Star Trek: Discovery (2017)

I grew up watching TNG and the later shows. Lifetime Trek fan. I will not be paying CBS to watch this or buy any of the merchandise.

The classic Trek merch (and I lump the TNG era in with that, too, these days) is still selling steadily. NuTrek stuff I don't see much of. The people who are fans of that are not generally the type to get Trek-themed hoodies or T-shirts, or have the mentality/patience to build models or collect action figures or read tie-in novels. Flash-bang-done. On to the next interchangeable thing. Which is a shame. I wouldn't mind a bunch of 1:1400 or 1:2500 scale models representing that universe, from Enterprise's NX-01 on up through the Vengeance. Decent setting, let down by shallow storytelling -- and the last thing Trek should be is shallow. Even the most swashbuckling TOS episodes had reasons for the swashes to be buckled. They weren't just action because action.

It's the same thing I have to point out to people who think Guardians of the Galaxy is too jokey/lighthearted -- those movies are dealing with some seriously potentially dark stuff. Consuming vengeance, the deaths of millions or billions, genocide and filicide on horrifying scales... Those can be seriously grimdark. Not bad for a drama, but not very engaging for a mass audience. So the movies keep it from being too depressing by having those characters, those moments, incongruously light music over slaughter. Same with Trek. The fantastical setting and light-hearted adventure were used to make pointed commentary on psychological or sociological think-points. Plus occasional "just play" episodes to cleanse the palate. But you can't have a whole series of substance-less palate-cleanser episodes.

Obviously, I haven't seen any episodes of Discovery yet, but my feeling is that no matter how good the script(s) might be, the execution will drag the story down, bury it in bad production decisions. I feel CBS are really blundering by not trying to make something for Trek's core demographic. I don't mean hardcore Trekkies, I mean people who actually think. Despite the popularity of reality TV and fluffly no-brain summer blockbusters, there are still a largish chunk of people in the world who like to use their brains and, if presented with goood, solid Trek, would pay to receive it. And buy tie-in merchandise. And raise their kids to be fans, too, most likely, if the past is any indication. Dismissing first-generation fans is stupid, because those usually result in second- and third-generation fans. I know people who are grandchildren of people who watched TOS in college who have watched and liked Trek all their lives. Opinions are all over the place as far as best or worst series/movie, but the point is more that their being exposed to it in the first place was a result of their parents, and so on back. Yes, latter-Millennials have a lot of disposable income, but if you look at the Venn circle of how many demographics older Trek encompasses, it's stupid to ignore all of those demographic groups in favor of just the one.

--Jonah

My wife and I watched this abomination of a trailer. She brought up that this show; if actually set in prime era just did a big reset. She reminded me of an episode where a woman was passed up for promotion to be the first female captain in Star Fleet history... so is this a case of ignore cannon, re-write the timeline or progressive meddling to insure all the boxes are checked? I'll give McFarlane's show a try; at least I don't need to subscribe to some streaming service..

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

gobler said:

My wife and I watched this abomination of a trailer. She brought up that this show; if actually set in prime era just did a big reset. She reminded me of an episode where a woman was passed up for promotion to be the first female captain in Star Fleet history... so is this a case of ignore cannon, re-write the timeline or progressive meddling to insure all the boxes are checked? I'll give McFarlane's show a try; at least I don't need to subscribe to some streaming service..

Click to expand...

Janice Lester's line in "Turnabout Intruder" was "Your world of Starship Captains doesn't admit women". There are many layers, here... That was the last episode of the third season, by which time Gene had all but abandoned Trek to focus on other things. He knew the show was dead. It pretty much finished out its run on the momentum of the rest of the production office. Given he had Majel as the First Officer in the version of Trek he first tried to sell, I can see him objecting to that line if he'd been more involved.

