SmilingOtter
Master Member
That's a new one on me - I didn't realize the Medusans were ever seen or mentioned on screen after their TOS episode.
To some degree, yes, whenever they recast The Doctor. The only difference is that Doctor Who doesn't change everything about the show that's familiar to the fans when that happens.Do Doctor Who fans go through this??? LOL
That's a new one on me - I didn't realize the Medusans were ever seen or mentioned on screen after their TOS episode.
To some degree, yes, whenever they recast The Doctor. The only difference is that Doctor Who doesn't change everything about the show that's familiar to the fans when that happens.
Of course, with the announcement of Jodie Whittaker being cast as the new Doctor, the first time in the show's history that The Doctor will be female, there could possibly be more hand-wringing than usual when the new season airs. We'll see.
Is it being a whiny fan boy to be upset at the focus on darkness/war? When Trek (right there in the title) is about a journey of driving curiosity to the stars?
Don't you get enough of that in ten million other franchises?
Sure have some fights now and then, I enjoy it, but it should only serve as obstacles to the driving mission of exploration, to boldy go, seek out new life, etc. That IS the mission statement of Star Trek.
I just don't get it. I will never get it. This is perversion of Trek.
While I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, you did a great job saying it. (Actually, you were pretty spot on).I won't answer for JD, but here's my take.
I find being a whiny fanboy more about ranting about continuity and things like that. However, I do think your bit gets there, too. Star Trek has always had its share of conflict - but, STD starts doing just what you want it to: journeying through the stars and being curious about what's out there. In this case, it appears to be leading to a conflict (I haven't seen episode 2, yet).
This is a shorter series, previous Star Trek series' averaged 25+ episodes per season and ran for multiple seasons - and while I didn't watch all of the latter series, I do recall some of them getting pretty dark. I'm definitely not well versed on DS9, but it's very premise was that it was "landlocked" - Sisko & the gang were not out "trekking" around the galaxy... and then there was the Dominion War.
Based on the first episode, I'm finding Star Trek Discovery to be a very fair representation of modern Star Trek. The focus is a bit more narrow, but I suspect that's due to this being a shorter series. However, I think they did an amazing job with some of the supporting cast, who just seemed to fit in without a pandering introduction.
While I don't necessarily agree with everything you said, you did a great job saying it. (Actually, you were pretty spot on).
Continuity changes. A throwaway line in season 1, episode 14 might not match up to something 50 years later. Tech changes, our visions of the future changes. Some things we need to be able to accept and move on from. I get there are some parts that are easier to overcome than others...Continuity is important in a franchise that spans decades. And yes, it is all leading to the Klingon War. It's the only thing they can do since they locked the series up in that slice of the Trek timeline.
JJ Trek is Trek now. Ya know, that has its good points and bad points. The biggest thing is that JJ Trek has been movie Trek - and movie Trek has always differed from TV Trek.Modern Trek is JJ Trek. And you're right this is a great representation of JJ Trek. The problem is trying to pass it off as traditional Trek.
Continuity changes. A throwaway line in season 1, episode 14 might not match up to something 50 years later. Tech changes, our visions of the future changes. Some things we need to be able to accept and move on from. I get there are some parts that are easier to overcome than others...
JJ Trek is Trek now. Ya know, that has its good points and bad points. The biggest thing is that JJ Trek has been movie Trek - and movie Trek has always differed from TV Trek.
STD, based on the one episode I've seen, feels like Star Trek to me. It's a better Star Trek than I've gotten from a lot of Star Trek that I've seen over the years. ...and that's not because it's "darker" or set in a "war," but because the vibe is there for me. I feel like Star Trek Discovery is giving us something bigger and better than I've seen from Trek in a long time... maybe since TWOK, I feel the danger of space again, it feels like the final frontier again.
I'm gonna hold off until I see episode 2 before I post any sort of full review. But, I'm hopeful - unfortunately, I saw a few spoilers, but I think I knew what was coming anyhow. I like it so far, even though I have real strong dislike for Michael Burnham.
You know what I miss? Weekly adventures.
I'm tired of serialized arcs.
Sybok. Carol Marcus. Warp drive. United Earth Space Probe Agency. First contact with the Klingons. The first Enterprise was the NCC-1701 (now it's the NX).Spock has a sudden sister, not mentioned in some 50 years of Trek. That's a bit beyond just a throwaway line. And that's just a single character.
"Traditional Trek." :rolleyes 1969 called - it was 48 years too late.Except they're passing it off as traditional Trek. That's where a lot of the problems reside. Trying to shoe-horn their JJ Trek show into traditional Trek in order to try and get traditional Trek fans to watch it.
The Orville isn't Trek. I don't have to deal with schoolboy humor in Star Trek, I don't have deal with inane banter that serves no real purpose (it sure ain't character development). If I want Kardashian references or talk about weapons-grade weed, I guess there's The Orville. But, I've also had the advantage of watching three episodes of The Orville and I realize what it's supposed to be - a parody - a parody that's not afraid to push the limit and because of that, it looks like we get the occasional episode with strong tale to be told... if you're okay with Elvis jokes and Dora the Explorer bits.It looks like Trek, it even quacks a little bit like Trek. But it's just stock-standard modern sci-fi. Dark sets, 'realism', slick cinematography. The Orville is more Trek than STD. This show holds no surprises, we know all the major strokes concerning this time period. How can such a known quantity feel like a new frontier?
I'll see it if it manages to get released onto Netflix.
I would have loved to see what Firefly would have done with more seasons.I love the way"Firefly" did it - episodic adventures, but with overarching character arcs.
You know what I miss? Weekly adventures.
I'm tired of serialized arcs.
Check out an episode called "In the Pale Moonlight",
Sybok. Carol Marcus. Warp drive. United Earth Space Probe Agency. First contact with the Klingons. The first Enterprise was the NCC-1701 (now it's the NX).
Let's also note that Spock not talking about his family is an established trait. ...and let's add that Alex Kurtzman said that they were aware that a "sister" was never mentioned as part of Spock's family and "you'll see where it's going, but we are staying consistent with canon" at SDCC.
"Traditional Trek." :rolleyes 1969 called - it was 48 years too late.
The Orville isn't Trek. I don't have to deal with schoolboy humor in Star Trek, I don't have deal with inane banter that serves no real purpose (it sure ain't character development). If I want Kardashian references or talk about weapons-grade weed, I guess there's The Orville. But, I've also had the advantage of watching three episodes of The Orville and I realize what it's supposed to be - a parody - a parody that's not afraid to push the limit and because of that, it looks like we get the occasional episode with strong tale to be told... if you're okay with Elvis jokes and Dora the Explorer bits.
So far in STD, I see something on par with what we've already seen in Star Trek. It feels equal parts television and movie series and nothing stock about it. Yeah, I was worried that we were getting something stock, too; but, so far it's been far from it.
This from a guy who hasn't watched the series. :rolleyesNothing in STD is on par with Star Trek. It is on par with JJ-Trek and that is a pond far away from what Roddenberry intended.
They other thing I notice about old trek (and buck Rogers and bsg) is that the episodes we're 44-46 minutes long. Those added couple of minutes really allowed a lot more story.Same here. I'm not completely against an ongoing season-long arc, so long as that's not all they do, but I really prefer something that is done-in-one. Give me a monster-of-the-week. Give me something I can just sit down and enjoy without having to sit through an entire season. There is very little rewatchability in a lot of shows because they require a huge time investment. I've got an hour. Entertain me.
This from a guy who hasn't watched the series. :rolleyes