You can be political just don't be so blatantly obvious and self righteous with it
But Star Trek has been that since the get go. Hell, TOS and TNG are nothing but blatantly obvious, self righteous, political/social commentary, with Kirk/Picard talking down to alien races for not following "their way", which is the only right way!
"Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", pretty much in its entirety.
The mission Kirk was attempting to undertake on Organia in "Errand of Mercy".
His conclusion to the situation on Eminiar VII in "A Taste of Armageddon"...
...and again on Gamma Trianguli IV in "The Apple".
And those are just off the top of my head, without doing any research.
I find this open hostility to the people who dislike Discovery very strange. They don't like the thing you like so you are happy to insult them. What is the point of that, exactly?
Most people I've observed who dislike the show can specifically point out what they don't like, and why. It isn't some random hate, its reasoned criticism.
Have you ever asked yourself, what if they got what they wanted? What if ST:D was rewritten and redone and was a better show that fits alongside oldtrek much better for addressing those complaints? Would we even be getting Strange New Worlds without those people?
It is not open hostility. It is a response to the knee jerk reaction by some of never passing any opportunity, however small, to inform the rest of us how much they hate Star Trek :Discovery. There is very little 'reasoned criticism' in most of the things I have seen posted.
"ST:D"? Really? The very way you refer to the show shows your bathroom humor level contempt for it. You're only here so you can post a "Why You Mad, Bro?" meme for the crowd in the balcony. I expected you to play the victim card as well and you did not disappoint.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
Discovery was made with heavy political correctness in mind and it's making it difficult for me to like it. It only feels like Star Trek whenever there is a scene with Pike, other than that, it's real world political correctness portrayed by the other characters. Unfortunately though, this is the world we live in now where everything has to be politically correct.
As for the ship itself, well so far I've only seen it in scenes where it's either jumping, or just sitting there. . .
In any case, expect some bias because it's the current Star Trek right now.
I'll go on record to say that I didn't watch Enterprise, but I've watched all the others and absolutely love Voyager. Discovery is certainly the first Trek I've ever watched that is having difficulties holding my attention.
Also, the way I feel, if you watch any Star Trek and follow the lore, movies, etc, you;re a Trekkie. Some of us grew up with Kirk all the way to Janeway and Sisko. It's a big part of our lives.
Oh please - ST: D's 'political correctness' or 'heavy political commentary' is no different/worse than the ORIGINAL Star Trel when it premiered in Sept. 1966 with its integrated/interatrial crew (that in season 2 included a COMMIE RUSSIAN at a time when teh Cold War was at its height) - or episodes like "A Private Little War" (a direct allegory to the Vietnam war with was a major political issue); or "The Enterprise Incident" which was DIRECT commentary on an incident with a U.S. Ship held by North Korea (in January 1968) - https://www.britannica.com/event/Pueblo-Incident
^^^
So yeah, sorry, but to somehow claim ST: D is made more with 'political correctness' in mind than any other iteration of Star Trek pretty much showcases how little you know about the Star Trek franchise' production history when it comes to social and political issues.
Yes, y9ou may not have realized just how polarizing and controversial some elements of past Star Trek series were at the time they were originally broadcast - because by the time you saw them, many of these issues were no longer as polarizing or politically charged as they once had been - but it doesn't change the fact that ST: D today is about as contentious and Star Trek (TOS) was in it's original 1966-1969 network run.
I have to disagree here. Trek always had its allegories but rarely were they in your face and blatantly one sided. I can't speak to ST:D itself as I've never watched it, however Hollywood in general has been heavy on strawman politics these days. They don't actually understand the other side of any of these issues (and often don't even understand their own side) and end up just mocking an imagined position that no one actually holds, or pandering to utter lunacy where the actual facts and statistics are entirely ignored versus certain media's one sided portrayal of things.
Kinda like this, completely imagining what the other side is thinking:
"ST:D"? Really? The very way you refer to the show shows your bathroom humor level contempt for it. You're only here so you can post a "Why You Mad, Bro?" meme for the crowd in the balcony. I expected you to play the victim card as well and you did not disappoint.
Your psychic powers don't work very well.
It is not open hostility. It is a response to the knee jerk reaction by some of never passing any opportunity, however small, to inform the rest of us how much they hate Star Trek :Discovery. There is very little 'reasoned criticism' in most of the things I have seen posted.
Then I'd encourage you to read the off topic forums where ST:D and ST:P and ST:LD were discussed at length, not to mention look outside this forum at the wider internet, such as actual reviews by people that dislike the shows, criticizing the themes, design choices, and so on. If you only look at the random rants or off hand comments in a section of a forum where its not even the proper place to discuss the topic, I guess you wouldn't see much.
"ST:D"? Really? The very way you refer to the show shows your bathroom humor level contempt for it. You're only here so you can post a "Why You Mad, Bro?" meme for the crowd in the balcony. I expected you to play the victim card as well and you did not disappoint.
"ST:D"? Yes, really. Way I figure this, if you don't want ppl to call your show ST:D, then maybe, next time, have your QA team spend a few minutes on sanity checks before you come up with the name, instead of lashing out at anyone who simply points out your own dumb mistake.
It's like the Admiralty Ship System, making for a rather obivious, and widely used acronym. If you don't like it, next time, check yourself before you wreck yourself.
The way I see it Trek is Trek, there's no NuTrek or Old Trek...
This is my stance as well on it. Star Trek is not just one format, or about one thing. Its an entire universe full of stories of all kinds. There's room for all of it. And just like any large franchise, you're welcome to any part you like.
@phoenixc#0738 I believe the core issue with your arguments is that 9 times out of 10 it comes across as a form of gatekeeping by segregating types of fans. Unintentional it may be, text doesn't always convey intent. And a lot of people like to try and segregate fans who like Discovery from fans who don't, and tend to use it as a form of attack, either towards Discovery, the people behind it, or the people who actually do like Discovery. It does kinda come across as a variation of the "no true scotsman" argument at times, which is why you get so much pushback on it.