In-universe, only a few years later, Kirk's superior at Starfleet Headquarters was a woman (per Gene). About a decade (and change) later, we see the female Captain of the Saratoga. Thanks to "The Menagerie", Pike having a female First Officer in the 2250s is the other bookend. So a lot of us fans treat it as either 1) She's making a specific comment about Kirk's world as a Starship Captain not having room for her -- i.e., married to his job/ship... Or 2) She was denied advancement for latent mental instability and -- as many people do -- looked for something outside of herself to put the blame on. "It's because I'm a woman, isn't it?" "No, it's because you're nuts." "Sexism!"

I find that latter interpretation more likely. The bulk of Trek lore shows no problem with women in that era in command positions.

--Jonah

Edit. You were correct. The
Janice Lester episode had dialogue regarding Male captains. Also, I was also thinking about Trek Continues, which did in fact focused on this subject. I know Continues is fan fic but they did it so damn well I got a bit confused... [emoji5] Just goes to show how good they were.
Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

I just did a brief refresher scan of all of TOS and the only other instances of someone being passed over for command were Merrick in "Bread and Circuses" and Ben Finney in "Court Martial". The latter also blamed Kirk, and his daughter (named after Kirk back when her dad and Jim were still friends) hated him for apparently causing her father's death. That episode also featured Lieutenant Areel Shaw of Starfleet's JAG, who had once been romantically involved with Kirk, and the two remained friends after. Y'all might be jumbling the people in that latter episode up a bit, but that'd be the only other one I can think of. There was no explicit or implicit dialogue in TOS as to "the first female Captain", potential or actual.

--Jonah

Technically if you guys are talking about "Starfleet history" not just TOS, then Enterprise had a female captain on the NX-02 Columbia in 2154. They deleted that part of TOS first, so you can't blame Discovery for that one. It's 60's thinking so I doubt you'll ever see it in any series other than TOS.


Captain Erika Hernandez

Other non nerd forums I'm on mirrors the not looking good reaction here.

I thought Janice Lester was a scientist, archeologist. I never understood how she felt she was excluded from Starfleet command. My recollection of the few times I've bit down on leather medkit case and suffered through it, she's a nut. Whacko. I prsumed that Kirk forgot the cardinal rule of manhood, never stick your stuff into crazy, you won't fix/heal anything and you'll compound problems. The whole episode seems like contrived, bottom of the pickle jar crap.

TOS was also a product of its time. The idea of women superior officers wasn't commonplace, so they couldn't parade it too boldly. Fast forward to the 70s, 80s, when the American military was promoting it big time, and Trek (TNG, et al) could simply mirror what was already happening in contemporary culture.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

that is one aspect of TOS that is best long forgotten.

although as i recall, majel was supposed to be captain at one point, no ?

- - - Updated - - -

CessnaDriver said:

Other non nerd forums I'm on mirrors the not looking good reaction here.

Click to expand...

At least people are allowed to criticize this show. I'm glad to see folks not afraid to step forward .

Other movies/series, not so much. it's seen as trolling to have opinions ;o) these days i'm not afraid to go back after such claims, so be prepared for some friendly chatter to disprove such nonsense if one dares to make such a statement .

Number One was always female, Robert April was the captain as of the March 11, 1964 pitch document:




I just watched the trailer, and looked at screen-cap breakdowns on Trek Core. I'm underwhelmed. More Vulcan snobbery/racism, more "new design uniforms," New Coke Trek style window/view-screen, new version of Klingons (huh, really? they evolve like craaa-zeeee). YAWN.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My main gripe is it looks and feels nothing like prime tos. I hated JJ trek and this looks awfully like that.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

KojiroVance said:

Number One was always female, Robert April was the captain as of the March 11, 1964 pitch document:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170521/922da117c628ce000415221221ba07be.jpg


I just watched the trailer, and looked at screen-cap breakdowns on Trek Core. I'm underwhelmed. More Vulcan snobbery/racism, more "new design uniforms," New Coke Trek style window/view-screen, new version of Klingons (huh, really? they evolve like craaa-zeeee). YAWN.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Huh, I swear I remember roddenberry saying something in an interview somewhere that majel was meant to be captain in one of the pitches, but it would never have been accepted.

