, Losira, etc.) Plus the ship did have a holographic rec-room in TAS: "The Practical Joker."

I just find it troubling to hear certain people say, "I don't care if the entire franchise dies, because the only person whose opinions or tastes I'm capable of caring about is myself." Fandom at its best is a shared experience, a community we build together and invite others to join, even when they don't share the same exact tastes as ourselves. Gatekeeping is never the answer.

 

[Bryan^H]

I just find it troubling to hear certain people say, "I don't care if the entire franchise dies, because the only person whose opinions or tastes I'm capable of caring about is myself." Fandom at its best is a shared experience, a community we build together and invite others to join, even when they don't share the same exact tastes as ourselves. Gatekeeping is never the answer.

Drop the dog and pony show. The Burnett video was informative. He isn't a gatekeeper, he just stated the reasons why he doesn't like Discovery.
Is that worth you jumping all over his views about the series-"head up his ass, sour grapes, ultra elite Trek nerd". I find the attacks on him because he has a different viewpoint than yourself petty to say the least. I bet if Michael Okuda started bashing STD you'd be all over him calling him every other name in the book.

Fandom is best when you can have a civil discussion about everything you like, and dislike about a series without the worry of being insulted for an opposite opinion.

 

[joshEH]

Drop the dog and pony show. The Burnett video was informative. He isn't a gatekeeper, he just stated the reasons why he doesn't like Discovery.
Is that worth you jumping all over his views about the series-"head up his ass, sour grapes, ultra elite Trek nerd". I find the attacks on him because he has a different viewpoint than yourself petty to say the least. I bet if Michael Okuda started bashing STD you'd be all over him calling him every other name in the book.

Nope, sorry, not gonna fly -- you don't even know what you're talking about, here. Burnett has been like this for literally decades now (I've been reading his stuff for over 25 years, going back to his days at Sci-Fi Universe magazine when I was a teenager in high school -- I'm now 42 years old), and he's always come across this way. He and editor Mark Altman literally branded themselves "The Treksperts," if that tells you anything.

Pompous high-horse nerd-gatekeeping has long been his thing in life, to one degree or another. And look no further than the example I provided from his Twitter-feed for hard proof that he's now basically been reduced to a person who says absolutely-preposterous bullshit just for the clicks.

 

[Jason_V]

So....who's looking forward to the eventual BD/home video release of Discovery S2? Or even a soundtrack for the season like we had for Season 1? I have zero doubt we'll get both in due time; the minute the BD is available for pre-order, I'll be there (as if that's a shock).

 

[joshEH]

^ When the Season 2 BD is announced, I'll be all over that like white on rice in a glass of milk on a paper plate in a snowstorm.

 

[Jason_V]

^ When the Season 2 BD is announced, I'll be all over that like white on rice in a glass of milk on a paper plate in a snowstorm.

I'm going to purposely give myself some "breathing room" on Discovery and wait until the set comes out to revisit any of the episodes. The only exception will be the two Short Treks I haven't watched yet. I want to see if the episodes hold out outside of the original broadcast window or if I somehow got swept up in the hype and promotion for the show as it aired.

I also need to brush up on some of the secondary and tertiary characters and planets. I feel like I'd stink-hardcore-at a Discovery Trivia Night. And I don't like that feeling.

 

[Bryan^H]

Nope, sorry, not gonna fly -- you don't even know what you're talking about, here.

I'm talking about the video I watched about STD. I agree with a lot of the things he said about the show (Alan does also) so how is that so terrible? He obviously has a lot of knowledge of Star Trek, and is passionate about it. That to me is a good thing. I can't imagine his Twitter content being any more bombastic than the countless celebrities on there sharing their thoughts of the day.

Like I said in my earlier post I'm glad you guys are enjoying the show--I'm not wishing it to end.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

So...in the grand scope of implausibility...

Uhura re-learning everything after having her mind wiped in TOS: The Changeling is less implausible?
The Federation fighting a war with the unmentioned Cardassians until TNG: The Wounded is less implausible?
Voyager being able to have an endless supply of torpedoes and shuttles is less implausible?
The NX-01 knowing about the Ferengi WAY before TNG is less implausible?
Michael, et al. not being hit *once* while in form fitting space suits whizzing through space? (Dopey lieutenant from "Brother" not withstanding.)

Nope. Sorry.

Secondly, as has been pointed out, who says the Ba'ul weren't helping out in some way? We don't know enough and there are enough "what if's" on this for me to be okay not knowing every...single...step...it...took...to...turn...out...the...way...it...did.

Listing 1,000,000 implausible things doesn't make the 1,000,001 thing any less implausible.

 

[Philip Verdieck]

I watched half of the Briefing Room segments with the actors, and skipped ahead to the last two with Ms. Paradise and Ms. Martin-Green. What surprised me is like all the fans, Martin-Green is excited about the future with no worries about Canon and that they are free to do their own thing. If the actors and a producer showrunner is excited about that, I wonder why they set the series just prior to Kirk’s time and I guess Bryan Fuller just wanted to play in that era. It did give them that opportunity to work with Spock and Pike.

I think they (CBS) wanted to do it in that era to get away from everything TNG forward. I think they saw basing in the TOS era (or thereabouts) as a way to automatically get any of the longest time Trek fans onboard immediately.

 

[Jason_V]

Listing 1,000,000 implausible things doesn't make the 1,000,001 thing any less implausible.

So you're not going to actually discuss what could have happened that we don't know about, are you? That's fine.

My only point is if you're going to say THIS is implausible, you have to start critiquing the other shows and their implausibility as well.