Also you do use a lot of behind the scenes information on things when canon tends to only care about what is on screen. I know that the Command Division uniforms are supposed to be some kind of green, but the lighting and film made it yellow. So which is the canon color for command? Green or Yellow? Canon leans towards yellow, based on Trials and Tribble-ations in DS9. And after TMP, Rodenberry basically said that the Klingons ALWAYS looked the way they do in TMP, yet on screen they didn't. This was later addressed in Trials and Tribble-ations when Worf actually said "We don't like to talk about it", and was again later addressed in Enterprise with an actual reason for it.
So stating things like the TOS Enterprise was intended to have touchscreens and Number One is an Augment kinda falls short because there's no on screen evidence to back it up. I'm not doubting your knowledge of things behind the scenes, but as of what was seen on screen... there really isn't much to back it up as fact. As far as I am aware, the idea of Number One being an Augment is strictly Beta Canon and limited to books. Until we learn more about her in Strange New Worlds... that's all it is. We can't say it is a fact without the on screen evidence to back it up.
I see your point, and I don't mean to come across as gatekeeping or segregating (just the opposite in fact, though I know it sometimes appears otherwise depending on how it is read). Most of the time I make comments because I like talking about Trek, and just writing and and production stuff in general for that matter.
I for one don't hate the show, though I think it could be better than what Kurtzman has done with it, and I am not afraid to point out the inconsistencies and other bad points, so I ended up getting labeled as a "DSC hater" by some people here even though that is not the case. Like most people I do get irritated sometimes (usually when commenters sneer at anyone with criticisms of "NuTrek" and say things like "the only reason some people don't like DSC is because it is new" and similar nonsense) and can sometimes be a bit snappish or sarcastic when that happens.
I bring up behind the scenes stuff sometimes because knowing what the writers intended is handy in interpreting what is seen on the screen. It is usually (though admittedly not always) on matters that don't concern canon or where there simply is not enough canon information to settle a point.
The Number One thing is a good example in it did not concern canon at all. I said I thought it would be more interesting if the DSC Number One was a transhuman the way Roddenberry created her. I didn't claim that not having her an augment was against canon or whatever because of Roddenberry's behind the scenes comments that she was.
In fact, the DSC version could go either way without being "wrong" since The Cage did not directly and explicitly address the issue (the long TNG style technobabble fests where they tended to (overly) talk about the issues before doing anything with them were not a thing yet), she could have the specified "superior intellect" whether she is mainline human or augment.
The touchscreen and gestures thing was just one of the ways I tried to point out that the impression that DSC is higher tech than TOS is misleading and caused by the rise in realworld TV production values, not something inherent to the setting like some people apparently thought (if you listen to the dialog and watch the action instead of focusing on the look of the props themselves and the poor quality of the sound track TOS is actually a little too far advanced compared to DSC with only ten years between them).
They removed most of the control surface touchscreens between the first and second pilot episodes because of the burning transparency issues and pretty much ignored the soft-button arrays because they looked more interesting doing the constant cycling (like the eye-level screens on the bridge stations did) instead of incrementing when someone touched one of the soft-buttons. Besides being a pain in the posterior to synchronize between the actor and the person advancing the pattern contact template, there was the concern that viewers wouldn't know the significance of the lights changing while someone "punches the buttons".
They had one capable of doing that single-step advance on the communications panel to the right of the comms officer, but you cannot see it from the usual camera angles, and one on the upper-left corner of the transporter control station for instance but they just left them blinking, and the glass panel near the atrogator's right hand that is about the size of a modern tablet was supposed to be a context sensitive multifunction display/control too, when Tyler was sitting there he had showing the image of a big swing-needle meter but it could be picked up unplugged and swapped with other props quickly.
Only one instance of the gesture controls was kept, notice when Spock is talking about the Talos star system he does not touch the panel to change the various views, he does a stylized sweep of his arm well over the panel surface.
Anyway, rambling aside, whether there is a bias towards DSC or not, the so-called "hate" issues will undoubtedly be with us for a long time, Moonves winding up the fanbase and cranking up the strife so high for free advertising has pretty much guaranteed that. Both 'sides' are still too touchy.
As a Fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars I've taken a lot of TRIBBLE over the years for just that but I like what I like.
Back on topic:
While the first season of Discovery took some getting used to the 2nd and third season/s I literally love. And I'm anxiously awaiting season 4. Star trek Picard was awesome too and I'm likewise awaiting season 2 of that. There is my 2 cents.
Usually I don't reply to threads of this nature because I'm trying to have a good time both here and in game and arguing doesn't fit in my perspective of that. Enough said. I'm not trying to write a Novella here, lol.
As a Fan of both Star Trek and Star Wars I've taken a lot of TRIBBLE over the years for just that but I like what I like.
Huh... I never caught any flak for not devoting myself to one camp or the other. Hell... I like a lot of different Sci-Fi shows and never took any flak for it. Although back when the old Filefront was still a thing, I noticed that Trek fans were A LOT more accepting of Wars mods for Trek games than Wars fans were of Trek mods for Wars games.
"ST:D"? Really? The very way you refer to the show shows your bathroom humor level contempt for it. You're only here so you can post a "Why You Mad, Bro?" meme for the crowd in the balcony. I expected you to play the victim card as well and you did not disappoint.
"ST:D"? Yes, really. Way I figure this, if you don't want ppl to call your show ST:D, then maybe, next time, have your QA team spend a few minutes on sanity checks before you come up with the name, instead of lashing out at anyone who simply points out your own dumb mistake.
It's like the Admiralty Ship System, making for a rather obivious, and widely used acronym. If you don't like it, next time, check yourself before you wreck yourself.
These days people like to substitute actual names for acronyms, for sure. Like KFC for Kentucky Fried Chicken (supposedly because some people freaked out over the word fried, but it was because the US state got greedy and wanted royalties from any company that uses their state name).
The worst acronym I've seen was Windsor Family Credit Union (WFCU). They like having their initials boldly shown and lit on their buildings. Driving home from work late at night, it reads as something rather rude to their customers.
Trek always had its allegories but rarely were they in your face and blatantly one sided.
Did you not read what I posted, or have you simply never watched any TOS episodes?
(I'll excuse a youngling like yourself not quite getting "Friday's Child", as that was a critique of the way the Vietnam conflict was handled in the beginning, with both the US and the USSR trying to claim their hands were clean because all they were doing was giving one side weapons and advisors...)