Part of The problem with JJ trek is that there is no style to it, no design, no flare. it's all generic sci fi stuff, most made generic thanks to trek and wars oddly enough .
TNG had a very distinctive look. So did Enterprise and Especially DS9. Voyager was more or less a TNG clone.

There is nothing that really sets JJ Trek apart from anything else out there. it could just as easily be galaxy quest.

KrangPrime said:

Huh, I swear I remember roddenberry saying something in an interview somewhere that majel was meant to be captain in one of the pitches, but it would never have been accepted.

Part of The problem with JJ trek is that there is no style to it, no design, no flare. it's all generic sci fi stuff, most made generic thanks to trek and wars oddly enough .
TNG had a very distinctive look. So did Enterprise and Especially DS9. Voyager was more or less a TNG clone.

There is nothing that really sets JJ Trek apart from anything else out there. it could just as easily be galaxy quest.

Click to expand...

JJ Trek had a lot of flare.


Lens flare....:lol

Nakanokalronin said:

Technically if you guys are talking about "Starfleet history" not just TOS, then Enterprise had a female captain on the NX-02 Columbia in 2154.

Click to expand...

True, but I discount that data point because it's from Enterprise.

I shall keep proselytizing so long as I have breath (or fingers, I suppose) that Enterprise -- despite the official stance from Paramount -- does not work as part of the Prime timeline. From technology to timeline to innumerable fiddly details, it gets more wrong vis a vis everything that came before than what it gets right. On the flip side, it perfectly fits as a prologue to JJ-Trek -- up to and including the model of this show's NX class on Admiral Marcus' credenza in Into Darkness. I am always happy to re-list all the things Enterprise got wrong, should anyone be foolish enough to ask/challenge. *chuckle* I lay Our Heroes' meddling in First Contact as the fission point.

--Jonah

Inquisitor Peregrinus said:

True, but I discount that data point because it's from Enterprise.

I shall keep proselytizing so long as I have breath (or fingers, I suppose) that Enterprise -- despite the official stance from Paramount -- does not work as part of the Prime timeline. From technology to timeline to innumerable fiddly details, it gets more wrong vis a vis everything that came before than what it gets right. On the flip side, it perfectly fits as a prologue to JJ-Trek -- up to and including the model of this show's NX class on Admiral Marcus' credenza in Into Darkness. I am always happy to re-list all the things Enterprise got wrong, should anyone be foolish enough to ask/challenge. *chuckle* I lay Our Heroes' meddling in First Contact as the fission point.

--Jonah

Click to expand...

I used to think it wasn't right and then I watched it again and thought differently. The technology makes sense since a lot of what they had didn't have the amount of features as later tech. One example is that their communicators were small, but all they had was a simple communication feature. I know some races showed up when they weren't supposed to, I'll give you that. In any case,no matter what someone thinks, it doesn't coincide with the JJ universe at all. I know it gets a couple things wrong, but it definitely has the first female captain in 2154 and lots of other prime time line cannon as well. :thumbsup



One thing I really like is they had pockets!

The technology in Enterprise is about a hundred years too early. Phasers and photon torpedoes and transporters decades before prior shows established them being introduced or mounted aboard ships. A top speed that is proportionately too high for the period per all the prior Trek canon. First contact with the Klingons about 70 years early. Plus, if the only other suffixed-registry ship tradition -- NCC-1701 -- is any indication of the carried forward naming that goes with it, NX-01 should have been the Dauntless, per Voyager. And the ship itself has about the same volume as Prime NCC-1701's saucer. With the post-series reit giving it a secondary hull, it's even closer to being an "early Constitution class" than a ship launched nearly a century earlier.

