That was the annoying part, regarding the characters. Mostly, Ash Tyler (and he was a security officer of all things) who looks like he could start crying every moment, makes up the rest of the annoying part.
The uninteresting part is basically the rest of Discovery's crew. I could only really care for Culber, after having seen a few episodes, he seemed the only really likable character - as a person, the other ones just lacked any and all sorts of human warmth. Even characters that were interesting for other reasons like Lorca and Saru, seemed just too distant. None of them (except for Culber) appeared anything like a person who you could laugh with, or have fun with.
I didn't even know any of their names until well into the first season, or even the second season for some of them. Yet, we had to care about Airiam, whose previous life was only shown to us in the very same episode where she was killed off IIRC. Or that guy who served as the helmsman I think, before he was turned into S31 goo, like later happened to Leland. I just did not remember him at all.
Even in Enterprise, which has some seriously underused characters, I knew all the names (I even remember Kelby for example).
[4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother
The tight focus on Burnham actually made sense in Fuller's original format for the show, it was an anthology of what amounted to three or four hour movies strung together to make up a season, each "movie" with a different cast and ship. Traces of that still remain with the choppy arcs the show transitioned though in turn in the first season.
With only a few hours to get to know the characters, narrowing it down like that helps people to connect with the ones important to the story easier. When Fuller left and they went to a more conventional single-ship-single-crew format that tight focus became a liability. The sad part is that Kurtzman apparently did not realize that and make adjustments.
As a character, Burnham is rather interesting. The problem comes in the fact that it takes subtle and deep writing to actually get that kind of character across in an interesting way since the surface is so subdued by the stiff logical front she shows the world, but CBS blithely ignored that for their action movie format. And action heroes are highly animated, larger than life characters for a number of good reasons, the main one being that without that exaggeration they are upstaged by the action and appear even duller and two-dimensional than they really are.
I cant really say much about the others, they were mainly walking filler and plot device, and probably the reason you don't remember their names is that many of them didn't even have a name until the second season, especially on the bridge crew.
as well as much more complex issues like a vastly different society (societies actually, since the Klingons are an even worse match culturally than DSC Fed) and tone, that have wide-reaching ramifications.
Except both the Federation and Klingons in DSC are exactly like they are in other Trek shows, DS9 especially.
The Federation is a flawed Utopia, plagued by mismanagement, corruption among the admiralty, a complete failing to secure its borders(systemic problems throughout TNG and DS9), and a willingness to use horrible means to achieve its ends.
And the Klingons are a "blood for the blood god" warrior species willing to use any means, including suicide tactics(something mentioned in the TNG episode Reunion as an honorable way to die among Klingons) to destroy their enemies, and pay lip service to the idea of honor, while being completely dishnorable in reality(a major point in DS9 as well what with Ezri's the Klingon Empire is dying speech)
Everything both groups do in Discovery is directly paralleled in other Trek shows, mostly TNG and DS9.
Except that they aren't like that except in DSC. It almost works for the later Treks like DS9 and parts of TNG, but even then it is not a very good fit, and either way those are irrelevant to DSC and TOS because they are a different era entirely.
In the TOS era the Federation was not a utopia though the social aim was in moving closer to one. Also, like today's government names the Federation was not so much a dictionary accurate federation as it was a loose confederation of worlds. It was largely based on the United Nations though tighter (in modern terms it was only a little tighter than the European Union in that they had a combined military in the form of Starfleet).
They had not one homogenous culture, but rather a loose mix of cultures that by then had only blended a bit at the edges. That makes for a lot of inefficiency and political infighting, but not really a high level of corruption.
And yes, they did have a certain amount of corruption, some good'ol boyism (as shown in Turnabout Intruder) and other oddities mainly limited to small cliques like the admirals who made that defacto glass ceiling, and some small conspiracies (in fact Kirk and Riley were part of the conspiracy to track down and possibly even lynch Kodos the Executioner). Every civilization has a few bad apples here and there, but in the Federation in the TOS era it is not as widespread and institutionalized as DSC makes it out to be.
And yes, the Klingons are supposed to be a kind of feudal warrior culture that changes fairly rapidly depending on who is top dog at any given point, but they were always shown as pragmatic (even brutally so) without much regard for death except to honor the memory (not the bodies) of great warriors. Bodies were buried or spaced without ceremony because they were considered just empty shells, not revered and put in coffins welded to the outsides of ships. They also had little appreciation for ostentatious decoration, yet DSC Klingons filigree and over decorate just about everything.
