Kind of makes a statement about the entertainment industry in general. It seems in recent years that entertainers have gotten pretty self-indulgent and have forgotten the virtues of discretion and restraint. Its always been the irony of Star Trek that some of the most fondly remembered works, the ones that have stood the test of time, were ones that had tighter budgets. They generally seem to put more thought and deliberation into episodes/movies when they have less money to throw at it.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
"Sources say the budget for the season two premiere ballooned, with the overages expected to come out of subsequent episodes from Discovery's sophomore run."
After the Brian Fuller debacle, I'm certain this is the reason they were fired. Maybe they were unkind to the writers, but writers are a dime a dozen. I doubt CBS cares about the fee-fees of writers.
"Amid all the changes, Kurtzman — who directed the series premiere — has been the glue holding Discovery together."
Really, Lesley Goldberg? You are going to pin the hopes of Star Trek: Discovery on the writer and director of the recent Mummy movie? The one who "directed" the premiere of Star Trek: Discovery, yet the Discovery, her crew and even the main story point of the series (the mushroom drive) was not even introduced in the premiere?
I don't know, Discovery fans. The first season had changes in leadership that led to some messy story-telling. Do you think the show can survive a second season of disjointed story telling?
Myself, I think if they continue with the themes and tone they started with, and produce one or two memorable episodes, it could still get a third season. If they try to connect too much with "old busted Trek", they will alienate their established audience. I also feel like they are laying the groundwork to "lower expectations" with most of the coming season, which could help them get a third season.
Interesting... part of me is fine with this, and part of me is disappointed. I think B&H botched the first season, but then again, it was a tall order for them to take over another's vision.
Not really. TrekMovie's article also points to a volatile writer's room, and rumors of HR complaints. This also extends to Akiva Goldsman, who is also no longer with the show. The budget issues may be a part of it, but these potential HR issues seem to be the driving force behind the move.
The one who "directed" the premiere of Star Trek: Discovery, yet the Discovery, her crew and even the main story point of the series (the mushroom drive) was not even introduced in the premiere?
Factually incorrect. Kurtzman gets a co-story credit for "The Vulcan Hello," but does not have teleplay or directing credit for either premiere episode. Bryan Fuller's name is all over both episodes, and Harberts, Berg, and Goldsman all had their hands in the episodes, too.
Not really. TrekMovie's article also points to a volatile writer's room, and rumors of HR complaints. This also extends to Akiva Goldsman, who is also no longer with the show. The budget issues may be a part of it, but these potential HR issues seem to be the driving force behind the move.
TrekMovie cites The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline and Variety for it's sources. It just repeated what THR already reported.
Lesley Goldberg of THR can speculate and "site sekaret sources" all she wants. CBS does not care about a handful of HR complaints unless they are sexual misconduct or discriminatory. Writers are easily replaced. Deadline's article does not mention the writing staff and Variety's "sekaret sources" say "tension had been building in the writers room as work continued on season two", though they are professional enough not to speculate what impact (if any) the writer's feelings had on firing Berg and Harberts.
Factually incorrect. Kurtzman gets a co-story credit for "The Vulcan Hello," but does not have teleplay or directing credit for either premiere episode. Bryan Fuller's name is all over both episodes, and Harberts, Berg, and Goldsman all had their hands in the episodes, too.
I put "directed" in quotes because it is the ARTICLE that claimed Kurtzman directed the premiere (the same article that claims Berg and Harberts hurt the writer's feelings, so CBS fired them). Kurtzman was co-creator, producer and lead writer for the majority of Star Trek: Discovery's first season (when he was not busy writing and directing the Mummy).
I'm certain that Star Trek: Discovery is in good hands. After all, the "Future is Definitely Female" on the set of Star Trek: Discovery.
I think the directorial claims for Kurtzman are referring to his directorial duties on the season two premiere.
The article might have miscommunicated this point, or the writer may have been confused.
And, I wouldn't take HR issues lightly. If HR is involved in any serious way (with multiple complaints), that's a big deal. I don't think they just hurt someone's feelings or put someone's stapler in jello, LOL.
@patrickngo is definitely right about studios being incredibly petty towards their staff. Just look at the case of Andrew Garfield who was fired from the Spider-Man films due to skipping a party and the head honcho at Sony taking it as a personal insult.
Looking at the entertainment industry in general there definitely seems to be a lot of infighting going on right now, bordering on being an inquisition to purge thoughtcrime from their midst. Reading about the horror stories from inside the various entertainment industries it actually sounds kind of scary right now.
@patrickngo is definitely right about studios being incredibly petty towards their staff. Just look at the case of Andrew Garfield who was fired from the Spider-Man films due to skipping a party and the head honcho at Sony taking it as a personal insult.
Looking at the entertainment industry in general there definitely seems to be a lot of infighting going on right now, bordering on being an inquisition to purge thoughtcrime from their midst. Reading about the horror stories from inside the various entertainment industries it actually sounds kind of scary right now.
Saying something stupid on twitter or having the wrong opinion could get someone fired. There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy especially with the difference between the reaction to what Roseanne tweeted and the reaction to what Samantha Bee said recently on her show. One got fired and I haven't heard of any punishment for the other for saying something that disgusting. So apparently what is said on Twitter is far more important than what someone says on their show.
@patrickngo is definitely right about studios being incredibly petty towards their staff. Just look at the case of Andrew Garfield who was fired from the Spider-Man films due to skipping a party and the head honcho at Sony taking it as a personal insult.
Looking at the entertainment industry in general there definitely seems to be a lot of infighting going on right now, bordering on being an inquisition to purge thoughtcrime from their midst. Reading about the horror stories from inside the various entertainment industries it actually sounds kind of scary right now.
Saying something stupid on twitter or having the wrong opinion could get someone fired. There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy especially with the difference between the reaction to what Roseanne tweeted and the reaction to what Samantha Bee said recently on her show. One got fired and I haven't heard of any punishment for the other for saying something that disgusting. So apparently what is said on Twitter is far more important than what someone says on their show.
I certainly won't argue that point, or the notion that Hollywood has currently lost its mind (more so than normal, LOL).
My only point was that, not unlike Fuller's departure, B&H's departure seems to have more than one reason. You can overcome budgetary mismanagement. You can overcome HR complaints (especially if, like you say, they are relatively minor... but we don't know the extent beyond nameless sources). Put the two together, though? On top of the troubled history this show already has? That's enough for CBS to act, IMO.
It's been fascinating reading the fan base reaction to this move... there's little love lost out there for B&H. I was willing to give them another shot, but then again, I think I can squarely place the ruining of Gabriel Lorca on them without much benefit-of-doubt... so, no tears from me.
The only thing that can be said for certain is that CBS has locked up Kurtzman to a production deal extension, and that multiple new series will be produced.
That second one is such a bad headline. Nothing about the press release says, suggests, or even hints at a TNG reboot. It doesn't even make sense if the point is to include Patrick Stewart. A sequel is not a reboot. A reboot of TNG would be criminal. Even a reboot of Voyager, which kills me because I know just a few small changes would have made a huge difference, should never be considered acceptable.
That second one is such a bad headline. Nothing about the press release says, suggests, or even hints at a TNG reboot. It doesn't even make sense if the point is to include Patrick Stewart. A sequel is not a reboot. A reboot of TNG would be criminal. Even a reboot of Voyager, which kills me because I know just a few small changes would have made a huge difference, should never be considered acceptable.
If the timeline of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager was replaced by the timeline created from the temporal changes in First Contact and Enterprise, then any new Star Trek series set in the late 24th Century would be a reboot not a sequel.
That second one is such a bad headline. Nothing about the press release says, suggests, or even hints at a TNG reboot. It doesn't even make sense if the point is to include Patrick Stewart. A sequel is not a reboot. A reboot of TNG would be criminal. Even a reboot of Voyager, which kills me because I know just a few small changes would have made a huge difference, should never be considered acceptable.
If the timeline of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager was replaced by the timeline created from the temporal changes in First Contact and Enterprise, then any new Star Trek series set in the late 24th Century would be a reboot not a sequel.
It wasn't, though. Seven makes a reference to the events of First Contact. Enterprise existed on the Enterprise-D's holodeck.
That second one is such a bad headline. Nothing about the press release says, suggests, or even hints at a TNG reboot. It doesn't even make sense if the point is to include Patrick Stewart. A sequel is not a reboot. A reboot of TNG would be criminal. Even a reboot of Voyager, which kills me because I know just a few small changes would have made a huge difference, should never be considered acceptable.