 

[Carabimero]

When Burnett says DSC doesn't follow the principles of basic physics, he's not wrong. IMO when Burnett says if you pull a gun out you better use it, he's not wrong, either. Exactly what was he wrong about?

Why is personally attacking him as an individual an answer to his critiques? Probably because it's hard to refute someone who points out the truth--the science in DSC is crap. And in the first season so was a lot of the storytelling.

And BTW, why is attacking Burnett like this any worse than personally attacking someone in this forum? Because he's a public figure? Attacking him personally doesn't diminish his credibility. It diminishes the credibility of the attacker.

If he's such a joke then his points should be easy to refute. Rationally refute his points and I'll take commentary seriously. But when someone dismisses someone else personally as a joke, I dismiss their commentary as a joke.

 

[joshEH]

When Burnett says DSC doesn't follow the principles of basic physics, he's not wrong. IMO when Burnett says if you pull a gun out you better use it, he's not wrong, either. Exactly what was he wrong about?

Why is personally attacking him as an individual an answer to his critiques? Probably because it's hard to refute someone who points out the truth--the science in DSC is crap. And in the first season so was a lot of the storytelling.

And BTW, why is attacking Burnett like this any worse than personally attacking someone in this forum? Because he's a public figure? Attacking him personally doesn't diminish his credibility. It diminishes the credibility of the attacker.

If he's such a joke then his points should be easy to refute. Rationally refute his points and I'll take commentary seriously. But when someone dismisses someone else personally as a joke, I dismiss their commentary as a joke.

Two points, here:

(A) I haven't yet watched that specific video linked above, and:

(B) I know exactly who Robert Meyer Burnett is, and who he's always been, going back literally decades now. His public persona is inextricably intertwined with his nerd-identity -- he's a professional fanboy, basically -- and just from taking one look at his Twitter account you can immediately see that he is now a smug douchebag/borderline troll who clearly has an axe to grind with the franchise (i.e., stemming from what happened on Axanar). Which is sad, because he wasn't always this way, and used to be a rather thoughtful counterpoint in the various publications he wrote for back in the day.

I've watched several of his other DSC criticism-videos since he started posting them (again, I haven't yet watched this particular one), but maybe this one was different, because all the other ones I viewed were basically Rob's Twitter-Feed: The YouTube Channel™. In other words: hyperbolic, pretentious, and filled to the brim with stupid, vapid, facepalm-worthy drivebys like that Twitter-post I linked to above ("[The] most creatively bankrupt television show ever made"...Jesus Christ, seriously, Rob? Seriously? This is how you choose to spend your public-credibility capital?)

I don't disagree with his notion that the science on DSC can be extremely dodgy at times (don't even get me started on the spore-drive, for instance) -- again, haven't watched the video, and am talking about his online behavior, which is largely synonymous and inseparable now from his professional behavior. I've known this guy from a distance ever since high school, and I stand by my earlier posts.

 

[Carabimero]

I haven't yet watched that specific video linked above

To me this makes what you did even more egregious. This is a thread to talk about DSC.

Yet you attack Burnett, call him a "smug douchebag" among other things. Why? Because he deigned to express his opinion?

When I first got into this business, a man I respect gave me some advice, which has served me well. He told me to always ask myself how my public actions made me look to others.

Ask yourself, how does your unwarranted personal attack on someone make you look to others?

Worse than Burnett, IMO.

BTW, the first thread I ever started in this forum about The Fugitive, a great thread, was excised and someone banned because they attacked an industry professional in a far less vicious way than your attack on Burnett here.

 

[joshEH]

To me this makes what you did even more egregious. This is a thread to talk about DSC.

Yet you attack Burnett, call him a "smug douchebag" among other things. Why? Because he deigned to express his opinion?

When I first got into this business, a man I respect gave me some advice, which has served me well. He told me to always ask myself how my public actions made me look to others.

Ask yourself, how does your unwarranted personal attack on someone make you look to others?

Worse than Burnett, IMO.

Enough with the pearlclutching -- did you not even read my post? I've watched SEVERAL OTHER of those videos in that series, and called out Burnett for what is clearly his compromised opinion about Star Trek, given his very -- shall we say? -- legally "questionable" behavior as a member of the Axanar team, which was directly engaged in the outright theft of trademarked intellectual property.

And yes, I haven't watched that ONE SPECIFIC video yet because (A) free time in my life being a major consideration at the moment, and (B) again, I've already watched several of those same videos, and came away with the opinion that Burnett clearly needs to move on with his life, not the least reason being (again) his obvious bitterness over getting caught in the perpetration of what many would term a crime, and which was significant enough to trigger a civil lawsuit by CBS as well. Everything he does at this point with regards to publicly and professionally opining on Star Trek now stems from this deed (which he knew was wrong), and as such, renders any such opinions on his part at least partially tainted and contaminated.

Please don't impugn my personal character before taking a minute to read what I've actually posted first. Thank you.

BTW, the first thread I ever started in this forum about The Fugitive, a great thread, was excised and someone banned because they attacked an industry professional in a far less vicious way than your attack on Burnett here.

Really? My criticisms of Burnett are gonna hurt his feelings now? He regularly posts inane, absolutely outrageous garbage in the public thunderdome of Twitter on a daily basis -- he ought to be a big enough boy to take anything a mere public school teacher can say about him and his professional behavior, and not be a snowflake about it.

Oh, and by the way, he is a borderline troll now, remember. Hardly worthy of defending in any event, even from my mere trifle of a critique earlier.