Also, on a lesser note, in the TOS era they were a surveillance culture and the impression was that they were like that for a while, DSC on the other hand shows them as anything but that. It is less of a point because the surveillance could have been something L'Rell instituted to keep the other houses in line.
In both the Federation and the Klingon empire the feel is quite different in many less easily definable ways too.
As for the format of the show, when exactly it changed over is still being argued and it is strongly possible that Fuller and Moonves were at odds about it and the massive set and prop rebuilding could have been the end of that back and forth. Regardless, the fact remains that DSC first season was several of the anthologies pitches clamped together and the tight focus originally came from the anthology format.
That's exactly the thing. People were so focused on hating DIS that they completely ignored the many details it actually adhered to.
SOME of the characters throughout the first two seasons are pretty good, just not the one the producers wanted to force us to love. No amount of cheesy tear-jerking soap-opera-style dialogue on a season-finale will make her an interesting hero.
For some reason, I would have wanted an andorian protagonist. Anyway, a lot of the other characters were pretty good. Even some of the less important ones.
A LOT of the details that tie in with canon information are spot-on.
It's the technobabble where DIS kinda lost it IMO, because it is less like the TNG-technobabble and more like the VOY-technobabble, but cranked up to 11 to make sure people can't remember the words to ask questions later.
And yeah. Action, violence, dark perspective yadda-yadda. That's simply how shows are nowadays. DIS desperately needed some "breather"-episodes like DS9's "In the Cards" to alleviate some of that (valid!) criticism.
And with all that in mind, I really looked forward to watching the next episode of DIS every week.
With Picard, I lost interest right after episode 3. No joke. The show is just Patrick-Stewart-wish-fulfillment, and has little to do with TNG's actual legacy. A fallen-from-grace Starfleet could be interesting, but the whole synth-plot, djahtvashblabla pseudo-mystery and robo-cthulhu were just a tad little off. A tad little a lot.
The attention to detail was also all over the place. Lal should have been on the "daughter"-drawing. Some stuff like Picards belongings in the archive were almost complete, except they forgot that artifact he was gifted by Dr. Galen again. Which was like the most awsome thing for Picard when he got it. But whenever "puzzle-pieces" for the "mystery" were involved it never amounted to anything.
The final scene with Data is actually pretty meta IMO, because he's literally like "kill me already you hypocrit"
And yeah. Action, violence, dark perspective yadda-yadda. That's simply how shows are nowadays. DIS desperately needed some "breather"-episodes like DS9's "In the Cards" to alleviate some of that (valid!) criticism.
I think Pike helped with that a bit. First episode of season 2, he knows he's going before a crew that's been through hell and stabbed in the back by their own Captain. He had a little fun with Tilly at first, then made light of his one failing grade at the Academy. And there were several times in the season where he showed a bit more of the lighthearted side, which the crew needed. While it wasn't full on breather episodes, Pike was honestly one of the best things to come to Discovery. He and Reno brought some good things.
I just wish CBS would get someone who likes and cares about trek to produce it, rather than someone who don't give a damn, and/or wanting to chance things for the mere sake of changing things.
^^^
What? CBS fired Berman & Braga YEARS ago.
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..."
The tight focus on Burnham actually made sense in Fuller's original format for the show, it was an anthology of what amounted to three or four hour movies strung together to make up a season, each "movie" with a different cast and ship. Traces of that still remain with the choppy arcs the show transitioned though in turn in the first season.
With only a few hours to get to know the characters, narrowing it down like that helps people to connect with the ones important to the story easier. When Fuller left and they went to a more conventional single-ship-single-crew format that tight focus became a liability. The sad part is that Kurtzman apparently did not realize that and make adjustments.
As a character, Burnham is rather interesting. The problem comes in the fact that it takes subtle and deep writing to actually get that kind of character across in an interesting way since the surface is so subdued by the stiff logical front she shows the world, but CBS blithely ignored that for their action movie format. And action heroes are highly animated, larger than life characters for a number of good reasons, the main one being that without that exaggeration they are upstaged by the action and appear even duller and two-dimensional than they really are.
I cant really say much about the others, they were mainly walking filler and plot device, and probably the reason you don't remember their names is that many of them didn't even have a name until the second season, especially on the bridge crew.
I guess it could make sense indeed if the movie-format was the original plan.
But, personally speaking, when watching a movie I also greatly dislike having just one person as the hero. Perhaps the ability to understand the story is increased, the fewer main characters that are involved but it also makes movies kind of dull and unrealistic.