If the timeline of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager was replaced by the timeline created from the temporal changes in First Contact and Enterprise, then any new Star Trek series set in the late 24th Century would be a reboot not a sequel.
It wasn't, though. Seven makes a reference to the events of First Contact. Enterprise existed on the Enterprise-D's holodeck.
Every time a major temporal change occurs, the timeline is rewritten to a certain extent. Part of DS9 and Voyager could have been part of the new timeline like the existence of Section 31. There was no mention of Section 31 in any Star Trek series before First Contact. Facing the Borg as part of First Contact could have made certain members of Cochrane's team more pragmatic like Lily Sloane instead of purely optimistic about interstellar exploration which could result in the creation of Section 31 in one timeline, but no Section 31 in the original timeline. There might be a connection between Lily Sloane and Luther Sloan besides having the same initials and similar last names.
The amount of temporal changes in Enterprise vastly exceeds the amount in First Contact. There was no genetically modified Suliban, Xindi attack, or alien N A Z Is in the original timeline. Only one episode of Enterprise was part of the Enterprise-D holodeck and it had to be the worst Star Trek series finale ever besides the fact that it had nothing to do with events caused by some temporal change. With the amount of time travel in Star Trek, the timeline of the first few episodes of TOS is not the same timeline as the one in Nemesis. So with the amount of changes to the timeline caused by First Contact and Enterprise, then there is no possibility of the events of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager occurring as we remember them. Therefore, it makes more sense to consider Discovery as a sequel to Enterprise and not a prequel to TOS.
The amount of temporal changes in Enterprise vastly exceeds the amount in First Contact. There was no genetically modified Suliban, Xindi attack, or alien N A Z Is in the original timeline. Only one episode of Enterprise was part of the Enterprise-D holodeck and it had to be the worst Star Trek series finale ever besides the fact that it had nothing to do with events caused by some temporal change. With the amount of time travel in Star Trek, the timeline of the first few episodes of TOS is not the same timeline as the one in Nemesis. So with the amount of changes to the timeline caused by First Contact and Enterprise, then there is no possibility of the events of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager occurring as we remember them. Therefore, it makes more sense to consider Discovery as a sequel to Enterprise and not a prequel to TOS.
The point of seeing Enterprise on the Enterprise-D isn't Enterprise, it's the Enterprise-D. You see a scene in the episode Pegasus that, beyond some slight aging of the actors (and a Riker lookalike in Ten Forward), is no different than the episode itself. Since the simulation took place after the events of Enterprise, and the Enterprise-D is exactly the same, we can see that they successfully averted substantial changes to the timeline.
As far as Discovery goes, even though its ostensibly the topic, I'd just as soon leave it out of the discussion.
The amount of temporal changes in Enterprise vastly exceeds the amount in First Contact. There was no genetically modified Suliban, Xindi attack, or alien N A Z Is in the original timeline. Only one episode of Enterprise was part of the Enterprise-D holodeck and it had to be the worst Star Trek series finale ever besides the fact that it had nothing to do with events caused by some temporal change. With the amount of time travel in Star Trek, the timeline of the first few episodes of TOS is not the same timeline as the one in Nemesis. So with the amount of changes to the timeline caused by First Contact and Enterprise, then there is no possibility of the events of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager occurring as we remember them. Therefore, it makes more sense to consider Discovery as a sequel to Enterprise and not a prequel to TOS.
The point of seeing Enterprise on the Enterprise-D isn't Enterprise, it's the Enterprise-D. You see a scene in the episode Pegasus that, beyond some slight aging of the actors (and a Riker lookalike in Ten Forward), is no different than the episode itself. Since the simulation took place after the events of Enterprise, and the Enterprise-D is exactly the same, we can see that they successfully averted substantial changes to the timeline.
As far as Discovery goes, even though its ostensibly the topic, I'd just as soon leave it out of the discussion.
And the TOS Enterprise bridge was also on the Ent-D holodeck. But we know now that will be...inaccurate?
The amount of temporal changes in Enterprise vastly exceeds the amount in First Contact. There was no genetically modified Suliban, Xindi attack, or alien N A Z Is in the original timeline. Only one episode of Enterprise was part of the Enterprise-D holodeck and it had to be the worst Star Trek series finale ever besides the fact that it had nothing to do with events caused by some temporal change. With the amount of time travel in Star Trek, the timeline of the first few episodes of TOS is not the same timeline as the one in Nemesis. So with the amount of changes to the timeline caused by First Contact and Enterprise, then there is no possibility of the events of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager occurring as we remember them. Therefore, it makes more sense to consider Discovery as a sequel to Enterprise and not a prequel to TOS.
