The same as Roddenberry's on the lobster-head Klingons in TMP: "They always looked like that. We just didn't have the budget to show it."
And as I have said before, DS9 and Enterprise ruined that explanation. So there is now an actual difference between TOS Klingons, TNG Klingons, and Discovery Klingons instead of Klingons always looked like that, but we didn't have the budget or technology for it.
Doesn't mean we can't use it for these visual differences. The Enterprise always looked like that, but they didn't have the budget to show it.
Well, it was originally designed with the bridge ceiling you see in TMP at least anyway (Jefferies talked about that and the practical reasons for not actually building and hanging it though the blueprints were drawn up, in several articles), the rest of it was always a refit just like they say onscreen.
Also, the TOS bridge was supposed to have context sensitive control panels with what we would now call touchscreen softbuttons in addition to a few harware ones, though they did not have a name for it yet. The problem was that the transperencies they used burned about thirty seconds after turning on the pannel lights so they left them off.
Also, the jewel buttons were not just simple pushbuttons (in fact, the props did not actually move at all), just watch Sulu's hands when he is steering the ship manually, those jewel buttons act a bit like direction of pressure sensitive "tophat" controls, he keeps one hand mostly anchored and rocks it instead of punching buttons like it was keyboard or button panel of today while he pushes buttons in a more conventional way with the other.
It would be interesting if they actually did panels like that with today's production values, but they probably never will. For one thing they would probably be too expensive to hand make them, it is far cheaper to slap a big flatscreen display down as a "control panel" nowadays.
The same as Roddenberry's on the lobster-head Klingons in TMP: "They always looked like that. We just didn't have the budget to show it."
And as I have said before, DS9 and Enterprise ruined that explanation. So there is now an actual difference between TOS Klingons, TNG Klingons, and Discovery Klingons instead of Klingons always looked like that, but we didn't have the budget or technology for it.
Nope. There's a difference between TOS Klingons and TNG Klingons, but there's no difference between TOS Klingons, movie Klingons, TNG Klingons, or DSC Klingons; they always looked like that.
"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"
The same as Roddenberry's on the lobster-head Klingons in TMP: "They always looked like that. We just didn't have the budget to show it."
And as I have said before, DS9 and Enterprise ruined that explanation. So there is now an actual difference between TOS Klingons, TNG Klingons, and Discovery Klingons instead of Klingons always looked like that, but we didn't have the budget or technology for it.
Nope. There's a difference between TOS Klingons and TNG Klingons, but there's no difference between TOS Klingons, movie Klingons, TNG Klingons, or DSC Klingons; they always looked like that.
The funny thing is, if you go by the "last word" method the official explanation is that there are over 20 houses and not all of them come from Qo'nos, so "they always looked like that" takes on a new, more inclusive, meaning.
However, we've seen a wide variety of appearances for Klingons. The existence of differing ethnicities among the Klingon species would certainly explain why the Klinks of House Mo'kai look so little like the Klingons in TOS or the Klinks of House Mogh. (And one must assume the existence of some form of ethnic prejudice to cover why the appearance of Klingons in TNG is so relatively uniform, and differs from some of the Klingons we saw in the TOS movies. This hypothesis is, IMO, bolstered by the discrimination we saw openly displayed toward Voq before his transformation into Tyler, and also explains Voq's willingness to undergo such a radical procedure.)
Stuff has to change at some point otherwise it becomes stale.
Yes, but too much change can be as bad or worse than too little. I think the bulk of the negative reaction to the S1 Klingons (once you get past the reactionary "purists") is that they made them too alien, bordering on monstrous, hence the "Klingorc" nickname.
I wrote a big essay on Quora a couple weeks ago on how the depiction of the Klingons in season 1 is basically racist, but the upshot is, the TOS Klingons clashed with the Federation because they were a rival nation with opposing interests, not because they considered the Federation an existential threat to the very fabric of Klingon society itself.