I don't think people in Hollywood should just dumb everything down only so as to make it attractive to a larger audience. Certainly not if we're talking about Star Trek (but again, Kurtzman's comments about Trek requiring too much thought for him at least to understand it, tells us a lot).
[4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother
And yeah. Action, violence, dark perspective yadda-yadda. That's simply how shows are nowadays. DIS desperately needed some "breather"-episodes like DS9's "In the Cards" to alleviate some of that (valid!) criticism.
I think Pike helped with that a bit. First episode of season 2, he knows he's going before a crew that's been through hell and stabbed in the back by their own Captain. He had a little fun with Tilly at first, then made light of his one failing grade at the Academy. And there were several times in the season where he showed a bit more of the lighthearted side, which the crew needed. While it wasn't full on breather episodes, Pike was honestly one of the best things to come to Discovery. He and Reno brought some good things.
(Emphasis mine).
I think most of the people watching the series, also needed it.
Besides being a bit more lighthearted (though he also had his ghosts to deal with of course, which is great and adds depth to the character), it was nice to see an actual, likable human being.
[4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother
Surprising as it may sound some scholarly papers have not understood it either, though that does not absolve Abrams, Kurtzman, and Moonves for not understanding it since none of them brought in anyone who could understand it to lead the project or at least advise and actually be listened to.
One of the erroneous points a lot of those papers try to make is the claim that TOS was so horribly sexist that they made the women wear miniskirts and imply that they were little more than the Hollywood equivalent of Playboy Bunnies for fanservice or whatever, totally missing the fact that miniskirts and go-go boots at that time were a symbol of female empowerment and freedom. When given the choice between the minis and pants version of the uniform it was the actresses themselves who nearly always chose the minis.
The same goes for glimpses of Federation culture. DSC gives the impression that someone went though the older Treks (even a bit of TOS) and looked for details to use in DSC without actually understanding the nuances of what they were looking at. So while the basic framework is similar the feel is way off target.
Similarly, the technology is way off kilter, with the tech level in DSC being far lower than TOS (even though the SFX eye-candy is better) too much for just the ten year gap. Combat and warp technology is the biggest gaff, in TOS the doctrine (based on dialog from TOS episodes) is combat at warp four and 40,000km ranges, while in DSC they can barely detect ships in warp much less shoot at them, and when they do fight (at sublight yet) they have trouble hitting things at distances of more like 40,000 feet or less guessing from the view through the windows. In TOS warp was seamless, in DSC going to warp is a get away free card.
And the worst thing is that by the end of ENT UESPA ships could fight at warp if they had to, yet it seems to be completely impossible for DSC ships to do so. And that directly contradicts Kirk's statements about learning the standard warp combat doctrine in the academy since he was there during the time DSC is set give or take a few years.
(...)
One of the erroneous points a lot of those papers try to make is the claim that TOS was so horribly sexist that they made the women wear miniskirts and imply that they were little more than the Hollywood equivalent of Playboy Bunnies for fanservice or whatever, totally missing the fact that miniskirts and go-go boots at that time were a symbol of female empowerment and freedom. When given the choice between the minis and pants version of the uniform it was the actresses themselves who nearly always chose the minis.
(...)
I just wanted to comment on that, it's not the clothing which was indeed rooted in the women's liberation movement. But a lot of people, mostly men, pint at that and claim TOS wasn't sexist because they had miniskirts, that's not the whole story. The actual women characters throughout TOS, with possibly the only exception being Number One who had little actual screentime however, never had really substantial roles. They were used as eyecandy in many instances, were damsels in distress or little bimbos that required a man's perspective to see clear. Having Number One and Lt. Uhura were big steps at the time and no doubt did a lot good for a lot of people, however overall - call it because of Roddenberry's own sexism or systemic sexism through the network - the women weren't as strongly portrayed as we're led to believe a lot of times this topic comes up. Even the Romulan Commander ultimately was there to fall for Spock. Hell, Kirk threatened a woman who was the leader of a planet/civilization with a spanking. A spanking.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Having Number One and Lt. Uhura were big steps at the time and no doubt did a lot good for a lot of people, however overall - call it because of Roddenberry's own sexism or systemic sexism through the network - the women weren't as strongly portrayed as we're led to believe a lot of times this topic comes up.
It was a combination of factors - Roddenberry was a product of his times, after all - but leaned more heavily in the direction of systemic sexism at the network. One of the reasons the original pilot didn't sell (aside from being "too cerebral") was that the network execs didn't like the idea of Number One. A woman? As second in command of a spaceship?? That's too far out even for that Buck Rogers sci-fi stuff!