> @captaincelestial said: > These days people like to substitute actual names for acronyms, for sure. Like KFC for Kentucky Fried Chicken (supposedly because some people freaked out over the word fried, but it was because the US state got greedy and wanted royalties from any company that uses their state name). > > The worst acronym I've seen was Windsor Family Credit Union (WFCU). They like having their initials boldly shown and lit on their buildings. Driving home from work late at night, it reads as something rather rude to their customers.
This would be an excuse if we refered to the other series the same way. No one uses the ST:TNG or ST:DS9 or ST:V or ST:E.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Actually it's used a lot for the movies, and yes, people have used the ST: for Star Trek TV shows long before Discovery plopped onscreen, to synch with the movies.
So, yeah, Star Trek: Discovery should have gone the way Enterprise did before Star Trek: was tacked on to it, if it wanted to avoid the acronym ST:D.
> @captaincelestial said: > Actually it's used a lot for the movies, and yes, people have used the ST: for Star Trek TV shows long before Discovery plopped onscreen, to synch with the movies. > > So, yeah, Star Trek: Discovery should have gone the way Enterprise did before Star Trek: was tacked on to it, if it wanted to avoid the acronym ST:D.
I’ve not seen anyone use the ST even when they abbreviate the movies. TMP and WOK are what I see. For the TNG movies I mostly see people refer to them by their subtitles: Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis. I’ve never seen ST:G, ST:FC, ST:I or ST:N.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Actually it's used a lot for the movies, and yes, people have used the ST: for Star Trek TV shows long before Discovery plopped onscreen, to synch with the movies.
So, yeah, Star Trek: Discovery should have gone the way Enterprise did before Star Trek: was tacked on to it, if it wanted to avoid the acronym ST:D.
I’ve not seen anyone use the ST even when they abbreviate the movies. TMP and WOK are what I see. For the TNG movies I mostly see people refer to them by their subtitles: Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis. I’ve never seen ST:G, ST:FC, ST:I or ST:N.
This.
I have never seen anyone tack on ST to anything until Discovery, except for the odd 2009 reference. I admit I sometimes use STV (to imply roman numeral 5) or ST5 to reference Final Frontier, but that's mostly because I can't remember what the shorthand is for that off the top of my head in that moment. But I have never seen anyone refer to TOS as ST:TOS, or DS9 as ST:DS9. Its only been with Discovery that people tack on ST, and 9 times out of 10... its being used in a negative connotation because of what ELSE those three letters in THAT PARTICULAR order mean.
If Discovery like the FASA games, I'd have loved it...but all we got was fetish convention klingons and an annoying main character, ugly ships and an apparent contempt for TOS.
I’ve not seen anyone use the ST even when they abbreviate the movies. TMP and WOK are what I see. For the TNG movies I mostly see people refer to them by their subtitles: Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis. I’ve never seen ST:G, ST:FC, ST:I or ST:N.
This.
I have never seen anyone tack on ST to anything until Discovery, except for the odd 2009 reference. I admit I sometimes use STV (to imply roman numeral 5) or ST5 to reference Final Frontier, but that's mostly because I can't remember what the shorthand is for that off the top of my head in that moment. But I have never seen anyone refer to TOS as ST:TOS, or DS9 as ST:DS9. Its only been with Discovery that people tack on ST, and 9 times out of 10... its being used in a negative connotation because of what ELSE those three letters in THAT PARTICULAR order mean.
It's been used for the movies. Star Trek: Discovery would have done better if it had went for Discovery, like Enterprise before. Adding the Star Trek: made the the acronym ST:D easy, regardless if the show was much beloved or not.
Of course, short forms is very common in Star Trek. Like TOS, DS9, VOY, ENT, and of course DIS. Discovery actively encourages people to dis them.
Then again, Disco is not looked with great light in North America, considering that's what the short lived dance craze from the late '70s and early '80s is called.
CBS Marketing should have had a chat with the producers for Star Trek: Discovery before they picked the name of the program.
> @captaincelestial said:
> Actually it's used a lot for the movies, and yes, people have used the ST: for Star Trek TV shows long before Discovery plopped onscreen, to synch with the movies.
>
> So, yeah, Star Trek: Discovery should have gone the way Enterprise did before Star Trek: was tacked on to it, if it wanted to avoid the acronym ST:D.
I’ve not seen anyone use the ST even when they abbreviate the movies. TMP and WOK are what I see. For the TNG movies I mostly see people refer to them by their subtitles: Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis. I’ve never seen ST:G, ST:FC, ST:I or ST:N.
I'm sorry you never saw those short forms before. Yes, when the TOS movies were in full swing, ST: was put in front of movies and the TV series. ST:TNG, for example. When DS9 came out, it was at the same time as Seaquest DSV (Steven Spielberg produced submarine series).
Since Stephen Spielberg was a huge name in Hollywood, especially back then, ST:DS9 was used to help distinguish Star Trek: DS9 from Seaquest DSV (which is short for Deep Sea Vessel). Later on, the DSV was replaced with 2032, so that opened the doors to just using DS9 for more current fans of the show.
Just because you don't know or remember ST:DS9 and the like, I will use your three letter short form to make you happy.
I’ve not seen anyone use the ST even when they abbreviate the movies. TMP and WOK are what I see. For the TNG movies I mostly see people refer to them by their subtitles: Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis. I’ve never seen ST:G, ST:FC, ST:I or ST:N.
This.
I have never seen anyone tack on ST to anything until Discovery, except for the odd 2009 reference. I admit I sometimes use STV (to imply roman numeral 5) or ST5 to reference Final Frontier, but that's mostly because I can't remember what the shorthand is for that off the top of my head in that moment. But I have never seen anyone refer to TOS as ST:TOS, or DS9 as ST:DS9. Its only been with Discovery that people tack on ST, and 9 times out of 10... its being used in a negative connotation because of what ELSE those three letters in THAT PARTICULAR order mean.
It's been used for the movies. Star Trek: Discovery would have done better if it had went for Discovery, like Enterprise before. Adding the Star Trek: made the the acronym ST:D easy, regardless if the show was much beloved or not.
Of course, short forms is very common in Star Trek. Like TOS, DS9, VOY, ENT, and of course DIS. Discovery actively encourages people to dis them.
Then again, Disco is not looked with great light in North America, considering that's what the short lived dance craze from the late '70s and early '80s is called.
CBS Marketing should have had a chat with the producers for Star Trek: Discovery before they picked the name of the program.
They probably wanted to avoid just plain "Discovery" to differentiate it from the Discovery channel, especially in light of the fact that they were embroiled in an aggressive and very unpopular court battle with Axanar (and by extension the entire fanfilm community) at the time. It would have been a rather unfavorable irony in the minds of many potential viewers.
> @captaincelestial said: > I'm sorry you never saw those short forms before. Yes, when the TOS movies were in full swing, ST: was put in front of movies and the TV series. ST:TNG, for example. When DS9 came out, it was at the same time as Seaquest DSV (Steven Spielberg produced submarine series). > > Since Stephen Spielberg was a huge name in Hollywood, especially back then, ST:DS9 was used to help distinguish Star Trek: DS9 from Seaquest DSV (which is short for Deep Sea Vessel). Later on, the DSV was replaced with 2032, so that opened the doors to just using DS9 for more current fans of the show. > > Just because you don't know or remember ST:DS9 and the like, I will use your three letter short form to make you happy. > > DIS, DIS, DIS! > > There you go
I remember Seaquest very well. As a Jaws fan hearing Spielberg and Roy Scheider teaming up to go underwater was 1000% in my wheelhouse. The disappointment was major. I tried to watch it again on Peacock. Yikes. However I don’t see how DS9 would change its abbreviation because of a show that came out 9 months after it did and was losing its time slot against Murder She Wrote and Lois and Clark. It was on the chopping block after the first season and again after the second season.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Seaquest is an interesting case that parallels Star Trek in genre-jumping, though on a smaller scale.
The DSV version was trying to harden their sci-fi by concentrating on real marine biology and oceanography centered plots whenever possible (though it often was a bit off-kilter), then jumped the shark and dumped all of that in the 2032 version for a sort of underwater space-opera style action romp that occasionally touched on soft sci-fi issues and even less than that on the hard science issues the show started with.
Similarly, the various Star Trek series (not the movies) spent decades as soft sci-fi then made an abrupt about-face in 2009 and has been solidly in space opera since.
> @phoenixc#0738 said: > Seaquest is an interesting case that parallels Star Trek in genre-jumping, though on a smaller scale. > > The DSV version was trying to harden their sci-fi by concentrating on real marine biology and oceanography centered plots whenever possible (though it often was a bit off-kilter), then jumped the shark and dumped all of that in the 2032 version for a sort of underwater space-opera style action romp that occasionally touched on soft sci-fi issues and even less than that on the hard science issues the show started with. > > Similarly, the various Star Trek series (not the movies) spent decades as soft sci-fi then made an abrupt about-face in 2009 and has been solidly in space opera since.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
> @phoenixc#0738 said:
> Seaquest is an interesting case that parallels Star Trek in genre-jumping, though on a smaller scale.
>
> The DSV version was trying to harden their sci-fi by concentrating on real marine biology and oceanography centered plots whenever possible (though it often was a bit off-kilter), then jumped the shark and dumped all of that in the 2032 version for a sort of underwater space-opera style action romp that occasionally touched on soft sci-fi issues and even less than that on the hard science issues the show started with.
>
> Similarly, the various Star Trek series (not the movies) spent decades as soft sci-fi then made an abrupt about-face in 2009 and has been solidly in space opera since.
You are right in that I forgot that Seaquest's switch to space opera was earlier than the name change.
It did not go "full Star Trek" though since it did not turn primarily soft sci-fi, rather it went more Star Wars or Buck Rodgers or one of the other space operas. The only space opera Trek back then was most of the movies and those are far outnumbered in total hours by the various series.
I feel that season 1 of seaQuest was solid. But some idiot behind the scenes decided the show needed a soft reboot every season, and we only got 2.5 seasons out of it. The 2032 season never even finished. Here's how I see seaQuest seasons.
science!
sci-fi
build up to war
I liked how they tried to inject real science into season one, and some of the characters were likeable. Then for season 2 they ditched most of the cast and tried to revamp itself for a more sci-fi audience. Then they revamped again! Although I kinda liked how Michael Ironside played a career navy man out of his element in his short tenure as Captain Hudson. Going from commanding a warship to commanding a research vessel was a big switch for him, and his more military discipline style clashed at times with the established crew of seaQuest, who were used to Captain Bridger's more casual, science style.
Also if I recall, DSV stood for Deep Submergence Vehicle.
Honestly if the show was handled a lot better, it would have rivaled Star Trek IMO.
I'm actually able to mock up a season 1 seaQuest uniform in game with the Enterprise uniform. Still wanting to tweak the pants a bit, and haven't really found something that fits the season 2/3 uniforms. Its those dang buckle bits on the shoulders that are bugging me.
> @rattler2 said: > I feel that season 1 of seaQuest was solid. But some idiot behind the scenes decided the show needed a soft reboot every season, and we only got 2.5 seasons out of it. The 2032 season never even finished. Here's how I see seaQuest seasons.* science! > * sci-fi > * build up to war > > I liked how they tried to inject real science into season one, and some of the characters were likeable. Then for season 2 they ditched most of the cast and tried to revamp itself for a more sci-fi audience. Then they revamped again! Although I kinda liked how Michael Ironside played a career navy man out of his element in his short tenure as Captain Hudson. Going from commanding a warship to commanding a research vessel was a big switch for him, and his more military discipline style clashed at times with the established crew of seaQuest, who were used to Captain Bridger's more casual, science style. > > Also if I recall, DSV stood for Deep Submergence Vehicle. > > Honestly if the show was handled a lot better, it would have rivaled Star Trek IMO. > I'm actually able to mock up a season 1 seaQuest uniform in game with the Enterprise uniform. Still wanting to tweak the pants a bit, and haven't really found something that fits the season 2/3 uniforms. Its those dang buckle bits on the shoulders that are bugging me.
They felt the need to change it up after every season because the ratings were poor. When your big sci-fi show with Steven Spielberg’s name attached is losing to Murder She Wrote you got to try some new things.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
> @rattler2 said:
> I feel that season 1 of seaQuest was solid. But some idiot behind the scenes decided the show needed a soft reboot every season, and we only got 2.5 seasons out of it. The 2032 season never even finished. Here's how I see seaQuest seasons.* science!
> * sci-fi
> * build up to war
>
> I liked how they tried to inject real science into season one, and some of the characters were likeable. Then for season 2 they ditched most of the cast and tried to revamp itself for a more sci-fi audience. Then they revamped again! Although I kinda liked how Michael Ironside played a career navy man out of his element in his short tenure as Captain Hudson. Going from commanding a warship to commanding a research vessel was a big switch for him, and his more military discipline style clashed at times with the established crew of seaQuest, who were used to Captain Bridger's more casual, science style.
>
> Also if I recall, DSV stood for Deep Submergence Vehicle.
>
> Honestly if the show was handled a lot better, it would have rivaled Star Trek IMO.
> I'm actually able to mock up a season 1 seaQuest uniform in game with the Enterprise uniform. Still wanting to tweak the pants a bit, and haven't really found something that fits the season 2/3 uniforms. Its those dang buckle bits on the shoulders that are bugging me.
They felt the need to change it up after every season because the ratings were poor. When your big sci-fi show with Steven Spielberg’s name attached is losing to Murder She Wrote you got to try some new things.
Jumping the shark every season is something SeaQuest has in common with DSC. In SeaQuest's case it was the ratings issue (though that was more about bad schedule placement than the show itself) and with DSC it is more about damage control and trying to get more of the core fans back after Moonves's stick-in-the-eye to them.
Maybe DSC will stop the jumping in fourth season unless there is a strong element of disjointed sequelitis to it as well. A lot of cable shows suffered from that at first when arcs became the next big thing because they treated each season as a separate story instead of threads in a series-long arc. Some of them did that so badly that they felt more like an anthology that just happened to have the same characters rather than a single evolving story (unfortunately DSC is very very close to that level so far, hopefully it gets itself sorted before the end of the series).
> @phoenixc#0738 said: > Jumping the shark every season is something SeaQuest has in common with DSC. In SeaQuest's case it was the ratings issue (though that was more about bad schedule placement than the show itself) and with DSC it is more about damage control and trying to get more of the core fans back after Moonves's stick-in-the-eye to them. > > Maybe DSC will stop the jumping in fourth season unless there is a strong element of disjointed sequelitis to it as well. A lot of cable shows suffered from that at first when arcs became the next big thing because they treated each season as a separate story instead of threads in a series-long arc. Some of them did that so badly that they felt more like an anthology that just happened to have the same characters rather than a single evolving story (unfortunately DSC is very very close to that level so far, hopefully it gets itself sorted before the end of the series).
What was the jumping the shark moment for Discovery season 2?
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
> @phoenixc#0738 said:
> Jumping the shark every season is something SeaQuest has in common with DSC. In SeaQuest's case it was the ratings issue (though that was more about bad schedule placement than the show itself) and with DSC it is more about damage control and trying to get more of the core fans back after Moonves's stick-in-the-eye to them.
>
> Maybe DSC will stop the jumping in fourth season unless there is a strong element of disjointed sequelitis to it as well. A lot of cable shows suffered from that at first when arcs became the next big thing because they treated each season as a separate story instead of threads in a series-long arc. Some of them did that so badly that they felt more like an anthology that just happened to have the same characters rather than a single evolving story (unfortunately DSC is very very close to that level so far, hopefully it gets itself sorted before the end of the series).
What was the jumping the shark moment for Discovery season 2?
At the end of season one they decided to quickly cancel the Klingon war with a near deus ex machina easy-button ending, then when they started up next season they did so with a large abrupt shift in story, highly significant changes in supporting cast (mainly Pike nearly stealing the show, and the heavy emphasis on Spock), and overall feel and style.
Some argue that it was not a full classic shark jump because Burnham remained the main character despite all the changes around her, and there is definitely some merit to that view, but technically a shark jump in the sloppy way it is used nowadays does not necessarily require a change of main character, it can be a significant and unforeshadowed sudden shift in their circumstances coupled with other changes as long as there is a major shift in the way the story feels from one side of the jump to the other.
Then at the second-to-third season join there is the even bigger sharkjump to the future.
And yes, it is a sort of gray area between classic shark jump and anthology so it could be argued either way.
> @phoenixc#0738 said: > At the end of season one they decided to quickly cancel the Klingon war with a near deus ex machina easy-button ending, then when they started up next season they did so with a large abrupt shift in story, highly significant changes in supporting cast (mainly Pike nearly stealing the show, and the heavy emphasis on Spock), and overall feel and style. > > Some argue that it was not a full classic shark jump because Burnham remained the main character despite all the changes around her, and there is definitely some merit to that view, but technically a shark jump in the sloppy way it is used nowadays does not necessarily require a change of main character, it can be a significant and unforeshadowed sudden shift in their circumstances coupled with other changes as long as there is a major shift in the way the story feels from one side of the jump to the other. > > Then at the second-to-third season join there is the even bigger sharkjump to the future. > > And yes, it is a sort of gray area between classic shark jump and anthology so it could be argued either way.
So “jumping the shark” is when a show’s rating lag and they decide to do some sort of event to drum up ratings. It gets its name from an episode of Happy Days where The Fonze jumps over a shark. It’s not about a main character change. Lots of things lead to a main character change. For Seaquest it was because Scheider didn’t want to do the type of show the producers and network wanted so he left. It’s also not adding characters and changing things. By your definition when Riker grew a beard was TNG jumping the shark, which it’s not. Discovery’s season one ending wasn’t a “shark jump” or even a “Deus Ex Machina”. Deus Ex machina is when something comes out of left field and solves the problem. Burnham’s decision to not blow up the Klingon Homeworld is a mirror to her decision to fire on the Klingons first in the pilot episode. Had Q showed up and snapped his fingers and everything was solved that would be Deus Ex Machina.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Comments
The mission Kirk was attempting to undertake on Organia in "Errand of Mercy".
His conclusion to the situation on Eminiar VII in "A Taste of Armageddon"...
...and again on Gamma Trianguli IV in "The Apple".
And those are just off the top of my head, without doing any research.
It is not open hostility. It is a response to the knee jerk reaction by some of never passing any opportunity, however small, to inform the rest of us how much they hate Star Trek :Discovery. There is very little 'reasoned criticism' in most of the things I have seen posted.
"ST:D"? Really? The very way you refer to the show shows your bathroom humor level contempt for it. You're only here so you can post a "Why You Mad, Bro?" meme for the crowd in the balcony. I expected you to play the victim card as well and you did not disappoint.
I have to disagree here. Trek always had its allegories but rarely were they in your face and blatantly one sided. I can't speak to ST:D itself as I've never watched it, however Hollywood in general has been heavy on strawman politics these days. They don't actually understand the other side of any of these issues (and often don't even understand their own side) and end up just mocking an imagined position that no one actually holds, or pandering to utter lunacy where the actual facts and statistics are entirely ignored versus certain media's one sided portrayal of things.
Kinda like this, completely imagining what the other side is thinking:
Your psychic powers don't work very well.
Then I'd encourage you to read the off topic forums where ST:D and ST:P and ST:LD were discussed at length, not to mention look outside this forum at the wider internet, such as actual reviews by people that dislike the shows, criticizing the themes, design choices, and so on. If you only look at the random rants or off hand comments in a section of a forum where its not even the proper place to discuss the topic, I guess you wouldn't see much.
"ST:D"? Yes, really. Way I figure this, if you don't want ppl to call your show ST:D, then maybe, next time, have your QA team spend a few minutes on sanity checks before you come up with the name, instead of lashing out at anyone who simply points out your own dumb mistake.
It's like the Admiralty Ship System, making for a rather obivious, and widely used acronym. If you don't like it, next time, check yourself before you wreck yourself.
I see your point, and I don't mean to come across as gatekeeping or segregating (just the opposite in fact, though I know it sometimes appears otherwise depending on how it is read). Most of the time I make comments because I like talking about Trek, and just writing and and production stuff in general for that matter.
I for one don't hate the show, though I think it could be better than what Kurtzman has done with it, and I am not afraid to point out the inconsistencies and other bad points, so I ended up getting labeled as a "DSC hater" by some people here even though that is not the case. Like most people I do get irritated sometimes (usually when commenters sneer at anyone with criticisms of "NuTrek" and say things like "the only reason some people don't like DSC is because it is new" and similar nonsense) and can sometimes be a bit snappish or sarcastic when that happens.
I bring up behind the scenes stuff sometimes because knowing what the writers intended is handy in interpreting what is seen on the screen. It is usually (though admittedly not always) on matters that don't concern canon or where there simply is not enough canon information to settle a point.
The Number One thing is a good example in it did not concern canon at all. I said I thought it would be more interesting if the DSC Number One was a transhuman the way Roddenberry created her. I didn't claim that not having her an augment was against canon or whatever because of Roddenberry's behind the scenes comments that she was.
In fact, the DSC version could go either way without being "wrong" since The Cage did not directly and explicitly address the issue (the long TNG style technobabble fests where they tended to (overly) talk about the issues before doing anything with them were not a thing yet), she could have the specified "superior intellect" whether she is mainline human or augment.
The touchscreen and gestures thing was just one of the ways I tried to point out that the impression that DSC is higher tech than TOS is misleading and caused by the rise in realworld TV production values, not something inherent to the setting like some people apparently thought (if you listen to the dialog and watch the action instead of focusing on the look of the props themselves and the poor quality of the sound track TOS is actually a little too far advanced compared to DSC with only ten years between them).
They removed most of the control surface touchscreens between the first and second pilot episodes because of the burning transparency issues and pretty much ignored the soft-button arrays because they looked more interesting doing the constant cycling (like the eye-level screens on the bridge stations did) instead of incrementing when someone touched one of the soft-buttons. Besides being a pain in the posterior to synchronize between the actor and the person advancing the pattern contact template, there was the concern that viewers wouldn't know the significance of the lights changing while someone "punches the buttons".
They had one capable of doing that single-step advance on the communications panel to the right of the comms officer, but you cannot see it from the usual camera angles, and one on the upper-left corner of the transporter control station for instance but they just left them blinking, and the glass panel near the atrogator's right hand that is about the size of a modern tablet was supposed to be a context sensitive multifunction display/control too, when Tyler was sitting there he had showing the image of a big swing-needle meter but it could be picked up unplugged and swapped with other props quickly.
Only one instance of the gesture controls was kept, notice when Spock is talking about the Talos star system he does not touch the panel to change the various views, he does a stylized sweep of his arm well over the panel surface.
Anyway, rambling aside, whether there is a bias towards DSC or not, the so-called "hate" issues will undoubtedly be with us for a long time, Moonves winding up the fanbase and cranking up the strife so high for free advertising has pretty much guaranteed that. Both 'sides' are still too touchy.
Back on topic:
While the first season of Discovery took some getting used to the 2nd and third season/s I literally love. And I'm anxiously awaiting season 4. Star trek Picard was awesome too and I'm likewise awaiting season 2 of that. There is my 2 cents.
Usually I don't reply to threads of this nature because I'm trying to have a good time both here and in game and arguing doesn't fit in my perspective of that. Enough said. I'm not trying to write a Novella here, lol.
Have a lovely day all of you.
Huh... I never caught any flak for not devoting myself to one camp or the other. Hell... I like a lot of different Sci-Fi shows and never took any flak for it. Although back when the old Filefront was still a thing, I noticed that Trek fans were A LOT more accepting of Wars mods for Trek games than Wars fans were of Trek mods for Wars games.
These days people like to substitute actual names for acronyms, for sure. Like KFC for Kentucky Fried Chicken (supposedly because some people freaked out over the word fried, but it was because the US state got greedy and wanted royalties from any company that uses their state name).
The worst acronym I've seen was Windsor Family Credit Union (WFCU). They like having their initials boldly shown and lit on their buildings. Driving home from work late at night, it reads as something rather rude to their customers.