The point of seeing Enterprise on the Enterprise-D isn't Enterprise, it's the Enterprise-D. You see a scene in the episode Pegasus that, beyond some slight aging of the actors (and a Riker lookalike in Ten Forward), is no different than the episode itself. Since the simulation took place after the events of Enterprise, and the Enterprise-D is exactly the same, we can see that they successfully averted substantial changes to the timeline.
As far as Discovery goes, even though its ostensibly the topic, I'd just as soon leave it out of the discussion.
And how do we know that the Enterprise-D is completely the same or that even if there is a Captain Picard, Geordi La Forge, or Data? Or that any of the other significant actions in TNG happened. The USS Defiant in Enterprise looks exactly like a TOS Constitution even though we have seen an updated version of a Constitution class in Discovery. Either the USS Defiant came from the original timeline and the changes from First Contact and Enterprise created a new version of the Constitution class or TV shows like to reuse sets and models when they can get away with it. There is too much temporal changes in First Contact and Enterprise to state that nothing changed in the TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager eras. A minute long scene on the Enterprise-D doesn't provide any information about how much the timeline has changed due to the temporal changes from First Contact and Enterprise.
The amount of temporal changes in Enterprise vastly exceeds the amount in First Contact. There was no genetically modified Suliban, Xindi attack, or alien N A Z Is in the original timeline. Only one episode of Enterprise was part of the Enterprise-D holodeck and it had to be the worst Star Trek series finale ever besides the fact that it had nothing to do with events caused by some temporal change. With the amount of time travel in Star Trek, the timeline of the first few episodes of TOS is not the same timeline as the one in Nemesis. So with the amount of changes to the timeline caused by First Contact and Enterprise, then there is no possibility of the events of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager occurring as we remember them. Therefore, it makes more sense to consider Discovery as a sequel to Enterprise and not a prequel to TOS.
The point of seeing Enterprise on the Enterprise-D isn't Enterprise, it's the Enterprise-D. You see a scene in the episode Pegasus that, beyond some slight aging of the actors (and a Riker lookalike in Ten Forward), is no different than the episode itself. Since the simulation took place after the events of Enterprise, and the Enterprise-D is exactly the same, we can see that they successfully averted substantial changes to the timeline.
As far as Discovery goes, even though its ostensibly the topic, I'd just as soon leave it out of the discussion.
And how do we know that the Enterprise-D is completely the same or that even if there is a Captain Picard, Geordi La Forge, or Data? Or that any of the other significant actions in TNG happened. The USS Defiant in Enterprise looks exactly like a TOS Constitution even though we have seen an updated version of a Constitution class in Discovery. Either the USS Defiant came from the original timeline and the changes from First Contact and Enterprise created a new version of the Constitution class or TV shows like to reuse sets and models when they can get away with it. There is too much temporal changes in First Contact and Enterprise to state that nothing changed in the TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager eras. A minute long scene on the Enterprise-D doesn't provide any information about how much the timeline has changed due to the temporal changes from First Contact and Enterprise.
Nor was there any mention on screen of any temporal changes to the timeline from First Contact to Enterprise either. None. Nada. Zip.
The amount of temporal changes in Enterprise vastly exceeds the amount in First Contact. There was no genetically modified Suliban, Xindi attack, or alien N A Z Is in the original timeline. Only one episode of Enterprise was part of the Enterprise-D holodeck and it had to be the worst Star Trek series finale ever besides the fact that it had nothing to do with events caused by some temporal change. With the amount of time travel in Star Trek, the timeline of the first few episodes of TOS is not the same timeline as the one in Nemesis. So with the amount of changes to the timeline caused by First Contact and Enterprise, then there is no possibility of the events of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager occurring as we remember them. Therefore, it makes more sense to consider Discovery as a sequel to Enterprise and not a prequel to TOS.
The point of seeing Enterprise on the Enterprise-D isn't Enterprise, it's the Enterprise-D. You see a scene in the episode Pegasus that, beyond some slight aging of the actors (and a Riker lookalike in Ten Forward), is no different than the episode itself. Since the simulation took place after the events of Enterprise, and the Enterprise-D is exactly the same, we can see that they successfully averted substantial changes to the timeline.