The difference is kind of highlighted by the bar fight in "The Trouble with Tribbles": the one Klingon picks a fight with Scotty, but they keep it to bare fists, no knives or guns, because Klingons consider fighting a worthy opponent to be great fun -- a mentality that Scotty, being a Scot, reciprocates. The Klingons overall don't hate Starfleet or the Federation, they consider them adversaries worthy of professional respect.
It's compounded by the fact that DSC was basically trying to use T'Kuvma, and the Terrans for that matter, as a proxy for the far-right, when what they really needed was something more like Terra Prime. Or for that matter, Section 31.
Oh yeah no doubt. The reptillianness of the newer makup btw is fully in keeping with the revelation from TNG (when Barkley caused everyone to devolve), of venom spitting reptile that Worf devolved into.
EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
"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"
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
I won't get into the so called political TRIBBLE beyond to say that Trek has since day 1 made political commentary that has often been wildly offensive to different groups. For example TNG's "The High Ground" was banned in the UK for years.
Until TOS:Remastered, 'Patterns of Force' was never synched to german, despite the episode being rather inoffensive overall. In the end it was all just because alcohol made it easy to pull a puppet's strings, so to say. And taking the episode at face-value is cringeworthy at best.
The "morally and politically correct burden" of broadcast-companies.
> @azrael605 said: > I won't get into the so called political TRIBBLE beyond to say that Trek has since day 1 made political commentary that has often been wildly offensive to different groups. For example TNG's "The High Ground" was banned in the UK for years.
I'm not arguing the show shouldn't discuss current politics, I'm just saying that I think in this case they did it the wrong way and consequently blew up the argument they were clearly trying to make.
My argument is, if your cast is uber-diverse (and actually, DS9 has DSC beat) and you're calling out racist behavior towards your characters, you should not then turn around and make up your own racist stereotypes about sapient non-humans and then validate them every time a Klingon opens his/her mouth. What you're essentially ACTUALLY saying in that case is "bigotry is okay as long as it's against the right people"
And part of the reason I'm calling that out is because I made that mistake in a fanfic once (and was called out for it; I ended up rewriting the entire last third of the story because the more I looked at it the more I hated it).
FWIW, "The High Ground" was banned essentially for saying that the IRA or their successors won, at the same time that the UK was trying to get the Good Friday peace agreement in place IRL. Kinda "not helpful".
"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"
To be honest, it isn't something I tend to dwell on much.
Though, as unpopular as this opinion may be, I prefer the way the Discovery Enterprise looks over the original.
I know that opinion is basically sacrilage to some, but eitherway - I LOVE the DSC Constitution design.
It's better looking that the ugly T0S Connie
That is really ugly
A much better Connie
I admit, I'm an old TOS fan (still the best series IMO) - and while I was initially a bit annoyed, yeah, I grown to like the look of the Disco Connie; and hell considering the "refit" in TMP (where they claimed it was the same hull, inside and out) - as far as I'm concerned - it had a refit to make it look the way it does between the events in TOS - "The Cage" and ST: D's "Brother"; and it'll get ANOTHER refit prior to the events of TOS - "Where No Man Has Gone Before" <-- That's my story and I'm sticking to it; so yeah, until they show Kirk on the Dico Connie, she'll return to how she looked for TOS at some point (off screen)
(My only real peeve was the 'split and swept back' Nacelle struts. If they either done the strut 'split, but straight up, or not split and just swept back, I would have happily squinted and said - okay, I can live with that)
TOS in it's day was te most expensive series on the air, and did have feature film quality sets; as well as effects (seriously, look at the stuff done in the early 1960ies. Hell, by the third season te effects company was doing shots that DID compare well to even "2001: A Space Odyssey"). TOS was never "Cheap".
Hell, if you want a comparison - TNG cost around $1.5 - $2 million an episode over teh course of it's run; and used ILM.
ST: D costs (on average $8 million an episode; and is also using various VFX houses that do feature film work.
Is TNG now "Cheap" too?