(I'll excuse a youngling like yourself not quite getting "Friday's Child", as that was a critique of the way the Vietnam conflict was handled in the beginning, with both the US and the USSR trying to claim their hands were clean because all they were doing was giving one side weapons and advisors...)
> These days people like to substitute actual names for acronyms, for sure. Like KFC for Kentucky Fried Chicken (supposedly because some people freaked out over the word fried, but it was because the US state got greedy and wanted royalties from any company that uses their state name).
>
> The worst acronym I've seen was Windsor Family Credit Union (WFCU). They like having their initials boldly shown and lit on their buildings. Driving home from work late at night, it reads as something rather rude to their customers.
This would be an excuse if we refered to the other series the same way. No one uses the ST:TNG or ST:DS9 or ST:V or ST:E.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
So, yeah, Star Trek: Discovery should have gone the way Enterprise did before Star Trek: was tacked on to it, if it wanted to avoid the acronym ST:D.
> Actually it's used a lot for the movies, and yes, people have used the ST: for Star Trek TV shows long before Discovery plopped onscreen, to synch with the movies.
>
> So, yeah, Star Trek: Discovery should have gone the way Enterprise did before Star Trek: was tacked on to it, if it wanted to avoid the acronym ST:D.
I’ve not seen anyone use the ST even when they abbreviate the movies. TMP and WOK are what I see. For the TNG movies I mostly see people refer to them by their subtitles: Generations, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis. I’ve never seen ST:G, ST:FC, ST:I or ST:N.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Well, it would have been quite apt ;-)
This.
I have never seen anyone tack on ST to anything until Discovery, except for the odd 2009 reference. I admit I sometimes use STV (to imply roman numeral 5) or ST5 to reference Final Frontier, but that's mostly because I can't remember what the shorthand is for that off the top of my head in that moment. But I have never seen anyone refer to TOS as ST:TOS, or DS9 as ST:DS9. Its only been with Discovery that people tack on ST, and 9 times out of 10... its being used in a negative connotation because of what ELSE those three letters in THAT PARTICULAR order mean.
THIS would have been much better
and
It's been used for the movies. Star Trek: Discovery would have done better if it had went for Discovery, like Enterprise before. Adding the Star Trek: made the the acronym ST:D easy, regardless if the show was much beloved or not.
Of course, short forms is very common in Star Trek. Like TOS, DS9, VOY, ENT, and of course DIS. Discovery actively encourages people to dis them.
Then again, Disco is not looked with great light in North America, considering that's what the short lived dance craze from the late '70s and early '80s is called.
CBS Marketing should have had a chat with the producers for Star Trek: Discovery before they picked the name of the program.
I'm sorry you never saw those short forms before. Yes, when the TOS movies were in full swing, ST: was put in front of movies and the TV series. ST:TNG, for example. When DS9 came out, it was at the same time as Seaquest DSV (Steven Spielberg produced submarine series).
Since Stephen Spielberg was a huge name in Hollywood, especially back then, ST:DS9 was used to help distinguish Star Trek: DS9 from Seaquest DSV (which is short for Deep Sea Vessel). Later on, the DSV was replaced with 2032, so that opened the doors to just using DS9 for more current fans of the show.
Just because you don't know or remember ST:DS9 and the like, I will use your three letter short form to make you happy.
DIS, DIS, DIS!
There you go
They probably wanted to avoid just plain "Discovery" to differentiate it from the Discovery channel, especially in light of the fact that they were embroiled in an aggressive and very unpopular court battle with Axanar (and by extension the entire fanfilm community) at the time. It would have been a rather unfavorable irony in the minds of many potential viewers.
> I'm sorry you never saw those short forms before. Yes, when the TOS movies were in full swing, ST: was put in front of movies and the TV series. ST:TNG, for example. When DS9 came out, it was at the same time as Seaquest DSV (Steven Spielberg produced submarine series).
>
> Since Stephen Spielberg was a huge name in Hollywood, especially back then, ST:DS9 was used to help distinguish Star Trek: DS9 from Seaquest DSV (which is short for Deep Sea Vessel). Later on, the DSV was replaced with 2032, so that opened the doors to just using DS9 for more current fans of the show.
>
> Just because you don't know or remember ST:DS9 and the like, I will use your three letter short form to make you happy.
>
> DIS, DIS, DIS!
>
> There you go
I remember Seaquest very well. As a Jaws fan hearing Spielberg and Roy Scheider teaming up to go underwater was 1000% in my wheelhouse. The disappointment was major. I tried to watch it again on Peacock. Yikes.
However I don’t see how DS9 would change its abbreviation because of a show that came out 9 months after it did and was losing its time slot against Murder She Wrote and Lois and Clark. It was on the chopping block after the first season and again after the second season.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
The DSV version was trying to harden their sci-fi by concentrating on real marine biology and oceanography centered plots whenever possible (though it often was a bit off-kilter), then jumped the shark and dumped all of that in the 2032 version for a sort of underwater space-opera style action romp that occasionally touched on soft sci-fi issues and even less than that on the hard science issues the show started with.
Similarly, the various Star Trek series (not the movies) spent decades as soft sci-fi then made an abrupt about-face in 2009 and has been solidly in space opera since.
> Seaquest is an interesting case that parallels Star Trek in genre-jumping, though on a smaller scale.
>
> The DSV version was trying to harden their sci-fi by concentrating on real marine biology and oceanography centered plots whenever possible (though it often was a bit off-kilter), then jumped the shark and dumped all of that in the 2032 version for a sort of underwater space-opera style action romp that occasionally touched on soft sci-fi issues and even less than that on the hard science issues the show started with.
>
> Similarly, the various Star Trek series (not the movies) spent decades as soft sci-fi then made an abrupt about-face in 2009 and has been solidly in space opera since.
You missed a step. Seaquest tried to go full Star Trek in season 2. Scheider railed against this change:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1994-09-13-9409130211-story,amp.html
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
You are right in that I forgot that Seaquest's switch to space opera was earlier than the name change.