It makes no sense to me that technology utterly stagnated for a century before resuming steady progress again from TOS on through TNG, DS9, and VOY. *shrug*

--Jonah

Inquisitor Peregrinus said:

The technology in Enterprise is about a hundred years too early. Phasers and photon torpedoes and transporters decades before prior shows established them being introduced or mounted aboard ships. A top speed that is proportionately too high for the period per all the prior Trek canon. First contact with the Klingons about 70 years early. Plus, if the only other suffixed-registry ship tradition -- NCC-1701 -- is any indication of the carried forward naming that goes with it, NX-01 should have been the Dauntless, per Voyager. And the ship itself has about the same volume as Prime NCC-1701's saucer. With the post-series reit giving it a secondary hull, it's even closer to being an "early Constitution class" than a ship launched nearly a century earlier.

It makes no sense to me that technology utterly stagnated for a century before resuming steady progress again from TOS on through TNG, DS9, and VOY. *shrug*

--Jonah

Click to expand...

The saucers may have looked similar, but the NX-01 was cramped inside. All of the technology might have looked more advanced, but was indeed less sophisticated than TOS. You have to understand that TOS is a product of it's time. They're not going to make any of these shows look like the bridge is made from boxes and flashing lights. Yes they did it on Enterprise during the mirror universe episode and although it was neat, it still looked dated.

As for the phasers, they were phase cannons which are different. Look them up in Memory Alpha online. There's a lot of variance on phasers, pulse cannons and pulse phase cannons even through TOS and it's movies let alone the other series. There's also a difference between the NX-01 photonic torpedo and a photon torpedo which again can be looked up on Memory Alpha online.

Human made transporters were invented in 2121 and the first operable transporter was developed before 2139. Since the NX-01 was launched in 2152 I don't see why it wouldn't have a transporter. They even said it was cleared for bio transport and none of the crew had ever done it prior to being on the NX-01. Again all of this is in Memory Alpha online.

The Shenzhou in the Discovery trailer looks like an advanced NX ship and could be older than we think. I'm hoping it is and that the Discovery and it's technology will mimic, but not replicate the TOS era. Enterprise is very much indeed cannon and even though there might be a couple hiccups, it's in the prime timeline.

McFarlane gets Discovery toy line: http://trekmovie.com/2017/05/21/mcfarlane-toys-inks-deal-for-star-trek-including-discovery

Media vs Fan Reaction:

http://trekmovie.com/2017/05/18/the-media-embraces-star-trek-discovery-trailer-while-fans-debate-the-details/

Some of you with your canon stipulations and knowledge of when a particular technology went into use ... crack me up. I was a hardcore Trekkie back in the 70s, but at a certain point I accept that these are dramatic, fictional presentations. Production design, costuming, ship design, they all can be somewhat original to a new work, though reflecting the past iterations. Do we really think that phasers changed so quickly from the events of STTMP, ST II TWOK, ST II TSFS, and ST V TFF? or ... are they all just Phaser IIs in use? I guess a classic example would be the uniform change from ST I to ST II ... Is it that Starfleet changed out everyone's uniform stores, or ... the new work is a new vantage point on a vague, cloudy fictional realm?



My concern is that when someone like the New Coke Trek gang take all the tropes and names and phrases, put them in a blender, and tell a tale that is unlike the usual fictional realm but with those items, it's no longer "Star Trek." YEah, ST (2009) had uniforms that looked a lot like the TOS costumes, the communicators and phasers had a resemblance, the NCC-1701 looked a lot like Jeffries' design (with some goofy changes), but it didn't seem like any ST story unless you consider the "action movie" detour of ST: First Contact.

I suppose I speak for a lot of us that this new show may talk the talk of Trek, look like it, feature ship design that traces back to Matt Jeffries' Enterprise, but in terms of the story is indistinguishable from Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars, Lost in Space,[1] The Expanse, Babylon 5, etc.

As much as I didn't like some of the details of ST: E, I found the series concept and thrust were 100% Trek. So what if production design and stuff were inconsistent with other series. It was a new expression of the idea, and so some artistic license was allowed.

[1] My complaint about Voyager before it aired some of it was that it was going to be Lost in Space with Star Trek candy coating on it. For the most part, I was correct IMHO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk