I don't know, I kinda feel that they might have seen DS9, but that is still not the comparison point they actually mean, because most people might think of TNG, VOY or ENT, since they all seem to have a similar "grittiness" (with ENT possibly the darkest of the 3)
Well, if they maintain that Star Trek: Discovery is the "grittiest one of all", then it's either hyperbole (for marketing? hype?) or it actually is grimmer and darker than established Trek. The showrunners are going for "PG-13" rating, but want to take advantage of more leeway from being a premium pay channel.
I'm going to take them at their word that this is the "grimmest and darkest" Trek yet. Since they are going lite on "sex, violence, and profanity", I'm thinking the grimdark comes from "gritty" characters:
I don't know, I kinda feel that they might have seen DS9, but that is still not the comparison point they actually mean, because most people might think of TNG, VOY or ENT, since they all seem to have a similar "grittiness" (with ENT possibly the darkest of the 3)
Well, if they maintain that Star Trek: Discovery is the "grittiest one of all", then it's either hyperbole (for marketing? hype?) or it actually is grimmer and darker than established Trek. The showrunners are going for "PG-13" rating, but want to take advantage of more leeway from being a premium pay channel.
I'm going to take them at their word that this is the "grimmest and darkest" Trek yet. Since they are going lite on "sex, violence, and profanity", I'm thinking the grimdark comes from "gritty" characters:
Describe my character (Captain Lorica) in three words? Messed up guy
That would succinctly describe Sisko at the start of DS9, too: lost hundreds of shipmates, including his wife, the woman of his dreams, to the Borg, and is in denial about his grief, saw his pet project back home run into technical and political problems and get killed, and got shot off to the TRIBBLE end of nowhere with his pre-teen son whom he loves dearly but has a devil of a time raising alone.
Or Kira, who was a child soldier fighting a bloody guerrilla war against a military occupation of her home planet and carried out assassinations and bombings that she admits killed innocents.
Or for that matter, Tasha Yar before them in rutting TNG, who grew up on an anarchic failed colony dodging gang-r*pes.
EDIT: WTH, "pre-teen" minus the hyphen is censored? Who the frell is programming that thing?
Post edited by starswordc on
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I don't know, I kinda feel that they might have seen DS9, but that is still not the comparison point they actually mean, because most people might think of TNG, VOY or ENT, since they all seem to have a similar "grittiness" (with ENT possibly the darkest of the 3)
Well, if they maintain that Star Trek: Discovery is the "grittiest one of all", then it's either hyperbole (for marketing? hype?) or it actually is grimmer and darker than established Trek.
1) DS9 is by many called as gritty, and the Dominion War and In Pale Moonlight are brought up - but DS9 has all those comedy Ferengi episodes, the Tribble episode, the "I, Spy" Bashir episode, the Raquet ball episode, the Holo-Episode, the Baseball episode, and it also has more classic TNG level episodes like the one where Sisko gets the Baseball or we meet Tosk. But a 10 episode TV show will not have such filler episodes that enable episode-length mood swings. It will likely tell a tight story, and that will be serious.
2) It's probably marketing hyperbole anyway, though I could see the writers actually believing it. If they believed their story isn't serious Trek, that would probably mean nothing good. I don't think Trek fans actually want Trek to be always like Tribble and Tribulations.
3) "Grittiness" can also be a lot about what kind of lasting impact things have on our characters. It's not like TNG episodes always end with sunshine and rainbows. The person that wanted just a regular Cis life in a asexual society didn't get a happy ending. The Empath that fell for Picard? She really fell for him, but she has to fake her affection for another man it for the rest of her life, to fulfill her societal role. But these are guest stars. They are forgotten an episode later, they tell a brief parable, but then we warp out and it's forgotten. Nog lost his leg, and it nearly ended his career. He suffered and grew, and he's one of our identifying characters. Sisko's decision to trick the Romulans into the war changed the course of the war, and it was our hero that did the morally questionable thing. It's far more personal. What happens in each episode, each decision, each injury, each insult, each quarrel, and each death, it stays with us and affects our view on the characters.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I don't know, I kinda feel that they might have seen DS9, but that is still not the comparison point they actually mean, because most people might think of TNG, VOY or ENT, since they all seem to have a similar "grittiness" (with ENT possibly the darkest of the 3)
Well, if they maintain that Star Trek: Discovery is the "grittiest one of all", then it's either hyperbole (for marketing? hype?) or it actually is grimmer and darker than established Trek.
1) DS9 is by many called as gritty, and the Dominion War and In Pale Moonlight are brought up - but DS9 has all those comedy Ferengi episodes, the Tribble episode, the "I, Spy" Bashir episode, the Raquet ball episode, the Holo-Episode, the Baseball episode, and it also has more classic TNG level episodes like the one where Sisko gets the Baseball or we meet Tosk. But a 10 episode TV show will not have such filler episodes that enable episode-length mood swings. It will likely tell a tight story, and that will be serious.
2) It's probably marketing hyperbole anyway, though I could see the writers actually believing it. If they believed their story isn't serious Trek, that would probably mean nothing good. I don't think Trek fans actually want Trek to be always like Tribble and Tribulations.
You're forgetting: this is the same fanbase which crucified ST:09 for being too different from previous Trek Films, and then did the same to ST:ID for being too similar to a previous Trek Film. This fanbase (as a whole) is about as consistent as the definition of 'tetryon particles'.
1) DS9 is by many called as gritty, and the Dominion War and In Pale Moonlight are brought up - but DS9 has all those comedy Ferengi episodes, the Tribble episode, the "I, Spy" Bashir episode, the Raquet ball episode, the Holo-Episode, the Baseball episode, and it also has more classic TNG level episodes like the one where Sisko gets the Baseball or we meet Tosk. But a 10 episode TV show will not have such filler episodes that enable episode-length mood swings. It will likely tell a tight story, and that will be serious.
I'm not disputing any of that. I am assuming that the writers/executives/actors have seen all other Trek series and they are comparing Star Trek: Discovery to them when they state "this is the grittiest/darkest Star Trek we have seen".
2) It's probably marketing hyperbole anyway, though I could see the writers actually believing it. If they believed their story isn't serious Trek, that would probably mean nothing good. I don't think Trek fans actually want Trek to be always like Tribble and Tribulations.
This is equally possible. Game of Thrones meets Star Trek is sure to get people interested. It could all be marketing hype that fails to live up to expectation.
3) "Grittiness" can also be a lot about what kind of lasting impact things have on our characters.
The showrunners have said something similar to this, though not with the concept of "grit".
Game of Thrones has been cited by the showrunners as a serious influence on the themes and scripts of Star Trek: Discovery. As a result, I assume that the "grit" can be compared to what one would describe as "gritty" in Game of Thrones.
I figure it's based on the idea of not just killing redshirts. You really don't know for sure if non-redshirts will die.
Well, then they are getting us all hyped for a bloodbath for no reason:
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Star Trek: Discovery showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg revealed that they are ready, willing and able to kill off major characters on the show, with at least one demise already in the works.
I figure it's based on the idea of not just killing redshirts. You really don't know for sure if non-redshirts will die.
Well, then they are getting us all hyped for a bloodbath for no reason:
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Star Trek: Discovery showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg revealed that they are ready, willing and able to kill off major characters on the show, with at least one demise already in the works.
Call me crazy but I actually liked that about shows that had the guts to do it, like Spooks/MI-5. The stakes don't feel as high if you "know" the guy whose name is in the opening credits is going to make it to the end credits, and it opens up storytelling options, which is a good thing.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Heh, now I'm thinking John Scalzi's novel Redshirts, and of poor Tasha Yar's line in "Temporal Ambassador" about how she wants her death to mean something.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Call me crazy but I actually liked that about shows that had the guts to do it, like Spooks/MI-5. The stakes don't feel as high if you "know" the guy whose name is in the opening credits is going to make it to the end credits, and it opens up storytelling options, which is a good thing.
If this appeals to you, then the creators of Star Trek: Discovery are doing something right. Hopefully, the show provides you an entertaining experience.
Comparing the theme and premise to what came before, this is a huge departure. This new show does not meet my expectations, which is why I am not hyped for Star Trek: Discovery.
Call me crazy but I actually liked that about shows that had the guts to do it, like Spooks/MI-5. The stakes don't feel as high if you "know" the guy whose name is in the opening credits is going to make it to the end credits, and it opens up storytelling options, which is a good thing.
If this appeals to you, then the creators of Star Trek: Discovery are doing something right. Hopefully, the show provides you an entertaining experience.
Comparing the theme and premise to what came before, this is a huge departure. This new show does not meet my expectations, which is why I am not hyped for Star Trek: Discovery.
Is it? It wasn't advertised as such before, but it did happen.
I figure it's based on the idea of not just killing redshirts. You really don't know for sure if non-redshirts will die.
Well, then they are getting us all hyped for a bloodbath for no reason:
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Star Trek: Discovery showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg revealed that they are ready, willing and able to kill off major characters on the show, with at least one demise already in the works.
I don't see the words 'no reason' there at all. Killing of characters randomly is a great idea. Stops people becoming complacent.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I figure it's based on the idea of not just killing redshirts. You really don't know for sure if non-redshirts will die.
Well, then they are getting us all hyped for a bloodbath for no reason:
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Star Trek: Discovery showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg revealed that they are ready, willing and able to kill off major characters on the show, with at least one demise already in the works.
I don't see the words 'no reason' there at all. Killing of characters randomly is a great idea. Stops people becoming complacent.
'unpredictably' isn't the same as 'randomly'.
An audiences ability to predict or not to predict does not mean no reason was selected by the writers. So the two are not synonymous.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I don't see the words 'no reason' there at all. Killing of characters randomly is a great idea. Stops people becoming complacent.
Well, hopefully the show meets your expectations.
Previously, Star Trek was an "action/adventure". Star Trek: Discovery is "drama/suspense". I'm not keen on a Trek show that murders characters that I like. Popular rumor is that Captain Lorca is the character referred to as the one being killed off, which is why he gets so little screen time and no interviews. They've already filmed the episode where he dies.
I think BSG Reboot did the kill-off-the-character bit first. I think they were polling for viewers favorite character of the week to pick the next character that was a Cylon.
To be honest, I can see that go either way. Back in the sixties main characters didn't die in any series, they hired extras to do the dying. It was the way things were done. It was never intended to become a Trek Rule that mains never die. However, if death of mains becomes commonplace, it loses impact.
So long as each instance is part of a story and not just death for the sake of being like something else, I'm on board.
Make everyone a Cylon and suddenly being Cylon isn't special anymore.
This is equally possible. Game of Thrones meets Star Trek is sure to get people interested. It could all be marketing hype that fails to live up to expectation.
But would that still be Star Trek? A Star Trek series set in the Mirror Universe is the only way I can see Game of Thrones meets Star Trek. DS9 and Voyager had their moments, but they never got anywhere close to Game of Thrones. A science fiction version of Game of Thrones would be fun, but an original series would be the place for it not Star Trek with the idealistic Federation.
I don't see the words 'no reason' there at all. Killing of characters randomly is a great idea. Stops people becoming complacent.
Previously, Star Trek was an "action/adventure". Star Trek: Discovery is "drama/suspense". I'm not keen on a Trek show that murders characters that I like.
Deep Space Nine was a drama as much as an Action/Adventure - especially after Season 2 and during the Dominion War. It also murdered main characters (Ziyal and Jadzia spring to mind, as well as Kai Opaka and Vedek Bariel). Discovery, from what they've described thus far, doesn't sound that different.
I don't see the words 'no reason' there at all. Killing of characters randomly is a great idea. Stops people becoming complacent.
Previously, Star Trek was an "action/adventure". Star Trek: Discovery is "drama/suspense". I'm not keen on a Trek show that murders characters that I like.
Deep Space Nine was a drama as much as an Action/Adventure - especially after Season 2 and during the Dominion War. It also murdered main characters (Ziyal and Jadzia spring to mind, as well as Kai Opaka and Vedek Bariel). Discovery, from what they've described thus far, doesn't sound that different.
Ziyal wasn't exactly a main character, but it was a long-running guest character, I think. And Jadzia left more for actor-availability reasons (she wanted out) then story reasons.
I think that was also the way the "new" BSG did it - they had a very large roster of secondary characters that weren't always exactly in focus, but they were important enough and known enough that people cared about them - and then they killed them off. (Not randomly or for no reason - with great effect, to remind us of the stakes). They still kept the main cast of Starbuck/Apollo/Adama/Tigh/Baltar/Roslyn alive, however - but losing "side" characters made any threat to them far riskier.
Game of Thrones was even more brutal - they really killed people that were deemed protagonists, and often the likeable ones you were rooting for.
In short (~10) episode long seasons, I think the differences between a guest and a main character become unclear anyway....
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I don't see the words 'no reason' there at all. Killing of characters randomly is a great idea. Stops people becoming complacent.
Well, hopefully the show meets your expectations.
Previously, Star Trek was an "action/adventure". Star Trek: Discovery is "drama/suspense". I'm not keen on a Trek show that murders characters that I like. Popular rumor is that Captain Lorca is the character referred to as the one being killed off, which is why he gets so little screen time and no interviews. They've already filmed the episode where he dies.
Yeah, that's who I would've picked too.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
I figure it's based on the idea of not just killing redshirts. You really don't know for sure if non-redshirts will die.
Well, then they are getting us all hyped for a bloodbath for no reason:
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Star Trek: Discovery showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg revealed that they are ready, willing and able to kill off major characters on the show, with at least one demise already in the works.
I don't see the words 'no reason' there at all. Killing of characters randomly is a great idea. Stops people becoming complacent.
No killing charecters off at random is not a great idea. GOT as an example every death has been to carry the huge story line forward and they are anything but random. Lets use the High Sparrrow's death not random at all but a way for Cersai to clear the way to her sitting on the Iron Throne. The Waif's death not random but a way for Arya to prove she was finished wih her training and worthy to leave the House of Black and White. Killing a character for no real reason is a sign of poor writing and a cheap desperate ploy for ratings. If the only reason to watch a show to see who dies next is sign that show has little to offer outside of satisfying someones blood lust for violence.
I figure it's based on the idea of not just killing redshirts. You really don't know for sure if non-redshirts will die.
Well, then they are getting us all hyped for a bloodbath for no reason:
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Star Trek: Discovery showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg revealed that they are ready, willing and able to kill off major characters on the show, with at least one demise already in the works.
I don't see the words 'no reason' there at all. Killing of characters randomly is a great idea. Stops people becoming complacent.
No killing charecters off at random is not a great idea. GOT as an example every death has been to carry the huge story line forward and they are anything but random. Lets use the High Sparrrow's death not random at all but a way for Cersai to clear the way to her sitting on the Iron Throne. The Waif's death not random but a way for Arya to prove she was finished wih her training and worthy to leave the House of Black and White. Killing a character for no real reason is a sign of poor writing and a cheap desperate ploy for ratings. If the only reason to watch a show to see who dies next is sign that show has little to offer outside of satisfying someones blood lust for violence.
As I said above, random to the audience not to the writers.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Uh, Artan... the trick is not to foreshadow it. Foreshadowing is for the threat, but not all threats will actually result in people dying. And there's the element of whether or not a threat that does kill someone will be a major or minor character.