Reportedly, Roddenberry snuck Nichols into the cast by telling the network he wanted to "add some color to the bridge" - apparently they thought he meant redressing the set, and okayed it. When they found out what he meant, they retaliated by refusing to sign her to a regular contract in her first year, making her a day player. Since she appeared in most scripts, though, that meant they wound up paying her more than if they'd just signed her.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Beat me to it about the mini skirts and boots. The actresses chose it, and it shows one can be in an important role, but still be feminine. I myself would personally pick a skirt and boot uniform myself if I was given a choice, be in being on the show, or in a real starfleet.
Yes, I noticed the DSC ships seemed to be hunks of junk, besides visually, but unable to do stuff in TOS or Ent.
As for Kurtzman getting the ax, I'd say I hope so. Get rid of Kathleen Kennedy for Star Wars, Get rid of Kurtzman for Star Trek. Find people who are FANS to make these, it's not a hard concept to grasp.
Having Number One and Lt. Uhura were big steps at the time and no doubt did a lot good for a lot of people, however overall - call it because of Roddenberry's own sexism or systemic sexism through the network - the women weren't as strongly portrayed as we're led to believe a lot of times this topic comes up.
It was a combination of factors - Roddenberry was a product of his times, after all - but leaned more heavily in the direction of systemic sexism at the network. One of the reasons the original pilot didn't sell (aside from being "too cerebral") was that the network execs didn't like the idea of Number One. A woman? As second in command of a spaceship?? That's too far out even for that Buck Rogers sci-fi stuff!
Reportedly, Roddenberry snuck Nichols into the cast by telling the network he wanted to "add some color to the bridge" - apparently they thought he meant redressing the set, and okayed it. When they found out what he meant, they retaliated by refusing to sign her to a regular contract in her first year, making her a day player. Since she appeared in most scripts, though, that meant they wound up paying her more than if they'd just signed her.
That may very well be true, but it didn't mean some of the really embarassing sexist portrayals of TOS, TMP and TNG would have been necessary. I really do believe it wasn't easy to be progressive at the time and Star Trek has inspired a lot of people to do good. However one mustn't forget that it isn't revolutionary just because women wore miniskirts, which is also an argument that hasn't aged well as the meaning of the cloth pretty much changed. There is still a lot in Star Trek that is embarassingly backwards in terms of sexism. I also don't want to harp on that and say Trek is bad or anything, but I get a bit of a twitch when people suggest women's liberation is about our decision to wear skimpy clothing because we want to.
EDIT: I have to add that I cannot fairly judge a product of it's time from a perspective of today. But I also cannot not do that, if you know what I mean. I don't want to play down the good star Trek did, but we also have to come to terms with the past and point out what wasn't right and why it wasn't right if we discuss this issue. I hope it's clear what I mean, it's comlicated.
I don't think there is any substance behind this, however I will agree with Lower Deck being the only installment of recent Trek that really works. However, "Kurtzmann about to get fired" is the worst kind of clickbait for a pool of dramahungry prinhas
Post edited by angrytarg on
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I always thought the mini-skirt thing was very sexist too - as I assumed actresses were told to wear them for more... ordinary reasons.
Then again, I'm from the 90's so it all happened and the social context is from way before my time.
Still, I'd find it highly unprofessional to show up like that when you're in a leadership position. For the same reason that men shouldn't come to the office or an important meeting with clients for example while wearing flip flops and swimshorts.
One could consider these expectations and dress codes archaïc and unneccesarily repressive, but then it would be the case for both sexes and not just for women. Besides, then you might as well do away with uniforms entirely.
[4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother
I always thought the mini-skirt thing was very sexist too - as I assumed actresses were told to wear them for more... ordinary reasons.
Then again, I'm from the 90's so it all happened and the social context is from way before my time.
Still, I'd find it highly unprofessional to show up like that when you're in a leadership position. For the same reason that men shouldn't come to the office or an important meeting with clients for example while wearing flip flops and swimshorts.
One could consider these expectations and dress codes archaïc and unneccesarily repressive, but then it would be the case for both sexes and not just for women. Besides, then you might as well do away with uniforms entirely.
It was more of a nod towards the emancipation movement and probably what was within the possibilities Star Trek as a network TV show had, but like I said a lot of the portrayals of women in the same show were also very much products of their time which isn't something good.
To be fair though, if we stick with uniforms, we later got the Skant meaning the choice whether you wanted to wear trousers were up to you serving in Starfleet. I personally would opt for skirts during routine ship duty as well if given the choice, although not a mini And I think at least Mr. Scott would also not mind the option outside of dress uniforms.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I always thought the mini-skirt thing was very sexist too - as I assumed actresses were told to wear them for more... ordinary reasons.
