I keep wondering why you keep watching it if you dislike it so much.
I have asked myself this same question in regards to why he bothers to play STO when he seems to hate all of it.
Some people just need something to complain about.
Here's a thought: Perhaps he wants to like it?
That's fair enough, but if I dislike something so much I'd not bother watching it. Even if I had roommates that keep watching it I'd put on my headphones and play games or watch stuff that I like or go out or do something else that's... fun to me.
Temporal Agent Daniels. STO likes to use cannon. and in the Vorgon story ark he is the bad guy. So maybe the STO team had some inside info.
Temporal Agent Daniels likes to keep the status quo since messing around with time like the Temporal Liberation Front tried to do can erase you, your family, and your friends from existence. Besides technology that can shut down stars is not something that should be available to anyone that wants to use it.
Temporal Agent Daniels. STO likes to use cannon. and in the Vorgon story ark he is the bad guy. So maybe the STO team had some inside info.
Temporal Agent Daniels likes to keep the status quo since messing around with time like the Temporal Liberation Front tried to do can erase you, your family, and your friends from existence. Besides technology that can shut down stars is not something that should be available to anyone that wants to use it.
then he shouldn't have left it buried in a cave on Risa.
And this is where keeping the status quo comes in. Picard found it on Risa so it had to be left on Risa for Picard to find. Doing the smart thing and destroying it would create a new timeline.
Temporal Agent Daniels. STO likes to use cannon. and in the Vorgon story ark he is the bad guy. So maybe the STO team had some inside info.
Temporal Agent Daniels likes to keep the status quo since messing around with time like the Temporal Liberation Front tried to do can erase you, your family, and your friends from existence. Besides technology that can shut down stars is not something that should be available to anyone that wants to use it.
then he shouldn't have left it buried in a cave on Risa.
And this is where keeping the status quo comes in. Picard found it on Risa so it had to be left on Risa for Picard to find. Doing the smart thing and destroying it would create a new timeline.
OR, reverting the timeline to what it was before time travellers meddled in it.
Then the entire Temporal Cold War in Enterprise needs to be nuked from orbit. With the amount of changes to the timeline in Enterprise, it is ridiculous to believe that everything stayed the same in TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager. It does give an explanation why there are holographic communicators in Discovery while there was no evidence of it in TOS among the many other differences between Discovery and TOS.
Episode 0 of TOS The Cage. Pike breaks the time warp barrier. From that point onwards everything is in a new timeline and every single instance of anything a bit temporal tenders everything we've seen obsolete. It gives an explanation as to why the Enterprise runs on dilithium rather than lithium and why Spock stops grinning like a loon.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
1. There was exactly ZERO need to tie Burnham to Sarek, it didn't actually contribute anything to the character beyond some nostalgia hooks as applied by a 13 year old girl's Fanfic. Anything and everything that Burnham's arc covered could have been done better with an un-connected character possessing their own history and background, without tying to someone major from the previous series. There was literally no reason for the Sarek connection, and much of those stories wold have worked better without forcing it.
A backstory is basically advertising for a character. The more you reveal, the more "hype" you build. I don't think the issue is Burnham's backstory. At the end of the day, what we see the character accomplish on-screen is what matters. Additionally, I believe her character was radically altered from the original concept.
I believe Burnham was originally designed to be heavily prejudiced against Klingons.
In the original version, she would have assaulted the Klingons in the pilot of her own volition, rather than an accident. T'Kuvma was not originally supposed to die at the end of episode two, but be a continuous threat. The reason for Tyler/Voq and his relationship with Burnham was to show that #notallKlingons were evil. Then, at the finale, Burnham would let "go of her hate" and save Qo'nos.
My reasons stem from the fact that there were script changes and casting changes right after Brian Fuller left (the actor that plays Kol was recast and a new actor was hired to play T'Kuvma). They also asked for an additional 3 episodes to tell their story (which just about covered the Mirror Universe arc). You can also see echoes of this story in the current form, as Burnham and Tyler/Voq have a forced relationship and Burnham does stop Empress "I eat people because I'm evil" from blowing up Qo'nos.
I do not know why they removed this character flaw. The whole first season comes across as a desperate attempt to impress it's audience. Maybe they thought a racist main character would turn off audiences.
2. Mirror Universe? really?? again with Lorca's character, this didn't just feel contrived in a little bit way, it was...just...rubbish. Mirror stories work best when your characters have developed some actual character to contrast. Done this early, with characters this undeveloped in a serial format? forget it. I'm not alone in disliking propaganda stories when I agree with the stance, much less when it's a viewpoint that's already suspect, parables and sermons belong in churches and press conferences.