It did not go "full Star Trek" though since it did not turn primarily soft sci-fi, rather it went more Star Wars or Buck Rodgers or one of the other space operas. The only space opera Trek back then was most of the movies and those are far outnumbered in total hours by the various series.
- science!
- sci-fi
- build up to war
I liked how they tried to inject real science into season one, and some of the characters were likeable. Then for season 2 they ditched most of the cast and tried to revamp itself for a more sci-fi audience. Then they revamped again! Although I kinda liked how Michael Ironside played a career navy man out of his element in his short tenure as Captain Hudson. Going from commanding a warship to commanding a research vessel was a big switch for him, and his more military discipline style clashed at times with the established crew of seaQuest, who were used to Captain Bridger's more casual, science style.Also if I recall, DSV stood for Deep Submergence Vehicle.
Honestly if the show was handled a lot better, it would have rivaled Star Trek IMO.
I'm actually able to mock up a season 1 seaQuest uniform in game with the Enterprise uniform. Still wanting to tweak the pants a bit, and haven't really found something that fits the season 2/3 uniforms. Its those dang buckle bits on the shoulders that are bugging me.
> I feel that season 1 of seaQuest was solid. But some idiot behind the scenes decided the show needed a soft reboot every season, and we only got 2.5 seasons out of it. The 2032 season never even finished. Here's how I see seaQuest seasons.* science!
> * sci-fi
> * build up to war
>
> I liked how they tried to inject real science into season one, and some of the characters were likeable. Then for season 2 they ditched most of the cast and tried to revamp itself for a more sci-fi audience. Then they revamped again! Although I kinda liked how Michael Ironside played a career navy man out of his element in his short tenure as Captain Hudson. Going from commanding a warship to commanding a research vessel was a big switch for him, and his more military discipline style clashed at times with the established crew of seaQuest, who were used to Captain Bridger's more casual, science style.
>
> Also if I recall, DSV stood for Deep Submergence Vehicle.
>
> Honestly if the show was handled a lot better, it would have rivaled Star Trek IMO.
> I'm actually able to mock up a season 1 seaQuest uniform in game with the Enterprise uniform. Still wanting to tweak the pants a bit, and haven't really found something that fits the season 2/3 uniforms. Its those dang buckle bits on the shoulders that are bugging me.
They felt the need to change it up after every season because the ratings were poor. When your big sci-fi show with Steven Spielberg’s name attached is losing to Murder She Wrote you got to try some new things.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Jumping the shark every season is something SeaQuest has in common with DSC. In SeaQuest's case it was the ratings issue (though that was more about bad schedule placement than the show itself) and with DSC it is more about damage control and trying to get more of the core fans back after Moonves's stick-in-the-eye to them.
Maybe DSC will stop the jumping in fourth season unless there is a strong element of disjointed sequelitis to it as well. A lot of cable shows suffered from that at first when arcs became the next big thing because they treated each season as a separate story instead of threads in a series-long arc. Some of them did that so badly that they felt more like an anthology that just happened to have the same characters rather than a single evolving story (unfortunately DSC is very very close to that level so far, hopefully it gets itself sorted before the end of the series).
> Jumping the shark every season is something SeaQuest has in common with DSC. In SeaQuest's case it was the ratings issue (though that was more about bad schedule placement than the show itself) and with DSC it is more about damage control and trying to get more of the core fans back after Moonves's stick-in-the-eye to them.
>
> Maybe DSC will stop the jumping in fourth season unless there is a strong element of disjointed sequelitis to it as well. A lot of cable shows suffered from that at first when arcs became the next big thing because they treated each season as a separate story instead of threads in a series-long arc. Some of them did that so badly that they felt more like an anthology that just happened to have the same characters rather than a single evolving story (unfortunately DSC is very very close to that level so far, hopefully it gets itself sorted before the end of the series).
What was the jumping the shark moment for Discovery season 2?
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
At the end of season one they decided to quickly cancel the Klingon war with a near deus ex machina easy-button ending, then when they started up next season they did so with a large abrupt shift in story, highly significant changes in supporting cast (mainly Pike nearly stealing the show, and the heavy emphasis on Spock), and overall feel and style.
Some argue that it was not a full classic shark jump because Burnham remained the main character despite all the changes around her, and there is definitely some merit to that view, but technically a shark jump in the sloppy way it is used nowadays does not necessarily require a change of main character, it can be a significant and unforeshadowed sudden shift in their circumstances coupled with other changes as long as there is a major shift in the way the story feels from one side of the jump to the other.
Then at the second-to-third season join there is the even bigger sharkjump to the future.
And yes, it is a sort of gray area between classic shark jump and anthology so it could be argued either way.
> At the end of season one they decided to quickly cancel the Klingon war with a near deus ex machina easy-button ending, then when they started up next season they did so with a large abrupt shift in story, highly significant changes in supporting cast (mainly Pike nearly stealing the show, and the heavy emphasis on Spock), and overall feel and style.
>
> Some argue that it was not a full classic shark jump because Burnham remained the main character despite all the changes around her, and there is definitely some merit to that view, but technically a shark jump in the sloppy way it is used nowadays does not necessarily require a change of main character, it can be a significant and unforeshadowed sudden shift in their circumstances coupled with other changes as long as there is a major shift in the way the story feels from one side of the jump to the other.
>
> Then at the second-to-third season join there is the even bigger sharkjump to the future.
>
> And yes, it is a sort of gray area between classic shark jump and anthology so it could be argued either way.
So “jumping the shark” is when a show’s rating lag and they decide to do some sort of event to drum up ratings. It gets its name from an episode of Happy Days where The Fonze jumps over a shark. It’s not about a main character change. Lots of things lead to a main character change. For Seaquest it was because Scheider didn’t want to do the type of show the producers and network wanted so he left. It’s also not adding characters and changing things. By your definition when Riker grew a beard was TNG jumping the shark, which it’s not.
Discovery’s season one ending wasn’t a “shark jump” or even a “Deus Ex Machina”. Deus Ex machina is when something comes out of left field and solves the problem. Burnham’s decision to not blow up the Klingon Homeworld is a mirror to her decision to fire on the Klingons first in the pilot episode. Had Q showed up and snapped his fingers and everything was solved that would be Deus Ex Machina.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.