Then again, I'm from the 90's so it all happened and the social context is from way before my time.
Still, I'd find it highly unprofessional to show up like that when you're in a leadership position. For the same reason that men shouldn't come to the office or an important meeting with clients for example while wearing flip flops and swimshorts.
One could consider these expectations and dress codes archaïc and unneccesarily repressive, but then it would be the case for both sexes and not just for women. Besides, then you might as well do away with uniforms entirely.
Well, growing up in the 90's the social contexts were going nuts....the sexual harassment movement really got out of hand, where EVERYONE was expected to be pretty much robots, especially in the office environments. Dress codes were always silly, imo. Hell, my dad's place of work, he was an engineer at GM and later Ford, the guys wore anything....hunting clothes, Hawaiian shirts and shorts, one guy dressed in biker gear, but they did their jobs and well.
Anyhow, give a choice, this girl picks the mini skirt and boots, if given a choice.
I just wanted to comment on that, it's not the clothing which was indeed rooted in the women's liberation movement. But a lot of people, mostly men, pint at that and claim TOS wasn't sexist because they had miniskirts, that's not the whole story. The actual women characters throughout TOS, with possibly the only exception being Number One who had little actual screentime however, never had really substantial roles. They were used as eyecandy in many instances, were damsels in distress or little bimbos that required a man's perspective to see clear. Having Number One and Lt. Uhura were big steps at the time and no doubt did a lot good for a lot of people, however overall - call it because of Roddenberry's own sexism or systemic sexism through the network - the women weren't as strongly portrayed as we're led to believe a lot of times this topic comes up. Even the Romulan Commander ultimately was there to fall for Spock. Hell, Kirk threatened a woman who was the leader of a planet/civilization with a spanking. A spanking.
There is also that old story that it was actually Majel Barrett who suggested all the short skirts specifically to capitalize on the sex appeal.
Hadn't heard that (more of a generalized "the womens' idea"), but I do know that Nichelle Nichols would shorten her skirts as much as the censors would allow. (And if I had her legs, I probably would too!)
I know it may come as a surprise, but women like to look attractive. I think its best to separate what they are wearing from any other kinds of "sexism" because women do have minds of their own and can choose to not wear something they don't want to.
There is also that old story that it was actually Majel Barrett who suggested all the short skirts specifically to capitalize on the sex appeal.
It was actually BOTH Nichelle Nichols AND Grace Lee-Whitney who pushed for the mini-skirt uniforms in TOS. (Hey they were both young, attractive and had nice legs - and they didn't have issues wanting people to see that on TV.)
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..."
There is also that old story that it was actually Majel Barrett who suggested all the short skirts specifically to capitalize on the sex appeal.
It was actually BOTH Nichelle Nichols AND Grace Lee-Whitney who pushed for the mini-skirt uniforms in TOS. (Hey they were both young, attractive and had nice legs - and they didn't have issues wanting people to see that on TV.)
Yes, and in tos, we DID see several women of the crew in pants variants, so it's not like they had no choices.
> @smokebailey said: > (Quote) > > Yes, and in tos, we DID see several women of the crew in pants variants, so it's not like they had no choices. > > > The Victorian era is long over, folks.
> @angrytarg said: > (Quote) > > I just wanted to comment on that, it's not the clothing which was indeed rooted in the women's liberation movement. But a lot of people, mostly men, pint at that and claim TOS wasn't sexist because they had miniskirts, that's not the whole story. The actual women characters throughout TOS, with possibly the only exception being Number One who had little actual screentime however, never had really substantial roles. They were used as eyecandy in many instances, were damsels in distress or little bimbos that required a man's perspective to see clear. Having Number One and Lt. Uhura were big steps at the time and no doubt did a lot good for a lot of people, however overall - call it because of Roddenberry's own sexism or systemic sexism through the network - the women weren't as strongly portrayed as we're led to believe a lot of times this topic comes up. Even the Romulan Commander ultimately was there to fall for Spock. Hell, Kirk threatened a woman who was the leader of a planet/civilization with a spanking. A spanking. (Image) >
TRIBBLE they had no substancial roles, that was far from true. Just one example was the female Romulan Commander, a role of great authority.
great authority, yes...of a single ship that belonged to, what was at the time, a bog-standard enemy-of-the-week even if it was their second appearance - i would be hesitant to call that substantial
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 uninteresting part is basically the rest of Discovery's crew. I could only really care for Culber, after having seen a few episodes, he seemed the only really likable character - as a person, the other ones just lacked any and all sorts of human warmth. Even characters that were interesting for other reasons like Lorca and Saru, seemed just too distant. None of them (except for Culber) appeared anything like a person who you could laugh with, or have fun with.