I think Lorca was originally intended a "cautionary tale". He was supposed to be an argument against populist leaders, possibly culminating in him being the "bad guy" that Burnham would have to overcome during her journey of self discovery. However, since someone wanted to tell a story in the mirror universe, he became "cartoon evil". This was a case of not really wanting to tell Lorca's story as much as a mirror universe story. The mirror universe story was a ok, but the poor treatment of Lorca casts a shadow over the majority of the season.
3. dump the callbacks and tell your own story goddammit, rather than trying to retcon a story that's already known, write without a net. quit wedging in fanfiction-grade references, fanservice, and forced, obvious, easter-eggs. While you're at it, quit blatantly trying to reinvent the wheel by arguing about what colour it should be.
I don't think the issue is with the Trek nostalgia sprinkled over the set. It is the Star Trek universe. We expect some of that to be there. In conjunction with the truncated character development and rushed stories, it does give the impression that there is not much else going on. If the stories and characters were better, these things would seem less out of place.
By itself, fewer nostalgic inserts is more of personal taste than legitimate criticism.
4. Focus more on delivering story. Discovery ripped off Babylon 5's format, without grasping what made it work. Making your antagonists nothing but a collection of negative traits further marred by stupidity? doesn't work, especially not in serial format. It's not heroic if it's easy, and blatantly thumbing the scales to make the heroes dumber than the villains so there's a chance they can lose? that doesn't work either.
Many current popular shows (especially on streaming services) are long form story telling, not just Babylon 5. Personally, I agree that better developed antagonists make for better story telling, but that is not a universal requirement. The issue here is too many ideas competing for screen time. Additionally, there is a clear lack of focus on character development.
I would have gone with "trim down the ideas and give your characters more room to be themselves". I would also be very happy with more time devoted to antagonists, but it's not a total deal breaker if they don't
5. If you're insistent on doing a political sub-drama, don't use orks or impossible systems to serve as your straw man, use 'the good guy side'-it has more impact than isolating all your negative traits on 'the other', and makes both a stronger point (whatever point you're making), and provides a better context for delivering your message. A "pseudo-Trump" storyline to energize your base doesn't work well with Mirror or Klingons or Orks or Klingorks as your pseudo-Trump. This should've been some Federation official, so that the heroes could heroically resist his (because it wouldn't be a her) machinations while "Just doing their jobs" in Starfleet.
It's not even a political statement. A political statement would be "capitalism is bad" or "fascism is bad" or "communism is bad". This is just "Trump supporters are poopy-heads". It's scrub-tier, Twitter-inspired name calling. Their Klingons are so painfully generic, I did not even realize who was the target of their parody until I was shown 2 separate interviews involving the showrunners.
6. If your main antagonist is a warrior race, make sure the actors can pull off a fight scene, the props are actually credible as weapons, and the costumes don't take four to eight hours to put on while giving the wearer heat stroke. Save the body-tournequets for that pacifistic group of aliens you want to save from the nasty warriors. Seriously guys.
This might be a budgetary or time constraint. Streaming shows are slightly higher budget, but not by much. These programs still have the 45 min limitation per episode. I believe the poor combat just highlights the poor development of the Klingons. I think the poor combat is more of a nitpick than solid criticism.
7. If you're going to spend half the season or more on a war plot, then do it with some understanding of what you're doing beyond hiring the KLI to vet your dialogue and an internet "Superfan" to gush their adoration. In fact, don't listen to people who gush admiration and adoration. Hire people who you know you won't agree with and you know won't hold back when your 'cunning plot twist' is so thoroughly telegraphed that someone who hates star trek can catch it three episodes before the reveal.
This falls into the "Evil Overlord List" here-if a five year old can poke holes in your grand plot, you need to rethink it.
Harsh criticism is a good way to improve your writing chops. However, it may again be a time constraint. They only have so much time before shooting then editing.
There are plenty of examples of poor writing choices in previous Star Trek shows. The writers could at least avoid making the same mistakes.
8.if it's exciting in stills, it better be exciting on screen when it's in motion. This goes back to the Klingork redesign-instead of threatening, dangerous aliens, they delivered asthmatic, arthritic, idiot lizardmen. Looks great as long as it isn't moving or speaking, fails where it counts. NOT the way to do the business.
"Looks good on paper" might have been the culprit here. They wanted awesome, imposing aliens. They wanted a costume with so much make-up that they could disguise Voq as Tyler from the audience. When they put it into practice, the shortcomings became apparent.
It may have been too expensive/time consuming to change once shooting started. They already delayed the show twice during production. It could be that they had to do what they could with what they had.
9. If you have to rely on Nostalgia to hold your audience, you're doing it wrong. Your show should be able to stand on its own merits, and make people hunger for the tidbits, rather than relying on those tidbits for the sole source of your appeal..
I think you are repeating your 3rd point here. I get the impression you did not enjoy the random Trek bits scattered across each episode. Probably because they rarely had anything to do with the characters or plot.
Having a tribble sit on Lorca's desk is cringy. Having that same tribble reveal Voq to be a Klingon spy would be a nice callback AND could serve the plot, if it leads to inter-character conflict.
1. There was exactly ZERO need to tie Burnham to Sarek, it didn't actually contribute anything to the character beyond some nostalgia hooks as applied by a 13 year old girl's Fanfic. Anything and everything that Burnham's arc covered could have been done better with an un-connected character possessing their own history and background, without tying to someone major from the previous series. There was literally no reason for the Sarek connection, and much of those stories wold have worked better without forcing it.
A backstory is basically advertising for a character. The more you reveal, the more "hype" you build. I don't think the issue is Burnham's backstory. At the end of the day, what we see the character accomplish on-screen is what matters. Additionally, I believe her character was radically altered from the original concept.
I believe Burnham was originally designed to be heavily prejudiced against Klingons.
In the original version, she would have assaulted the Klingons in the pilot of her own volition, rather than an accident. T'Kuvma was not originally supposed to die at the end of episode two, but be a continuous threat. The reason for Tyler/Voq and his relationship with Burnham was to show that #notallKlingons were evil. Then, at the finale, Burnham would let "go of her hate" and save Qo'nos.
My reasons stem from the fact that there were script changes and casting changes right after Brian Fuller left (the actor that plays Kol was recast and a new actor was hired to play T'Kuvma). They also asked for an additional 3 episodes to tell their story (which just about covered the Mirror Universe arc). You can also see echoes of this story in the current form, as Burnham and Tyler/Voq have a forced relationship and Burnham does stop Empress "I eat people because I'm evil" from blowing up Qo'nos.
I do not know why they removed this character flaw. The whole first season comes across as a desperate attempt to impress it's audience. Maybe they thought a racist main character would turn off audiences.
2. Mirror Universe? really?? again with Lorca's character, this didn't just feel contrived in a little bit way, it was...just...rubbish. Mirror stories work best when your characters have developed some actual character to contrast. Done this early, with characters this undeveloped in a serial format? forget it. I'm not alone in disliking propaganda stories when I agree with the stance, much less when it's a viewpoint that's already suspect, parables and sermons belong in churches and press conferences.
I think Lorca was originally intended a "cautionary tale". He was supposed to be an argument against populist leaders, possibly culminating in him being the "bad guy" that Burnham would have to overcome during her journey of self discovery. However, since someone wanted to tell a story in the mirror universe, he became "cartoon evil". This was a case of not really wanting to tell Lorca's story as much as a mirror universe story. The mirror universe story was a ok, but the poor treatment of Lorca casts a shadow over the majority of the season.
3. dump the callbacks and tell your own story goddammit, rather than trying to retcon a story that's already known, write without a net. quit wedging in fanfiction-grade references, fanservice, and forced, obvious, easter-eggs. While you're at it, quit blatantly trying to reinvent the wheel by arguing about what colour it should be.
I don't think the issue is with the Trek nostalgia sprinkled over the set. It is the Star Trek universe. We expect some of that to be there. In conjunction with the truncated character development and rushed stories, it does give the impression that there is not much else going on. If the stories and characters were better, these things would seem less out of place.
By itself, fewer nostalgic inserts is more of personal taste than legitimate criticism.
4. Focus more on delivering story. Discovery ripped off Babylon 5's format, without grasping what made it work. Making your antagonists nothing but a collection of negative traits further marred by stupidity? doesn't work, especially not in serial format. It's not heroic if it's easy, and blatantly thumbing the scales to make the heroes dumber than the villains so there's a chance they can lose? that doesn't work either.
Many current popular shows (especially on streaming services) are long form story telling, not just Babylon 5. Personally, I agree that better developed antagonists make for better story telling, but that is not a universal requirement. The issue here is too many ideas competing for screen time. Additionally, there is a clear lack of focus on character development.
I would have gone with "trim down the ideas and give your characters more room to be themselves". I would also be very happy with more time devoted to antagonists, but it's not a total deal breaker if they don't
5. If you're insistent on doing a political sub-drama, don't use orks or impossible systems to serve as your straw man, use 'the good guy side'-it has more impact than isolating all your negative traits on 'the other', and makes both a stronger point (whatever point you're making), and provides a better context for delivering your message. A "pseudo-Trump" storyline to energize your base doesn't work well with Mirror or Klingons or Orks or Klingorks as your pseudo-Trump. This should've been some Federation official, so that the heroes could heroically resist his (because it wouldn't be a her) machinations while "Just doing their jobs" in Starfleet.
It's not even a political statement. A political statement would be "capitalism is bad" or "fascism is bad" or "communism is bad". This is just "Trump supporters are poopy-heads". It's scrub-tier, Twitter-inspired name calling. Their Klingons are so painfully generic, I did not even realize who was the target of their parody until I was shown 2 separate interviews involving the showrunners.
6. If your main antagonist is a warrior race, make sure the actors can pull off a fight scene, the props are actually credible as weapons, and the costumes don't take four to eight hours to put on while giving the wearer heat stroke. Save the body-tournequets for that pacifistic group of aliens you want to save from the nasty warriors. Seriously guys.
This might be a budgetary or time constraint. Streaming shows are slightly higher budget, but not by much. These programs still have the 45 min limitation per episode. I believe the poor combat just highlights the poor development of the Klingons. I think the poor combat is more of a nitpick than solid criticism.
7. If you're going to spend half the season or more on a war plot, then do it with some understanding of what you're doing beyond hiring the KLI to vet your dialogue and an internet "Superfan" to gush their adoration. In fact, don't listen to people who gush admiration and adoration. Hire people who you know you won't agree with and you know won't hold back when your 'cunning plot twist' is so thoroughly telegraphed that someone who hates star trek can catch it three episodes before the reveal.
This falls into the "Evil Overlord List" here-if a five year old can poke holes in your grand plot, you need to rethink it.
Harsh criticism is a good way to improve your writing chops. However, it may again be a time constraint. They only have so much time before shooting then editing.
There are plenty of examples of poor writing choices in previous Star Trek shows. The writers could at least avoid making the same mistakes.
8.if it's exciting in stills, it better be exciting on screen when it's in motion. This goes back to the Klingork redesign-instead of threatening, dangerous aliens, they delivered asthmatic, arthritic, idiot lizardmen. Looks great as long as it isn't moving or speaking, fails where it counts. NOT the way to do the business.
"Looks good on paper" might have been the culprit here. They wanted awesome, imposing aliens. They wanted a costume with so much make-up that they could disguise Voq as Tyler from the audience. When they put it into practice, the shortcomings became apparent.
It may have been too expensive/time consuming to change once shooting started. They already delayed the show twice during production. It could be that they had to do what they could with what they had.
9. If you have to rely on Nostalgia to hold your audience, you're doing it wrong. Your show should be able to stand on its own merits, and make people hunger for the tidbits, rather than relying on those tidbits for the sole source of your appeal..
I think you are repeating your 3rd point here. I get the impression you did not enjoy the random Trek bits scattered across each episode. Probably because they rarely had anything to do with the characters or plot.
Having a tribble sit on Lorca's desk is cringy. Having that same tribble reveal Voq to be a Klingon spy would be a nice callback AND could serve the plot, if it leads to inter-character conflict.
Overall nice put. I'd disagree with some minor points but overall that's also my issue with DSC. Especially the Klingon redesign. I always went with the explanation that it seemed more drastic what Voq went through to become Tyler, but that they had to change it so they could hide the actor under the mask makes much more sense. Which wouldn't bother me, if they hadn't chosen Klingons to be the antagonists but something new.
Now, we seem to get different Klingon designs, at least going by the tweets and hype bits scattered. One read along the lines of "we only seen sic great houses, now we see more" (despite we've already seen Qo'Nos population looking the same) which might hint at rewriting the Klingon Empire to become some sort of multi-racial entity like it is in STO with different members all uniting under one more or less commonly shared ideology and mythology. So a lizard person and a TOS Klingon and a TNG Klingon can all be the same if "Klingon" just refers to a culture and not a species.
^ 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
Overall nice put. I'd disagree with some minor points but overall that's also my issue with DSC. Especially the Klingon redesign. I always went with the explanation that it seemed more drastic what Voq went through to become Tyler, but that they had to change it so they could hide the actor under the mask makes much more sense. Which wouldn't bother me, if they hadn't chosen Klingons to be the antagonists but something new.
Now, we seem to get different Klingon designs, at least going by the tweets and hype bits scattered. One read along the lines of "we only seen sic great houses, now we see more" (despite we've already seen Qo'Nos population looking the same) which might hint at rewriting the Klingon Empire to become some sort of multi-racial entity like it is in STO with different members all uniting under one more or less commonly shared ideology and mythology. So a lizard person and a TOS Klingon and a TNG Klingon can all be the same if "Klingon" just refers to a culture and not a species.
I do not think they should make any attempt to explain the TRIBBLE Klingons. Not their appearance. Not their culture. Not anything. They would only create inconsistencies because they are not as clever as they think they are. Have the Klingons do whatever is needed of them for the story, and nothing else. I would prefer they switched to a new antagonist altogether, but they have spent so much money on the Klingon designs that they will probably be a reoccurring opponent for the remainder of the series.
Just, tell a story. ONE story told well is much, much better than the half dozen plot threads that had little development and ended up being rushed into a conclusion. They really seemed to be pressed for screen time when it came to the stories they wanted to tell. Hopefully, they learned from those mistakes. The first season was 15 episodes; the second is 12.
1. There was exactly ZERO need to tie Burnham to Sarek, it didn't actually contribute anything to the character beyond some nostalgia hooks as applied by a 13 year old girl's Fanfic. Anything and everything that Burnham's arc covered could have been done better with an un-connected character possessing their own history and background, without tying to someone major from the previous series. There was literally no reason for the Sarek connection, and much of those stories wold have worked better without forcing it.
A backstory is basically advertising for a character. The more you reveal, the more "hype" you build. I don't think the issue is Burnham's backstory. At the end of the day, what we see the character accomplish on-screen is what matters. Additionally, I believe her character was radically altered from the original concept.
I believe Burnham was originally designed to be heavily prejudiced against Klingons.
In the original version, she would have assaulted the Klingons in the pilot of her own volition, rather than an accident. T'Kuvma was not originally supposed to die at the end of episode two, but be a continuous threat. The reason for Tyler/Voq and his relationship with Burnham was to show that #notallKlingons were evil. Then, at the finale, Burnham would let "go of her hate" and save Qo'nos.
My reasons stem from the fact that there were script changes and casting changes right after Brian Fuller left (the actor that plays Kol was recast and a new actor was hired to play T'Kuvma). They also asked for an additional 3 episodes to tell their story (which just about covered the Mirror Universe arc). You can also see echoes of this story in the current form, as Burnham and Tyler/Voq have a forced relationship and Burnham does stop Empress "I eat people because I'm evil" from blowing up Qo'nos.
I do not know why they removed this character flaw. The whole first season comes across as a desperate attempt to impress it's audience. Maybe they thought a racist main character would turn off audiences.
2. Mirror Universe? really?? again with Lorca's character, this didn't just feel contrived in a little bit way, it was...just...rubbish. Mirror stories work best when your characters have developed some actual character to contrast. Done this early, with characters this undeveloped in a serial format? forget it. I'm not alone in disliking propaganda stories when I agree with the stance, much less when it's a viewpoint that's already suspect, parables and sermons belong in churches and press conferences.
I think Lorca was originally intended a "cautionary tale". He was supposed to be an argument against populist leaders, possibly culminating in him being the "bad guy" that Burnham would have to overcome during her journey of self discovery. However, since someone wanted to tell a story in the mirror universe, he became "cartoon evil". This was a case of not really wanting to tell Lorca's story as much as a mirror universe story. The mirror universe story was a ok, but the poor treatment of Lorca casts a shadow over the majority of the season.
3. dump the callbacks and tell your own story goddammit, rather than trying to retcon a story that's already known, write without a net. quit wedging in fanfiction-grade references, fanservice, and forced, obvious, easter-eggs. While you're at it, quit blatantly trying to reinvent the wheel by arguing about what colour it should be.
I don't think the issue is with the Trek nostalgia sprinkled over the set. It is the Star Trek universe. We expect some of that to be there. In conjunction with the truncated character development and rushed stories, it does give the impression that there is not much else going on. If the stories and characters were better, these things would seem less out of place.
By itself, fewer nostalgic inserts is more of personal taste than legitimate criticism.
4. Focus more on delivering story. Discovery ripped off Babylon 5's format, without grasping what made it work. Making your antagonists nothing but a collection of negative traits further marred by stupidity? doesn't work, especially not in serial format. It's not heroic if it's easy, and blatantly thumbing the scales to make the heroes dumber than the villains so there's a chance they can lose? that doesn't work either.
Many current popular shows (especially on streaming services) are long form story telling, not just Babylon 5. Personally, I agree that better developed antagonists make for better story telling, but that is not a universal requirement. The issue here is too many ideas competing for screen time. Additionally, there is a clear lack of focus on character development.
I would have gone with "trim down the ideas and give your characters more room to be themselves". I would also be very happy with more time devoted to antagonists, but it's not a total deal breaker if they don't
5. If you're insistent on doing a political sub-drama, don't use orks or impossible systems to serve as your straw man, use 'the good guy side'-it has more impact than isolating all your negative traits on 'the other', and makes both a stronger point (whatever point you're making), and provides a better context for delivering your message. A "pseudo-Trump" storyline to energize your base doesn't work well with Mirror or Klingons or Orks or Klingorks as your pseudo-Trump. This should've been some Federation official, so that the heroes could heroically resist his (because it wouldn't be a her) machinations while "Just doing their jobs" in Starfleet.
It's not even a political statement. A political statement would be "capitalism is bad" or "fascism is bad" or "communism is bad". This is just "Trump supporters are poopy-heads". It's scrub-tier, Twitter-inspired name calling. Their Klingons are so painfully generic, I did not even realize who was the target of their parody until I was shown 2 separate interviews involving the showrunners.
6. If your main antagonist is a warrior race, make sure the actors can pull off a fight scene, the props are actually credible as weapons, and the costumes don't take four to eight hours to put on while giving the wearer heat stroke. Save the body-tournequets for that pacifistic group of aliens you want to save from the nasty warriors. Seriously guys.
This might be a budgetary or time constraint. Streaming shows are slightly higher budget, but not by much. These programs still have the 45 min limitation per episode. I believe the poor combat just highlights the poor development of the Klingons. I think the poor combat is more of a nitpick than solid criticism.
7. If you're going to spend half the season or more on a war plot, then do it with some understanding of what you're doing beyond hiring the KLI to vet your dialogue and an internet "Superfan" to gush their adoration. In fact, don't listen to people who gush admiration and adoration. Hire people who you know you won't agree with and you know won't hold back when your 'cunning plot twist' is so thoroughly telegraphed that someone who hates star trek can catch it three episodes before the reveal.
This falls into the "Evil Overlord List" here-if a five year old can poke holes in your grand plot, you need to rethink it.
Harsh criticism is a good way to improve your writing chops. However, it may again be a time constraint. They only have so much time before shooting then editing.
There are plenty of examples of poor writing choices in previous Star Trek shows. The writers could at least avoid making the same mistakes.
8.if it's exciting in stills, it better be exciting on screen when it's in motion. This goes back to the Klingork redesign-instead of threatening, dangerous aliens, they delivered asthmatic, arthritic, idiot lizardmen. Looks great as long as it isn't moving or speaking, fails where it counts. NOT the way to do the business.
"Looks good on paper" might have been the culprit here. They wanted awesome, imposing aliens. They wanted a costume with so much make-up that they could disguise Voq as Tyler from the audience. When they put it into practice, the shortcomings became apparent.
It may have been too expensive/time consuming to change once shooting started. They already delayed the show twice during production. It could be that they had to do what they could with what they had.
9. If you have to rely on Nostalgia to hold your audience, you're doing it wrong. Your show should be able to stand on its own merits, and make people hunger for the tidbits, rather than relying on those tidbits for the sole source of your appeal..
I think you are repeating your 3rd point here. I get the impression you did not enjoy the random Trek bits scattered across each episode. Probably because they rarely had anything to do with the characters or plot.
Having a tribble sit on Lorca's desk is cringy. Having that same tribble reveal Voq to be a Klingon spy would be a nice callback AND could serve the plot, if it leads to inter-character conflict.
Overall nice put. I'd disagree with some minor points but overall that's also my issue with DSC. Especially the Klingon redesign. I always went with the explanation that it seemed more drastic what Voq went through to become Tyler, but that they had to change it so they could hide the actor under the mask makes much more sense. Which wouldn't bother me, if they hadn't chosen Klingons to be the antagonists but something new.
Now, we seem to get different Klingon designs, at least going by the tweets and hype bits scattered. One read along the lines of "we only seen sic great houses, now we see more" (despite we've already seen Qo'Nos population looking the same) which might hint at rewriting the Klingon Empire to become some sort of multi-racial entity like it is in STO with different members all uniting under one more or less commonly shared ideology and mythology. So a lizard person and a TOS Klingon and a TNG Klingon can all be the same if "Klingon" just refers to a culture and not a species.
If Klingons are a culture and not a species, then it raises the question of why there is only one group of Klingons in every other Star Trek series with Enterprise giving the explanation of why Enterprise Klingons look like post-TOS Klingons and how Enterprise Klingons turned into TOS Klingons.
Changing Klingons in Season 2 just seems like the creators of Discovery trying to fix their mistake. After all, it is one of the biggest problems that Star Trek fans have with Discovery. If the creators want to change an alien species, then it has to at least look recognizable to the fans. It is the reason why JJ Klingons are far better received than Discovery Klingons since JJ Klingons at least look like Klingons. The hatred for Discovery Klingons does bring up the paradox that fans want things to change while keeping things the same.
I saw an older interview with Ethan Peck, and two facts from that about him:
- He's the grandson of Gregory Peck.
- His voice is gonna be awesome for Spock.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Don't get me wrong I like Jason Isaacs, but would have loved seeing Philippa Georgiou move on over as Captain of the Discovery (having survived the Battle of the Binary Stars). Alas they opted to go another way!