Star Trek has ALWAYS been an expensive show, and striven for high quality visuals no matter what era of production were talking about.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
At the end of the day, is anyone really wrong? We all have our preferences as to what's good to look at, and what isn't. Some people prefer the TOS Connie, some people prefer the TMP Connie, some people prefer the JJ Connie, and some people (myself included) prefer the DSC Connie. We're all different. Hell, some people even think Kim Kardashian is attractive.
The TOS model, even the TMP model, simply put, would've looked too dated for a modern era show, just as the TMP/TNG Excelsior model would look too dated if it were to show up in the Picard series (though one would think they'd have finally retired those class of ships by now; I can't imagine the Excelsior can do anything that the Akira, Luna or Nova (except the T6 version of one) can't.
I'm going to have to dissagree with a lot of what you've said @coldnapalm .
I'll agree about the Klingons, cause honestly, they simply didn't need to change them that dramatically at all; they could've used some rugged humanoids, gone with the TNG look, or even copied those from the JJverse (they looked menacing enough).
The Season 1 story made sense in that it was about Michael's redemption, and the Klingon rise to power, although granted, it was all wrapped up out of nowhere and didn't quite seem right. That's not to say elements of the story weren't good though, just ultimately, poorly executed. The characters are mostly all stand-out to me; they've all got their quirks. If any of them are dull, then it's probably Burnham herself, but that's because she's playing someone who's almost Vulcan.
How can you not like characters such as Lorca, Pike, Tilly, Saru etc? You say the plot twist was obvious too; which plot twist are you talking about, because if you're telling me you knew Lorca was from the MI early on, you're talking BS. The only obvious twists (which weren't really twists) was that Voq was Ash Tyler, and that Michael is the Red Angel.
You want to talk about inconsistencies and stupid characters and predictable storylines though, I could quite happily, and quite easily list more from any other Trek series. Why should this one stand out as the worst?
uh...no - it was known before the show even AIRED that lorca was either S31 or a terran
and pretty much NO ONE saw 'michael is the red angel' coming until the episode we found out its identity - and it wasn't her anyway, it was her mother; up until that point, the prevailing theory was the red angel was an iconian
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
The other twist that I certainly didn't see coming was that there were two Red Angels, with differing agendas.
And I disagree about Season 1 ending too abruptly; it wasn't about the war, it was about the redemption of Michael Burnham, going from the woman who was willing to commit mutiny and violate Starfleet regulations and principles in order to follow the most expedient path, to the woman who encouraged her shipmates to disobey a blatantly illegal order that would have violated Starfleet regulations and principles in order to follow the most expedient path. (And yes, there's a difference between mutiny and violating orders, both ethically and legally - the last is in fact required under certain circumstances.)
I wasn't too sure about using "this is too highly classified to even discuss" again at the end of Season 2, but as Certifiably Ingame put it in a STO playthrough video, regarding the re-use of the "fake a distress call to attract the Romulans' attention" bit, "As long as they're going to keep falling for it, I'm going to keep using it." Starfleet doesn't seem to have many whistleblowers...
(Personally, I would have simply had Starfleet go with the story that Discovery was lost with all hands in a second failure of the Displacement Activated Spore Hub (DASH) Drive, similar to the earlier loss of the Glenn, proving that mycelial technology was just too dangerous to use. The ship would then go unmentioned in future except as an example in Engineering classes at the Academy of why you don't just slap some new experimental tech into a working starship and turn it on to see what happens. I mean, yeah, shipful of heroes lost in a classified incident near the Klingon border, but they were hardly the first, were they? Many ships were destroyed and many people died during the war itself, and some rogue Houses apparently just couldn't stop themselves from picking at the scab later...)
My argument is, if your cast is uber-diverse (and actually, DS9 has DSC beat) and you're calling out racist behavior towards your characters, you should not then turn around and make up your own racist stereotypes about sapient non-humans and then validate them every time a Klingon opens his/her mouth. What you're essentially ACTUALLY saying in that case is "bigotry is okay as long as it's against the right people"
But, stereotypes aren't bigotry unless you use them instead of evidence when making decisions. For example, Odo asking Quark about it any time something is stolen. That's stereotyping. It'd be bigotry if Odo made a habit of locking him up just for being "suspicious".
My argument is, if your cast is uber-diverse (and actually, DS9 has DSC beat) and you're calling out racist behavior towards your characters, you should not then turn around and make up your own racist stereotypes about sapient non-humans and then validate them every time a Klingon opens his/her mouth. What you're essentially ACTUALLY saying in that case is "bigotry is okay as long as it's against the right people"
But, stereotypes aren't bigotry unless you use them instead of evidence when making decisions. For example, Odo asking Quark about it any time something is stolen. That's stereotyping. It'd be bigotry if Odo made a habit of locking him up just for being "suspicious".
That's not exactly stereotyping either. Most of the time Odo was right about Quark knowing something.
My argument is, if your cast is uber-diverse (and actually, DS9 has DSC beat) and you're calling out racist behavior towards your characters, you should not then turn around and make up your own racist stereotypes about sapient non-humans and then validate them every time a Klingon opens his/her mouth. What you're essentially ACTUALLY saying in that case is "bigotry is okay as long as it's against the right people"
But, stereotypes aren't bigotry unless you use them instead of evidence when making decisions. For example, Odo asking Quark about it any time something is stolen. That's stereotyping. It'd be bigotry if Odo made a habit of locking him up just for being "suspicious".
That's not exactly stereotyping either. Most of the time Odo was right about Quark knowing something.
Stereotypes can be wrong, but they're never based on NOTHING. People always get the idea from something. It's really just a way of sorting people into categories.
uh...no - it was known before the show even AIRED that lorca was either S31 or a terran.
If it was known about Lorca being S31 (or) Terran, then it wasn't known, was it? It was speculated that he was one or the other. Needless to say, nobody I spoke to about him seemed remotely aware of his nature. I'd be interested to know where it was stated, or even implied before airing that Lorca wasn't himself. Do tell.
and pretty much NO ONE saw 'michael is the red angel' coming until the episode we found out its identity - and it wasn't her anyway, it was her mother; up until that point, the prevailing theory was the red angel was an iconian
Maybe it's where we're from, but as soon as we realised the Red Angel was in a humanoid suit, I suspected it was Michael, as the show is about her. It wasn't actually her mother either; when we first met the Red Angel, it was actually Michael, but a future version of herself. That was explicitly identified in the final episode of Season 2.
And I disagree about Season 1 ending too abruptly; it wasn't about the war, it was about the redemption of Michael Burnham, going from the woman who was willing to commit mutiny and violate Starfleet regulations and principles in order to follow the most expedient path, to the woman who encouraged her shipmates to disobey a blatantly illegal order that would have violated Starfleet regulations and principles in order to follow the most expedient path. (And yes, there's a difference between mutiny and violating orders, both ethically and legally - the last is in fact required under certain circumstances.)
I meant in regard to the Klingon arc. When Discovery started, or rather, before it aired, we were told (IIRC) that it was a two focus story; one angle from the Federation, the other from the Klingon. This is what got me invested (in addition to it being a new Trek show) we were going to see the development of the show from two very different perspectives. The Klingon angle was, I felt, rushed and wrapped up too quickly. I had hoped they'd remedy that with season two, but it mostly went back to being a Federation show (which is great, don't get me wrong) but I liked the concept of telling the same story from two different perspectives, and I doubt there's going to be much focus on the Klingons with Season 3.