I didn't even know any of their names until well into the first season, or even the second season for some of them. Yet, we had to care about Airiam, whose previous life was only shown to us in the very same episode where she was killed off IIRC. Or that guy who served as the helmsman I think, before he was turned into S31 goo, like later happened to Leland. I just did not remember him at all.
Even in Enterprise, which has some seriously underused characters, I knew all the names (I even remember Kelby for example).
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
With only a few hours to get to know the characters, narrowing it down like that helps people to connect with the ones important to the story easier. When Fuller left and they went to a more conventional single-ship-single-crew format that tight focus became a liability. The sad part is that Kurtzman apparently did not realize that and make adjustments.
As a character, Burnham is rather interesting. The problem comes in the fact that it takes subtle and deep writing to actually get that kind of character across in an interesting way since the surface is so subdued by the stiff logical front she shows the world, but CBS blithely ignored that for their action movie format. And action heroes are highly animated, larger than life characters for a number of good reasons, the main one being that without that exaggeration they are upstaged by the action and appear even duller and two-dimensional than they really are.
I cant really say much about the others, they were mainly walking filler and plot device, and probably the reason you don't remember their names is that many of them didn't even have a name until the second season, especially on the bridge crew.
Except that they aren't like that except in DSC. It almost works for the later Treks like DS9 and parts of TNG, but even then it is not a very good fit, and either way those are irrelevant to DSC and TOS because they are a different era entirely.
In the TOS era the Federation was not a utopia though the social aim was in moving closer to one. Also, like today's government names the Federation was not so much a dictionary accurate federation as it was a loose confederation of worlds. It was largely based on the United Nations though tighter (in modern terms it was only a little tighter than the European Union in that they had a combined military in the form of Starfleet).
They had not one homogenous culture, but rather a loose mix of cultures that by then had only blended a bit at the edges. That makes for a lot of inefficiency and political infighting, but not really a high level of corruption.
And yes, they did have a certain amount of corruption, some good'ol boyism (as shown in Turnabout Intruder) and other oddities mainly limited to small cliques like the admirals who made that defacto glass ceiling, and some small conspiracies (in fact Kirk and Riley were part of the conspiracy to track down and possibly even lynch Kodos the Executioner). Every civilization has a few bad apples here and there, but in the Federation in the TOS era it is not as widespread and institutionalized as DSC makes it out to be.
And yes, the Klingons are supposed to be a kind of feudal warrior culture that changes fairly rapidly depending on who is top dog at any given point, but they were always shown as pragmatic (even brutally so) without much regard for death except to honor the memory (not the bodies) of great warriors. Bodies were buried or spaced without ceremony because they were considered just empty shells, not revered and put in coffins welded to the outsides of ships. They also had little appreciation for ostentatious decoration, yet DSC Klingons filigree and over decorate just about everything.
Also, on a lesser note, in the TOS era they were a surveillance culture and the impression was that they were like that for a while, DSC on the other hand shows them as anything but that. It is less of a point because the surveillance could have been something L'Rell instituted to keep the other houses in line.
In both the Federation and the Klingon empire the feel is quite different in many less easily definable ways too.
As for the format of the show, when exactly it changed over is still being argued and it is strongly possible that Fuller and Moonves were at odds about it and the massive set and prop rebuilding could have been the end of that back and forth. Regardless, the fact remains that DSC first season was several of the anthologies pitches clamped together and the tight focus originally came from the anthology format.
SOME of the characters throughout the first two seasons are pretty good, just not the one the producers wanted to force us to love. No amount of cheesy tear-jerking soap-opera-style dialogue on a season-finale will make her an interesting hero.
For some reason, I would have wanted an andorian protagonist. Anyway, a lot of the other characters were pretty good. Even some of the less important ones.
A LOT of the details that tie in with canon information are spot-on.
It's the technobabble where DIS kinda lost it IMO, because it is less like the TNG-technobabble and more like the VOY-technobabble, but cranked up to 11 to make sure people can't remember the words to ask questions later.
And yeah. Action, violence, dark perspective yadda-yadda. That's simply how shows are nowadays. DIS desperately needed some "breather"-episodes like DS9's "In the Cards" to alleviate some of that (valid!) criticism.
And with all that in mind, I really looked forward to watching the next episode of DIS every week.