Random to the audience is still not good. It's not good story telling. Only hack writers who don't know any better think it is. Like ones who think a forumla is needed to when to knock characters off.
The caveat here is "expectation of the audience, based on the genre".
In the "Horror" and "Suspense" genres, there is an expectation by the audience that one or more of the main characters are going to die. The deaths are often something that is eagerly anticipated, with the manner of death a topic of critique.
Star Trek was previously an "Adventure" series with light "Action" elements. While deaths do happen in these genres, it is not a focus of the genre.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Uh, Artan... the trick is not to foreshadow it. Foreshadowing is for the threat, but not all threats will actually result in people dying. And there's the element of whether or not a threat that does kill someone will be a major or minor character.
I didn't say that should.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Comments
I'm going to take them at their word that this is the "grimmest and darkest" Trek yet. Since they are going lite on "sex, violence, and profanity", I'm thinking the grimdark comes from "gritty" characters:
That would succinctly describe Sisko at the start of DS9, too: lost hundreds of shipmates, including his wife, the woman of his dreams, to the Borg, and is in denial about his grief, saw his pet project back home run into technical and political problems and get killed, and got shot off to the TRIBBLE end of nowhere with his pre-teen son whom he loves dearly but has a devil of a time raising alone.
Or Kira, who was a child soldier fighting a bloody guerrilla war against a military occupation of her home planet and carried out assassinations and bombings that she admits killed innocents.
Or for that matter, Tasha Yar before them in rutting TNG, who grew up on an anarchic failed colony dodging gang-r*pes.
EDIT: WTH, "pre-teen" minus the hyphen is censored? Who the frell is programming that thing?
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
1) DS9 is by many called as gritty, and the Dominion War and In Pale Moonlight are brought up - but DS9 has all those comedy Ferengi episodes, the Tribble episode, the "I, Spy" Bashir episode, the Raquet ball episode, the Holo-Episode, the Baseball episode, and it also has more classic TNG level episodes like the one where Sisko gets the Baseball or we meet Tosk. But a 10 episode TV show will not have such filler episodes that enable episode-length mood swings. It will likely tell a tight story, and that will be serious.
2) It's probably marketing hyperbole anyway, though I could see the writers actually believing it. If they believed their story isn't serious Trek, that would probably mean nothing good. I don't think Trek fans actually want Trek to be always like Tribble and Tribulations.
3) "Grittiness" can also be a lot about what kind of lasting impact things have on our characters. It's not like TNG episodes always end with sunshine and rainbows. The person that wanted just a regular Cis life in a asexual society didn't get a happy ending. The Empath that fell for Picard? She really fell for him, but she has to fake her affection for another man it for the rest of her life, to fulfill her societal role. But these are guest stars. They are forgotten an episode later, they tell a brief parable, but then we warp out and it's forgotten. Nog lost his leg, and it nearly ended his career. He suffered and grew, and he's one of our identifying characters. Sisko's decision to trick the Romulans into the war changed the course of the war, and it was our hero that did the morally questionable thing. It's far more personal. What happens in each episode, each decision, each injury, each insult, each quarrel, and each death, it stays with us and affects our view on the characters.
You're forgetting: this is the same fanbase which crucified ST:09 for being too different from previous Trek Films, and then did the same to ST:ID for being too similar to a previous Trek Film. This fanbase (as a whole) is about as consistent as the definition of 'tetryon particles'.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
This is equally possible. Game of Thrones meets Star Trek is sure to get people interested. It could all be marketing hype that fails to live up to expectation. The showrunners have said something similar to this, though not with the concept of "grit".
Game of Thrones has been cited by the showrunners as a serious influence on the themes and scripts of Star Trek: Discovery. As a result, I assume that the "grit" can be compared to what one would describe as "gritty" in Game of Thrones.