(Personally, I would have simply had Starfleet go with the story that Discovery was lost with all hands in a second failure of the Displacement Activated Spore Hub (DASH) Drive, similar to the earlier loss of the Glenn, proving that mycelial technology was just too dangerous to use. The ship would then go unmentioned in future except as an example in Engineering classes at the Academy of why you don't just slap some new experimental tech into a working starship and turn it on to see what happens. I mean, yeah, shipful of heroes lost in a classified incident near the Klingon border, but they were hardly the first, were they? Many ships were destroyed and many people died during the war itself, and some rogue Houses apparently just couldn't stop themselves from picking at the scab later...)
The whole context of the season 2 final was a mess really. They neutralised the AI in the present, so there was literally no need for them to jump into the future. The threat had been dealt with.
My argument is, if your cast is uber-diverse (and actually, DS9 has DSC beat) and you're calling out racist behavior towards your characters, you should not then turn around and make up your own racist stereotypes about sapient non-humans and then validate them every time a Klingon opens his/her mouth. What you're essentially ACTUALLY saying in that case is "bigotry is okay as long as it's against the right people"
But, stereotypes aren't bigotry unless you use them instead of evidence when making decisions. For example, Odo asking Quark about it any time something is stolen. That's stereotyping. It'd be bigotry if Odo made a habit of locking him up just for being "suspicious".
That's not stereotyping or bigotry. Odo doesn't go after Rom or Nog or any other Ferengi who happens to be passing through when stuff starts to go missing on the station, he goes after Quark specifically.
He doesn't think all Ferengi are thieves, just Quark. As it happens, he's right, he just hasn't been able to prove it.
Saying things like "Klingons only respond to violence" is bigoted stereotyping. Saying it and then trying to seize control of the ship over it is using the stereotype as evidence to make a decision.
Saying it and then taking it to the point of threatening to blow up the Klingon homeworld to get them to retreat? That's the show endorsing bigotry and stereotyping!
We're a long, long way from the TOS crew saying vaguely racist things and Spock calling them on it.
"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"
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Comments
The same as Roddenberry's on the lobster-head Klingons in TMP: "They always looked like that. We just didn't have the budget to show it."
And as I have said before, DS9 and Enterprise ruined that explanation. So there is now an actual difference between TOS Klingons, TNG Klingons, and Discovery Klingons instead of Klingons always looked like that, but we didn't have the budget or technology for it.
Well, it was originally designed with the bridge ceiling you see in TMP at least anyway (Jefferies talked about that and the practical reasons for not actually building and hanging it though the blueprints were drawn up, in several articles), the rest of it was always a refit just like they say onscreen.
Also, the TOS bridge was supposed to have context sensitive control panels with what we would now call touchscreen softbuttons in addition to a few harware ones, though they did not have a name for it yet. The problem was that the transperencies they used burned about thirty seconds after turning on the pannel lights so they left them off.
Also, the jewel buttons were not just simple pushbuttons (in fact, the props did not actually move at all), just watch Sulu's hands when he is steering the ship manually, those jewel buttons act a bit like direction of pressure sensitive "tophat" controls, he keeps one hand mostly anchored and rocks it instead of punching buttons like it was keyboard or button panel of today while he pushes buttons in a more conventional way with the other.
It would be interesting if they actually did panels like that with today's production values, but they probably never will. For one thing they would probably be too expensive to hand make them, it is far cheaper to slap a big flatscreen display down as a "control panel" nowadays.
Nope. There's a difference between TOS Klingons and TNG Klingons, but there's no difference between TOS Klingons, movie Klingons, TNG Klingons, or DSC Klingons; they always looked like that.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
The funny thing is, if you go by the "last word" method the official explanation is that there are over 20 houses and not all of them come from Qo'nos, so "they always looked like that" takes on a new, more inclusive, meaning.
I wrote a big essay on Quora a couple weeks ago on how the depiction of the Klingons in season 1 is basically racist, but the upshot is, the TOS Klingons clashed with the Federation because they were a rival nation with opposing interests, not because they considered the Federation an existential threat to the very fabric of Klingon society itself.