With Picard, I lost interest right after episode 3. No joke. The show is just Patrick-Stewart-wish-fulfillment, and has little to do with TNG's actual legacy. A fallen-from-grace Starfleet could be interesting, but the whole synth-plot, djahtvashblabla pseudo-mystery and robo-cthulhu were just a tad little off. A tad little a lot.
The attention to detail was also all over the place. Lal should have been on the "daughter"-drawing. Some stuff like Picards belongings in the archive were almost complete, except they forgot that artifact he was gifted by Dr. Galen again. Which was like the most awsome thing for Picard when he got it. But whenever "puzzle-pieces" for the "mystery" were involved it never amounted to anything.
The final scene with Data is actually pretty meta IMO, because he's literally like "kill me already you hypocrit"
I think Pike helped with that a bit. First episode of season 2, he knows he's going before a crew that's been through hell and stabbed in the back by their own Captain. He had a little fun with Tilly at first, then made light of his one failing grade at the Academy. And there were several times in the season where he showed a bit more of the lighthearted side, which the crew needed. While it wasn't full on breather episodes, Pike was honestly one of the best things to come to Discovery. He and Reno brought some good things.
What? CBS fired Berman & Braga YEARS ago.
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..."
No loss.
I guess it could make sense indeed if the movie-format was the original plan.
But, personally speaking, when watching a movie I also greatly dislike having just one person as the hero. Perhaps the ability to understand the story is increased, the fewer main characters that are involved but it also makes movies kind of dull and unrealistic.
I don't think people in Hollywood should just dumb everything down only so as to make it attractive to a larger audience. Certainly not if we're talking about Star Trek (but again, Kurtzman's comments about Trek requiring too much thought for him at least to understand it, tells us a lot).
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
(Emphasis mine).
I think most of the people watching the series, also needed it.
Besides being a bit more lighthearted (though he also had his ghosts to deal with of course, which is great and adds depth to the character), it was nice to see an actual, likable human being.
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
Nailed it. JJ said similar as well.
One of the erroneous points a lot of those papers try to make is the claim that TOS was so horribly sexist that they made the women wear miniskirts and imply that they were little more than the Hollywood equivalent of Playboy Bunnies for fanservice or whatever, totally missing the fact that miniskirts and go-go boots at that time were a symbol of female empowerment and freedom. When given the choice between the minis and pants version of the uniform it was the actresses themselves who nearly always chose the minis.
The same goes for glimpses of Federation culture. DSC gives the impression that someone went though the older Treks (even a bit of TOS) and looked for details to use in DSC without actually understanding the nuances of what they were looking at. So while the basic framework is similar the feel is way off target.
Similarly, the technology is way off kilter, with the tech level in DSC being far lower than TOS (even though the SFX eye-candy is better) too much for just the ten year gap. Combat and warp technology is the biggest gaff, in TOS the doctrine (based on dialog from TOS episodes) is combat at warp four and 40,000km ranges, while in DSC they can barely detect ships in warp much less shoot at them, and when they do fight (at sublight yet) they have trouble hitting things at distances of more like 40,000 feet or less guessing from the view through the windows. In TOS warp was seamless, in DSC going to warp is a get away free card.
And the worst thing is that by the end of ENT UESPA ships could fight at warp if they had to, yet it seems to be completely impossible for DSC ships to do so. And that directly contradicts Kirk's statements about learning the standard warp combat doctrine in the academy since he was there during the time DSC is set give or take a few years.
I just wanted to comment on that, it's not the clothing which was indeed rooted in the women's liberation movement. But a lot of people, mostly men, pint at that and claim TOS wasn't sexist because they had miniskirts, that's not the whole story. The actual women characters throughout TOS, with possibly the only exception being Number One who had little actual screentime however, never had really substantial roles. They were used as eyecandy in many instances, were damsels in distress or little bimbos that required a man's perspective to see clear. Having Number One and Lt. Uhura were big steps at the time and no doubt did a lot good for a lot of people, however overall - call it because of Roddenberry's own sexism or systemic sexism through the network - the women weren't as strongly portrayed as we're led to believe a lot of times this topic comes up. Even the Romulan Commander ultimately was there to fall for Spock. Hell, Kirk threatened a woman who was the leader of a planet/civilization with a spanking. A spanking.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Reportedly, Roddenberry snuck Nichols into the cast by telling the network he wanted to "add some color to the bridge" - apparently they thought he meant redressing the set, and okayed it. When they found out what he meant, they retaliated by refusing to sign her to a regular contract in her first year, making her a day player. Since she appeared in most scripts, though, that meant they wound up paying her more than if they'd just signed her.
https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/alex-kurtzman-fired.html
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Yes, I noticed the DSC ships seemed to be hunks of junk, besides visually, but unable to do stuff in TOS or Ent.