My character Tsin'xing
In an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Star Trek: Discovery showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg revealed that they are ready, willing and able to kill off major characters on the show, with at least one demise already in the works.
http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/star-trek-discovery-inspired-by-game-of-thrones-to-kill-off-characters
Call me crazy but I actually liked that about shows that had the guts to do it, like Spooks/MI-5. The stakes don't feel as high if you "know" the guy whose name is in the opening credits is going to make it to the end credits, and it opens up storytelling options, which is a good thing.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Comparing the theme and premise to what came before, this is a huge departure. This new show does not meet my expectations, which is why I am not hyped for Star Trek: Discovery.
My character Tsin'xing
I don't see the words 'no reason' there at all. Killing of characters randomly is a great idea. Stops people becoming complacent.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
An audiences ability to predict or not to predict does not mean no reason was selected by the writers. So the two are not synonymous.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Previously, Star Trek was an "action/adventure". Star Trek: Discovery is "drama/suspense". I'm not keen on a Trek show that murders characters that I like. Popular rumor is that Captain Lorca is the character referred to as the one being killed off, which is why he gets so little screen time and no interviews. They've already filmed the episode where he dies.
To be honest, I can see that go either way. Back in the sixties main characters didn't die in any series, they hired extras to do the dying. It was the way things were done. It was never intended to become a Trek Rule that mains never die. However, if death of mains becomes commonplace, it loses impact.
So long as each instance is part of a story and not just death for the sake of being like something else, I'm on board.
Make everyone a Cylon and suddenly being Cylon isn't special anymore.
But would that still be Star Trek? A Star Trek series set in the Mirror Universe is the only way I can see Game of Thrones meets Star Trek. DS9 and Voyager had their moments, but they never got anywhere close to Game of Thrones. A science fiction version of Game of Thrones would be fun, but an original series would be the place for it not Star Trek with the idealistic Federation.
Deep Space Nine was a drama as much as an Action/Adventure - especially after Season 2 and during the Dominion War. It also murdered main characters (Ziyal and Jadzia spring to mind, as well as Kai Opaka and Vedek Bariel). Discovery, from what they've described thus far, doesn't sound that different.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Ziyal wasn't exactly a main character, but it was a long-running guest character, I think. And Jadzia left more for actor-availability reasons (she wanted out) then story reasons.
I think that was also the way the "new" BSG did it - they had a very large roster of secondary characters that weren't always exactly in focus, but they were important enough and known enough that people cared about them - and then they killed them off. (Not randomly or for no reason - with great effect, to remind us of the stakes). They still kept the main cast of Starbuck/Apollo/Adama/Tigh/Baltar/Roslyn alive, however - but losing "side" characters made any threat to them far riskier.
Game of Thrones was even more brutal - they really killed people that were deemed protagonists, and often the likeable ones you were rooting for.
In short (~10) episode long seasons, I think the differences between a guest and a main character become unclear anyway....
My character Tsin'xing
Yeah, that's who I would've picked too.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
No killing charecters off at random is not a great idea. GOT as an example every death has been to carry the huge story line forward and they are anything but random. Lets use the High Sparrrow's death not random at all but a way for Cersai to clear the way to her sitting on the Iron Throne. The Waif's death not random but a way for Arya to prove she was finished wih her training and worthy to leave the House of Black and White. Killing a character for no real reason is a sign of poor writing and a cheap desperate ploy for ratings. If the only reason to watch a show to see who dies next is sign that show has little to offer outside of satisfying someones blood lust for violence.
As I said above, random to the audience not to the writers.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
My character Tsin'xing
In the "Horror" and "Suspense" genres, there is an expectation by the audience that one or more of the main characters are going to die. The deaths are often something that is eagerly anticipated, with the manner of death a topic of critique.
Star Trek was previously an "Adventure" series with light "Action" elements. While deaths do happen in these genres, it is not a focus of the genre.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
I didn't say that should.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!