The difference is kind of highlighted by the bar fight in "The Trouble with Tribbles": the one Klingon picks a fight with Scotty, but they keep it to bare fists, no knives or guns, because Klingons consider fighting a worthy opponent to be great fun -- a mentality that Scotty, being a Scot, reciprocates. The Klingons overall don't hate Starfleet or the Federation, they consider them adversaries worthy of professional respect.
It's compounded by the fact that DSC was basically trying to use T'Kuvma, and the Terrans for that matter, as a proxy for the far-right, when what they really needed was something more like Terra Prime. Or for that matter, Section 31.
EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Until TOS:Remastered, 'Patterns of Force' was never synched to german, despite the episode being rather inoffensive overall. In the end it was all just because alcohol made it easy to pull a puppet's strings, so to say. And taking the episode at face-value is cringeworthy at best.
The "morally and politically correct burden" of broadcast-companies.
> I won't get into the so called political TRIBBLE beyond to say that Trek has since day 1 made political commentary that has often been wildly offensive to different groups. For example TNG's "The High Ground" was banned in the UK for years.
I'm not arguing the show shouldn't discuss current politics, I'm just saying that I think in this case they did it the wrong way and consequently blew up the argument they were clearly trying to make.
My argument is, if your cast is uber-diverse (and actually, DS9 has DSC beat) and you're calling out racist behavior towards your characters, you should not then turn around and make up your own racist stereotypes about sapient non-humans and then validate them every time a Klingon opens his/her mouth. What you're essentially ACTUALLY saying in that case is "bigotry is okay as long as it's against the right people"
And part of the reason I'm calling that out is because I made that mistake in a fanfic once (and was called out for it; I ended up rewriting the entire last third of the story because the more I looked at it the more I hated it).
FWIW, "The High Ground" was banned essentially for saying that the IRA or their successors won, at the same time that the UK was trying to get the Good Friday peace agreement in place IRL. Kinda "not helpful".
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
I admit, I'm an old TOS fan (still the best series IMO) - and while I was initially a bit annoyed, yeah, I grown to like the look of the Disco Connie; and hell considering the "refit" in TMP (where they claimed it was the same hull, inside and out) - as far as I'm concerned - it had a refit to make it look the way it does between the events in TOS - "The Cage" and ST: D's "Brother"; and it'll get ANOTHER refit prior to the events of TOS - "Where No Man Has Gone Before" <-- That's my story and I'm sticking to it; so yeah, until they show Kirk on the Dico Connie, she'll return to how she looked for TOS at some point (off screen)
(My only real peeve was the 'split and swept back' Nacelle struts. If they either done the strut 'split, but straight up, or not split and just swept back, I would have happily squinted and said - okay, I can live with that)
TOS in it's day was te most expensive series on the air, and did have feature film quality sets; as well as effects (seriously, look at the stuff done in the early 1960ies. Hell, by the third season te effects company was doing shots that DID compare well to even "2001: A Space Odyssey"). TOS was never "Cheap".
Hell, if you want a comparison - TNG cost around $1.5 - $2 million an episode over teh course of it's run; and used ILM.
ST: D costs (on average $8 million an episode; and is also using various VFX houses that do feature film work.
Is TNG now "Cheap" too?
Star Trek has ALWAYS been an expensive show, and striven for high quality visuals no matter what era of production were talking about.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
The TOS model, even the TMP model, simply put, would've looked too dated for a modern era show, just as the TMP/TNG Excelsior model would look too dated if it were to show up in the Picard series (though one would think they'd have finally retired those class of ships by now; I can't imagine the Excelsior can do anything that the Akira, Luna or Nova (except the T6 version of one) can't.
I'll agree about the Klingons, cause honestly, they simply didn't need to change them that dramatically at all; they could've used some rugged humanoids, gone with the TNG look, or even copied those from the JJverse (they looked menacing enough).
The Season 1 story made sense in that it was about Michael's redemption, and the Klingon rise to power, although granted, it was all wrapped up out of nowhere and didn't quite seem right. That's not to say elements of the story weren't good though, just ultimately, poorly executed. The characters are mostly all stand-out to me; they've all got their quirks. If any of them are dull, then it's probably Burnham herself, but that's because she's playing someone who's almost Vulcan.