As far as Discovery goes, even though its ostensibly the topic, I'd just as soon leave it out of the discussion.
And how do we know that the Enterprise-D is completely the same or that even if there is a Captain Picard, Geordi La Forge, or Data? Or that any of the other significant actions in TNG happened. The USS Defiant in Enterprise looks exactly like a TOS Constitution even though we have seen an updated version of a Constitution class in Discovery. Either the USS Defiant came from the original timeline and the changes from First Contact and Enterprise created a new version of the Constitution class or TV shows like to reuse sets and models when they can get away with it. There is too much temporal changes in First Contact and Enterprise to state that nothing changed in the TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager eras. A minute long scene on the Enterprise-D doesn't provide any information about how much the timeline has changed due to the temporal changes from First Contact and Enterprise.
Nor was there any mention on screen of any temporal changes to the timeline from First Contact to Enterprise either. None. Nada. Zip.
It is incredibly shortsighted to think that having alien N A Z Is, genetically engineering the Suliban, and destroying a good portion of Earth to have zero change to the timeline.
Section 31 was created after First Contact. It makes sense that Section 31 is due to Cochrane's party learning that there are extremely dangerous aliens like the Borg out there instead of their first encounter with aliens are 'friendly' Vulcans. Luther Sloan and Lily Sloane have too similar names to not have some connection. I would not be surprised if Lily Sloane worked to create a clandestine organization that eventually became Section 31.
Considering that Discovery doesn't look anything like what we expect 10 years before TOS could be explained by changes to the timeline.
The amount of temporal changes in Enterprise vastly exceeds the amount in First Contact. There was no genetically modified Suliban, Xindi attack, or alien N A Z Is in the original timeline. Only one episode of Enterprise was part of the Enterprise-D holodeck and it had to be the worst Star Trek series finale ever besides the fact that it had nothing to do with events caused by some temporal change. With the amount of time travel in Star Trek, the timeline of the first few episodes of TOS is not the same timeline as the one in Nemesis. So with the amount of changes to the timeline caused by First Contact and Enterprise, then there is no possibility of the events of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager occurring as we remember them. Therefore, it makes more sense to consider Discovery as a sequel to Enterprise and not a prequel to TOS.
The point of seeing Enterprise on the Enterprise-D isn't Enterprise, it's the Enterprise-D. You see a scene in the episode Pegasus that, beyond some slight aging of the actors (and a Riker lookalike in Ten Forward), is no different than the episode itself. Since the simulation took place after the events of Enterprise, and the Enterprise-D is exactly the same, we can see that they successfully averted substantial changes to the timeline.
As far as Discovery goes, even though its ostensibly the topic, I'd just as soon leave it out of the discussion.
And how do we know that the Enterprise-D is completely the same or that even if there is a Captain Picard, Geordi La Forge, or Data? Or that any of the other significant actions in TNG happened. The USS Defiant in Enterprise looks exactly like a TOS Constitution even though we have seen an updated version of a Constitution class in Discovery. Either the USS Defiant came from the original timeline and the changes from First Contact and Enterprise created a new version of the Constitution class or TV shows like to reuse sets and models when they can get away with it. There is too much temporal changes in First Contact and Enterprise to state that nothing changed in the TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager eras. A minute long scene on the Enterprise-D doesn't provide any information about how much the timeline has changed due to the temporal changes from First Contact and Enterprise.
Nor was there any mention on screen of any temporal changes to the timeline from First Contact to Enterprise either. None. Nada. Zip.
It is incredibly shortsighted to think that having alien N A Z Is, genetically engineering the Suliban, and destroying a good portion of Earth to have zero change to the timeline.
Section 31 was created after First Contact. It makes sense that Section 31 is due to Cochrane's party learning that there are extremely dangerous aliens like the Borg out there instead of their first encounter with aliens are 'friendly' Vulcans. Luther Sloan and Lily Sloane have too similar names to not have some connection. I would not be surprised if Lily Sloane worked to create a clandestine organization that eventually became Section 31.
Considering that Discovery doesn't look anything like what we expect 10 years before TOS could be explained by changes to the timeline.