Since this is the "theories" thread, I would like to talk about Culber's impending "resurrection". Two of the more well-known writing forms are "total resurrection" and "conditional resurrection". In either case, the method does not matter. Whether you are using techo-sorcery or petitioning the gods, what matters is how it is handled.
The classic "total resurrection" is based on Greek myths where our hero braves many challenges, makes sacrifices, then petitions/challenges/outwits the god of the underworld to get his love back. Star Trek III: Search for Spock uses this format, as Kirk faces several challenges and makes several sacrifices to finally petition the gods to bring Spock back. It's not good, but it is acceptable. The purpose of the journey is to impart on the audience the importance of the dead character. Kirk does an acceptable job of this.
"Conditional resurrection" is based on the idea that death is a "transformation". The character comes back to life, but he only remains alive as long as he meets certain criteria (such as avoiding sunlight). This transformation may make the character stronger or weaker, usually balanced by the severity of the "condition".
Since each episode is 35 to 45 min, the best I can hope for is some kind of "conditional resurrection". A "total resurrection" would probably be "total garbage", as it would likely be some form of "reset button" rather than a satisfying journey of sacrifice and challenge.
You are missing form of 'resurrection' that they could implement. Culber could exists as a being that only Stamets can see just like how Holden is the only person that can see Miller in The Expanse. So Culber does not come back to life. Whether it is a hallucination of Stamets' mind or is a representation of the Mycellial Network are both possibilities.
You are missing form of 'resurrection' that they could implement. Culber could exists as a being that only Stamets can see just like how Holden is the only person that can see Miller in The Expanse. So Culber does not come back to life. Whether it is a hallucination of Stamets' mind or is a representation of the Mycellial Network are both possibilities.
That's what I was thinking. Not a physical resurrection, but enough for the actor to do stuff as the character.
Comments
That's fair enough, but if I dislike something so much I'd not bother watching it. Even if I had roommates that keep watching it I'd put on my headphones and play games or watch stuff that I like or go out or do something else that's... fun to me.
Temporal Agent Daniels likes to keep the status quo since messing around with time like the Temporal Liberation Front tried to do can erase you, your family, and your friends from existence. Besides technology that can shut down stars is not something that should be available to anyone that wants to use it.
And this is where keeping the status quo comes in. Picard found it on Risa so it had to be left on Risa for Picard to find. Doing the smart thing and destroying it would create a new timeline.
Then the entire Temporal Cold War in Enterprise needs to be nuked from orbit. With the amount of changes to the timeline in Enterprise, it is ridiculous to believe that everything stayed the same in TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager. It does give an explanation why there are holographic communicators in Discovery while there was no evidence of it in TOS among the many other differences between Discovery and TOS.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I believe Burnham was originally designed to be heavily prejudiced against Klingons.
In the original version, she would have assaulted the Klingons in the pilot of her own volition, rather than an accident. T'Kuvma was not originally supposed to die at the end of episode two, but be a continuous threat. The reason for Tyler/Voq and his relationship with Burnham was to show that #notallKlingons were evil. Then, at the finale, Burnham would let "go of her hate" and save Qo'nos.
My reasons stem from the fact that there were script changes and casting changes right after Brian Fuller left (the actor that plays Kol was recast and a new actor was hired to play T'Kuvma). They also asked for an additional 3 episodes to tell their story (which just about covered the Mirror Universe arc). You can also see echoes of this story in the current form, as Burnham and Tyler/Voq have a forced relationship and Burnham does stop Empress "I eat people because I'm evil" from blowing up Qo'nos.
I do not know why they removed this character flaw. The whole first season comes across as a desperate attempt to impress it's audience. Maybe they thought a racist main character would turn off audiences. I think Lorca was originally intended a "cautionary tale". He was supposed to be an argument against populist leaders, possibly culminating in him being the "bad guy" that Burnham would have to overcome during her journey of self discovery. However, since someone wanted to tell a story in the mirror universe, he became "cartoon evil". This was a case of not really wanting to tell Lorca's story as much as a mirror universe story. The mirror universe story was a ok, but the poor treatment of Lorca casts a shadow over the majority of the season.
I don't think the issue is with the Trek nostalgia sprinkled over the set. It is the Star Trek universe. We expect some of that to be there. In conjunction with the truncated character development and rushed stories, it does give the impression that there is not much else going on. If the stories and characters were better, these things would seem less out of place.
By itself, fewer nostalgic inserts is more of personal taste than legitimate criticism.
Many current popular shows (especially on streaming services) are long form story telling, not just Babylon 5. Personally, I agree that better developed antagonists make for better story telling, but that is not a universal requirement. The issue here is too many ideas competing for screen time. Additionally, there is a clear lack of focus on character development.