How can you not like characters such as Lorca, Pike, Tilly, Saru etc? You say the plot twist was obvious too; which plot twist are you talking about, because if you're telling me you knew Lorca was from the MI early on, you're talking BS. The only obvious twists (which weren't really twists) was that Voq was Ash Tyler, and that Michael is the Red Angel.
You want to talk about inconsistencies and stupid characters and predictable storylines though, I could quite happily, and quite easily list more from any other Trek series. Why should this one stand out as the worst?
and pretty much NO ONE saw 'michael is the red angel' coming until the episode we found out its identity - and it wasn't her anyway, it was her mother; up until that point, the prevailing theory was the red angel was an iconian
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
And I disagree about Season 1 ending too abruptly; it wasn't about the war, it was about the redemption of Michael Burnham, going from the woman who was willing to commit mutiny and violate Starfleet regulations and principles in order to follow the most expedient path, to the woman who encouraged her shipmates to disobey a blatantly illegal order that would have violated Starfleet regulations and principles in order to follow the most expedient path. (And yes, there's a difference between mutiny and violating orders, both ethically and legally - the last is in fact required under certain circumstances.)
I wasn't too sure about using "this is too highly classified to even discuss" again at the end of Season 2, but as Certifiably Ingame put it in a STO playthrough video, regarding the re-use of the "fake a distress call to attract the Romulans' attention" bit, "As long as they're going to keep falling for it, I'm going to keep using it." Starfleet doesn't seem to have many whistleblowers...
(Personally, I would have simply had Starfleet go with the story that Discovery was lost with all hands in a second failure of the Displacement Activated Spore Hub (DASH) Drive, similar to the earlier loss of the Glenn, proving that mycelial technology was just too dangerous to use. The ship would then go unmentioned in future except as an example in Engineering classes at the Academy of why you don't just slap some new experimental tech into a working starship and turn it on to see what happens. I mean, yeah, shipful of heroes lost in a classified incident near the Klingon border, but they were hardly the first, were they? Many ships were destroyed and many people died during the war itself, and some rogue Houses apparently just couldn't stop themselves from picking at the scab later...)
My character Tsin'xing
That's not exactly stereotyping either. Most of the time Odo was right about Quark knowing something.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
My character Tsin'xing
Maybe it's where we're from, but as soon as we realised the Red Angel was in a humanoid suit, I suspected it was Michael, as the show is about her. It wasn't actually her mother either; when we first met the Red Angel, it was actually Michael, but a future version of herself. That was explicitly identified in the final episode of Season 2.
I meant in regard to the Klingon arc. When Discovery started, or rather, before it aired, we were told (IIRC) that it was a two focus story; one angle from the Federation, the other from the Klingon. This is what got me invested (in addition to it being a new Trek show) we were going to see the development of the show from two very different perspectives. The Klingon angle was, I felt, rushed and wrapped up too quickly. I had hoped they'd remedy that with season two, but it mostly went back to being a Federation show (which is great, don't get me wrong) but I liked the concept of telling the same story from two different perspectives, and I doubt there's going to be much focus on the Klingons with Season 3.
The whole context of the season 2 final was a mess really. They neutralised the AI in the present, so there was literally no need for them to jump into the future. The threat had been dealt with.
He doesn't think all Ferengi are thieves, just Quark. As it happens, he's right, he just hasn't been able to prove it.
Saying things like "Klingons only respond to violence" is bigoted stereotyping. Saying it and then trying to seize control of the ship over it is using the stereotype as evidence to make a decision.
Saying it and then taking it to the point of threatening to blow up the Klingon homeworld to get them to retreat? That's the show endorsing bigotry and stereotyping!
We're a long, long way from the TOS crew saying vaguely racist things and Spock calling them on it.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"