Discovery is a visual reboot but maintains canon events. Its not temporal this or that. You're letting your own specualtions and head canon get in the way of what has been actually stated by the showrunners.
Comments
https://trekmovie.com/2018/06/04/patrick-stewart-talks-cryptically-about-having-good-reason-to-watch-star-trek-discovery/
https://io9.gizmodo.com/star-trek-discoverys-best-episode-happened-because-the-1826759358/amp
My character Tsin'xing
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
After the Brian Fuller debacle, I'm certain this is the reason they were fired. Maybe they were unkind to the writers, but writers are a dime a dozen. I doubt CBS cares about the fee-fees of writers.
"Amid all the changes, Kurtzman — who directed the series premiere — has been the glue holding Discovery together."
Really, Lesley Goldberg? You are going to pin the hopes of Star Trek: Discovery on the writer and director of the recent Mummy movie? The one who "directed" the premiere of Star Trek: Discovery, yet the Discovery, her crew and even the main story point of the series (the mushroom drive) was not even introduced in the premiere?
I don't know, Discovery fans. The first season had changes in leadership that led to some messy story-telling. Do you think the show can survive a second season of disjointed story telling?
Myself, I think if they continue with the themes and tone they started with, and produce one or two memorable episodes, it could still get a third season. If they try to connect too much with "old busted Trek", they will alienate their established audience. I also feel like they are laying the groundwork to "lower expectations" with most of the coming season, which could help them get a third season.
Not really. TrekMovie's article also points to a volatile writer's room, and rumors of HR complaints. This also extends to Akiva Goldsman, who is also no longer with the show. The budget issues may be a part of it, but these potential HR issues seem to be the driving force behind the move.
Factually incorrect. Kurtzman gets a co-story credit for "The Vulcan Hello," but does not have teleplay or directing credit for either premiere episode. Bryan Fuller's name is all over both episodes, and Harberts, Berg, and Goldsman all had their hands in the episodes, too.
Lesley Goldberg of THR can speculate and "site sekaret sources" all she wants. CBS does not care about a handful of HR complaints unless they are sexual misconduct or discriminatory. Writers are easily replaced. Deadline's article does not mention the writing staff and Variety's "sekaret sources" say "tension had been building in the writers room as work continued on season two", though they are professional enough not to speculate what impact (if any) the writer's feelings had on firing Berg and Harberts.
I put "directed" in quotes because it is the ARTICLE that claimed Kurtzman directed the premiere (the same article that claims Berg and Harberts hurt the writer's feelings, so CBS fired them). Kurtzman was co-creator, producer and lead writer for the majority of Star Trek: Discovery's first season (when he was not busy writing and directing the Mummy).
I'm certain that Star Trek: Discovery is in good hands. After all, the "Future is Definitely Female" on the set of Star Trek: Discovery.
The article might have miscommunicated this point, or the writer may have been confused.
And, I wouldn't take HR issues lightly. If HR is involved in any serious way (with multiple complaints), that's a big deal. I don't think they just hurt someone's feelings or put someone's stapler in jello, LOL.
Looking at the entertainment industry in general there definitely seems to be a lot of infighting going on right now, bordering on being an inquisition to purge thoughtcrime from their midst. Reading about the horror stories from inside the various entertainment industries it actually sounds kind of scary right now.
Saying something stupid on twitter or having the wrong opinion could get someone fired. There seems to be a lot of hypocrisy especially with the difference between the reaction to what Roseanne tweeted and the reaction to what Samantha Bee said recently on her show. One got fired and I haven't heard of any punishment for the other for saying something that disgusting. So apparently what is said on Twitter is far more important than what someone says on their show.
I certainly won't argue that point, or the notion that Hollywood has currently lost its mind (more so than normal, LOL).
My only point was that, not unlike Fuller's departure, B&H's departure seems to have more than one reason. You can overcome budgetary mismanagement. You can overcome HR complaints (especially if, like you say, they are relatively minor... but we don't know the extent beyond nameless sources). Put the two together, though? On top of the troubled history this show already has? That's enough for CBS to act, IMO.
It's been fascinating reading the fan base reaction to this move... there's little love lost out there for B&H. I was willing to give them another shot, but then again, I think I can squarely place the ruining of Gabriel Lorca on them without much benefit-of-doubt... so, no tears from me.
https://trekmovie.com/2018/06/19/breaking-cbs-planning-to-expand-star-trek-television-franchise-alex-kurtzman-to-oversee/
http://www.treknews.net/2018/06/19/alex-kurtzman-cbs-deal-tng-reboot/
The only thing that can be said for certain is that CBS has locked up Kurtzman to a production deal extension, and that multiple new series will be produced.