I would have gone with "trim down the ideas and give your characters more room to be themselves". I would also be very happy with more time devoted to antagonists, but it's not a total deal breaker if they don't
It's not even a political statement. A political statement would be "capitalism is bad" or "fascism is bad" or "communism is bad". This is just "Trump supporters are poopy-heads". It's scrub-tier, Twitter-inspired name calling. Their Klingons are so painfully generic, I did not even realize who was the target of their parody until I was shown 2 separate interviews involving the showrunners.
This might be a budgetary or time constraint. Streaming shows are slightly higher budget, but not by much. These programs still have the 45 min limitation per episode. I believe the poor combat just highlights the poor development of the Klingons. I think the poor combat is more of a nitpick than solid criticism.
Harsh criticism is a good way to improve your writing chops. However, it may again be a time constraint. They only have so much time before shooting then editing.
There are plenty of examples of poor writing choices in previous Star Trek shows. The writers could at least avoid making the same mistakes.
"Looks good on paper" might have been the culprit here. They wanted awesome, imposing aliens. They wanted a costume with so much make-up that they could disguise Voq as Tyler from the audience. When they put it into practice, the shortcomings became apparent.
It may have been too expensive/time consuming to change once shooting started. They already delayed the show twice during production. It could be that they had to do what they could with what they had.
I think you are repeating your 3rd point here. I get the impression you did not enjoy the random Trek bits scattered across each episode. Probably because they rarely had anything to do with the characters or plot.
Having a tribble sit on Lorca's desk is cringy. Having that same tribble reveal Voq to be a Klingon spy would be a nice callback AND could serve the plot, if it leads to inter-character conflict.
Overall nice put. I'd disagree with some minor points but overall that's also my issue with DSC. Especially the Klingon redesign. I always went with the explanation that it seemed more drastic what Voq went through to become Tyler, but that they had to change it so they could hide the actor under the mask makes much more sense. Which wouldn't bother me, if they hadn't chosen Klingons to be the antagonists but something new.
Now, we seem to get different Klingon designs, at least going by the tweets and hype bits scattered. One read along the lines of "we only seen sic great houses, now we see more" (despite we've already seen Qo'Nos population looking the same) which might hint at rewriting the Klingon Empire to become some sort of multi-racial entity like it is in STO with different members all uniting under one more or less commonly shared ideology and mythology. So a lizard person and a TOS Klingon and a TNG Klingon can all be the same if "Klingon" just refers to a culture and not a species.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Just, tell a story. ONE story told well is much, much better than the half dozen plot threads that had little development and ended up being rushed into a conclusion. They really seemed to be pressed for screen time when it came to the stories they wanted to tell. Hopefully, they learned from those mistakes. The first season was 15 episodes; the second is 12.
If Klingons are a culture and not a species, then it raises the question of why there is only one group of Klingons in every other Star Trek series with Enterprise giving the explanation of why Enterprise Klingons look like post-TOS Klingons and how Enterprise Klingons turned into TOS Klingons.
Changing Klingons in Season 2 just seems like the creators of Discovery trying to fix their mistake. After all, it is one of the biggest problems that Star Trek fans have with Discovery. If the creators want to change an alien species, then it has to at least look recognizable to the fans. It is the reason why JJ Klingons are far better received than Discovery Klingons since JJ Klingons at least look like Klingons. The hatred for Discovery Klingons does bring up the paradox that fans want things to change while keeping things the same.
He looks like he could play Superman as well.
- He's the grandson of Gregory Peck.
- His voice is gonna be awesome for Spock.
My character Tsin'xing
http://anas-tronaut.blogspot.com/2018/08/tardigrades-case.html
http://anas-tronaut.blogspot.com/2017/10/star-trek-discovery-tardigrades.html
My character Tsin'xing
The classic "total resurrection" is based on Greek myths where our hero braves many challenges, makes sacrifices, then petitions/challenges/outwits the god of the underworld to get his love back. Star Trek III: Search for Spock uses this format, as Kirk faces several challenges and makes several sacrifices to finally petition the gods to bring Spock back. It's not good, but it is acceptable. The purpose of the journey is to impart on the audience the importance of the dead character. Kirk does an acceptable job of this.
"Conditional resurrection" is based on the idea that death is a "transformation". The character comes back to life, but he only remains alive as long as he meets certain criteria (such as avoiding sunlight). This transformation may make the character stronger or weaker, usually balanced by the severity of the "condition".
Since each episode is 35 to 45 min, the best I can hope for is some kind of "conditional resurrection". A "total resurrection" would probably be "total garbage", as it would likely be some form of "reset button" rather than a satisfying journey of sacrifice and challenge.
My character Tsin'xing