As for Kurtzman getting the ax, I'd say I hope so. Get rid of Kathleen Kennedy for Star Wars, Get rid of Kurtzman for Star Trek. Find people who are FANS to make these, it's not a hard concept to grasp.
That may very well be true, but it didn't mean some of the really embarassing sexist portrayals of TOS, TMP and TNG would have been necessary. I really do believe it wasn't easy to be progressive at the time and Star Trek has inspired a lot of people to do good. However one mustn't forget that it isn't revolutionary just because women wore miniskirts, which is also an argument that hasn't aged well as the meaning of the cloth pretty much changed. There is still a lot in Star Trek that is embarassingly backwards in terms of sexism. I also don't want to harp on that and say Trek is bad or anything, but I get a bit of a twitch when people suggest women's liberation is about our decision to wear skimpy clothing because we want to.
EDIT: I have to add that I cannot fairly judge a product of it's time from a perspective of today. But I also cannot not do that, if you know what I mean. I don't want to play down the good star Trek did, but we also have to come to terms with the past and point out what wasn't right and why it wasn't right if we discuss this issue. I hope it's clear what I mean, it's comlicated.
I don't think there is any substance behind this, however I will agree with Lower Deck being the only installment of recent Trek that really works. However, "Kurtzmann about to get fired" is the worst kind of clickbait for a pool of dramahungry prinhas
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I always thought the mini-skirt thing was very sexist too - as I assumed actresses were told to wear them for more... ordinary reasons.
Then again, I'm from the 90's so it all happened and the social context is from way before my time.
Still, I'd find it highly unprofessional to show up like that when you're in a leadership position. For the same reason that men shouldn't come to the office or an important meeting with clients for example while wearing flip flops and swimshorts.
One could consider these expectations and dress codes archaïc and unneccesarily repressive, but then it would be the case for both sexes and not just for women. Besides, then you might as well do away with uniforms entirely.
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
It was more of a nod towards the emancipation movement and probably what was within the possibilities Star Trek as a network TV show had, but like I said a lot of the portrayals of women in the same show were also very much products of their time which isn't something good.
To be fair though, if we stick with uniforms, we later got the Skant meaning the choice whether you wanted to wear trousers were up to you serving in Starfleet. I personally would opt for skirts during routine ship duty as well if given the choice, although not a mini
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Well, growing up in the 90's the social contexts were going nuts....the sexual harassment movement really got out of hand, where EVERYONE was expected to be pretty much robots, especially in the office environments. Dress codes were always silly, imo. Hell, my dad's place of work, he was an engineer at GM and later Ford, the guys wore anything....hunting clothes, Hawaiian shirts and shorts, one guy dressed in biker gear, but they did their jobs and well.
Anyhow, give a choice, this girl picks the mini skirt and boots, if given a choice.
It was actually BOTH Nichelle Nichols AND Grace Lee-Whitney who pushed for the mini-skirt uniforms in TOS. (Hey they were both young, attractive and had nice legs - and they didn't have issues wanting people to see that on TV.)
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..."
Yes, and in tos, we DID see several women of the crew in pants variants, so it's not like they had no choices.
The Victorian era is long over, folks.
> (Quote)
>
> Yes, and in tos, we DID see several women of the crew in pants variants, so it's not like they had no choices.
>
>
> The Victorian era is long over, folks.
The woke brought it back.
> (Quote)
>
> I just wanted to comment on that, it's not the clothing which was indeed rooted in the women's liberation movement. But a lot of people, mostly men, pint at that and claim TOS wasn't sexist because they had miniskirts, that's not the whole story. The actual women characters throughout TOS, with possibly the only exception being Number One who had little actual screentime however, never had really substantial roles. They were used as eyecandy in many instances, were damsels in distress or little bimbos that required a man's perspective to see clear. Having Number One and Lt. Uhura were big steps at the time and no doubt did a lot good for a lot of people, however overall - call it because of Roddenberry's own sexism or systemic sexism through the network - the women weren't as strongly portrayed as we're led to believe a lot of times this topic comes up. Even the Romulan Commander ultimately was there to fall for Spock. Hell, Kirk threatened a woman who was the leader of a planet/civilization with a spanking. A spanking. (Image)
>
TRIBBLE they had no substancial roles, that was far from true. Just one example was the female Romulan Commander, a role of great authority.
#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!"