That second one is such a bad headline. Nothing about the press release says, suggests, or even hints at a TNG reboot. It doesn't even make sense if the point is to include Patrick Stewart. A sequel is not a reboot. A reboot of TNG would be criminal. Even a reboot of Voyager, which kills me because I know just a few small changes would have made a huge difference, should never be considered acceptable.
If the timeline of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager was replaced by the timeline created from the temporal changes in First Contact and Enterprise, then any new Star Trek series set in the late 24th Century would be a reboot not a sequel.
It wasn't, though. Seven makes a reference to the events of First Contact. Enterprise existed on the Enterprise-D's holodeck.
Every time a major temporal change occurs, the timeline is rewritten to a certain extent. Part of DS9 and Voyager could have been part of the new timeline like the existence of Section 31. There was no mention of Section 31 in any Star Trek series before First Contact. Facing the Borg as part of First Contact could have made certain members of Cochrane's team more pragmatic like Lily Sloane instead of purely optimistic about interstellar exploration which could result in the creation of Section 31 in one timeline, but no Section 31 in the original timeline. There might be a connection between Lily Sloane and Luther Sloan besides having the same initials and similar last names.
The amount of temporal changes in Enterprise vastly exceeds the amount in First Contact. There was no genetically modified Suliban, Xindi attack, or alien N A Z Is in the original timeline. Only one episode of Enterprise was part of the Enterprise-D holodeck and it had to be the worst Star Trek series finale ever besides the fact that it had nothing to do with events caused by some temporal change. With the amount of time travel in Star Trek, the timeline of the first few episodes of TOS is not the same timeline as the one in Nemesis. So with the amount of changes to the timeline caused by First Contact and Enterprise, then there is no possibility of the events of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager occurring as we remember them. Therefore, it makes more sense to consider Discovery as a sequel to Enterprise and not a prequel to TOS.
The point of seeing Enterprise on the Enterprise-D isn't Enterprise, it's the Enterprise-D. You see a scene in the episode Pegasus that, beyond some slight aging of the actors (and a Riker lookalike in Ten Forward), is no different than the episode itself. Since the simulation took place after the events of Enterprise, and the Enterprise-D is exactly the same, we can see that they successfully averted substantial changes to the timeline.
As far as Discovery goes, even though its ostensibly the topic, I'd just as soon leave it out of the discussion.
And the TOS Enterprise bridge was also on the Ent-D holodeck. But we know now that will be...inaccurate?
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
And how do we know that the Enterprise-D is completely the same or that even if there is a Captain Picard, Geordi La Forge, or Data? Or that any of the other significant actions in TNG happened. The USS Defiant in Enterprise looks exactly like a TOS Constitution even though we have seen an updated version of a Constitution class in Discovery. Either the USS Defiant came from the original timeline and the changes from First Contact and Enterprise created a new version of the Constitution class or TV shows like to reuse sets and models when they can get away with it. There is too much temporal changes in First Contact and Enterprise to state that nothing changed in the TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager eras. A minute long scene on the Enterprise-D doesn't provide any information about how much the timeline has changed due to the temporal changes from First Contact and Enterprise.
Nor was there any mention on screen of any temporal changes to the timeline from First Contact to Enterprise either. None. Nada. Zip.
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
It is incredibly shortsighted to think that having alien N A Z Is, genetically engineering the Suliban, and destroying a good portion of Earth to have zero change to the timeline.
Section 31 was created after First Contact. It makes sense that Section 31 is due to Cochrane's party learning that there are extremely dangerous aliens like the Borg out there instead of their first encounter with aliens are 'friendly' Vulcans. Luther Sloan and Lily Sloane have too similar names to not have some connection. I would not be surprised if Lily Sloane worked to create a clandestine organization that eventually became Section 31.
Considering that Discovery doesn't look anything like what we expect 10 years before TOS could be explained by changes to the timeline.
Discovery is a visual reboot but maintains canon events. Its not temporal this or that. You're letting your own specualtions and head canon get in the way of what has been actually stated by the showrunners.
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!