Discovery and Star Trek

[Mallus]

But any time you want to refer to human history there is a very large chunk that is just not going to ring true anymore.

The SS Botany Bay was launched into space 21 years ago!

On a semi-related note: I absolutely loved the Wyclef Jean song in "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad".

 

[Jester David]

I've been avoiding ENWorld for a while now (long story super short, I was harassed & attacked on Twitter by the project manager of Paizo and their followers, which has pretty much killed my enthusiasm for gaming in specific and life in general). But I've been missing reading about Discovery and other people's thoughts on geek culture.
After seeing the excitement here for the Mudd episode, I was excited for that episode to win me over and convert me to Team: Discover.
It did the opposite.

Now, it should be noted that I didn't finish the episode.
The online app I was using to watch at the gym froze after 20 minutes - 10 of those minutes being un-skippable ads - and I had to rewatch another 10 minutes of ads before I could resume the show, but only had 5 minutes of workout left before I had to head to work. So, tomorrow at the gym I face a similar situation of 10 minutes of ads to watch the final 10 minutes of a show, followed by another set of ads before the next episode.
Easier just to go back to Netflix...

The last bit I saw was Saru ordering the engineer to torture a living and potentially sentient creature to death in order to save one Federation captain. And ordering the ship's doctor to vivisect the creature in order to do so. Meanwhile, Captain Lorca - after confessing that he killed his entire crew in order to spare them from even a minute of torture at the hands of the Klingons - ing leaves Mudd behind to suffer that same fate. The fate Lorca literally considers worse than death.
Jebus, if an army colonel left a civilian contractor to be tortured by ISIS for the crime of being unwilling to take a beating, they'd be court martialed in a second.

I don't care what Morrus says about this show being "before the Starfleet we know". Those actions are freakin unforgivable right here and now, let alone 9 years and 6 months before The Original Series starts.
This is a show about horrible people doing horrible things!

I continue to have two problems with the show:

Problem One: The Roddenberry Rule
There was quite a few interviews given on Discovery in EW magazine. One talked with the writers and the Roddenberry Rule that was discussed in the earlier thread, about how - in the future - people would get along and have settled their interpersonal differences. The writers talked about how they no longer had to follow that rule.
Which is fine on paper, since the Roddenberry Rule is stifling and a little conflict is necessary. But literally almost every single interaction the show is now a conflict. Everyone is continually fighting and snipping at each other and being mean or manipulative. The entire show is designed around making the characters fight.
From one extreme to the other.
It's one thing to not follow the Roddenberry Rule, but it's another to do the exact freakin' opposite. To literally do the exact thing that the creator of the franchise wanted the show to do.
It's like doing an adaptation of Asimov but having a robot uprising. Or an adaptation of Orwell and having the State be the good guys.

Problem Two: Canon
Should a Star Trek show slavishly follow canon and continuity? No. There's some wiggle room and things should change with the times. But neither should it jettison the majority of canon. It's not an either-or situation. It's not a binary "all or nothing" in terms of continuity.
You wouldn't expect a WW2 drama to just ignore history. And you'd expect writers of WW2 film and TV shows to do a modicum of research to avoid flagrant anachronisms. And you wouldn't do things like radically redesign German troops or change the look of British uniforms.
Why should Star Trek be treated any differently?
There's more to making a show a Star Trek show than just titling it "Star Trek" and having Deltas. Respect what came before and build off that. Tell Star Trek stories in the world of Star Trek, not just unrelated stories that just use a few familiar names.

I like Battlestar Galactica. That was a cool show. It was dark and gritty with a unique visual look and great cast with a solid serialized story. It's one of my favourite TV shows.
But it would have been terrible - I would have hated it - had it been renamed Star Trek: Galactica. Even if they had made the backstory work (decades after the Federation fell, 13 human colonies survive), the tone of the show would have been wrong.
Just being a good show does not necessarily make something a good Star Trek show.
But even in BSG, when Admiral Adama ended up making a poor choice and things got intense, after one or two episodes things would right themselves. It wasn't a full season of just hoping people just magically stopped being colossal unlikable dicks and grow a ing conscience.


You can see the DNA of Trek in Discovery. The stuff Bryan Fuller likely had planned before he was asked to leave the show.
Questioning what happens when the science of Starfleet is used for war and not exploration. Questioning the morality of torturing a living thing to win a war. Examining the relationship between the Federations and the other species whose borders they press against with the UFoP's constant expansion.
But all that stuff is muted and not the focus. The scientists at war aspect is just mentioned in the off line. No one gives a rats ass about torturing the Tardigrade for weeks until it looks like it's dying.

I can imagine these ideas working well with a better run show, even if the actual story beats didn't change.
Where the captain actually pauses to debate their choice and actively encourages seeking an alternative, only to be forced to use the creature anyway because they ran out of time. Or the captain, while in a POW camp, has to choose between one prisoner or another and regretfully leaves someone behind.


Plus... what was up with the black badges? I mean, that was a huge thing and it was just dropped... Given the number of writers and producers working on the show, I do wonder if that was a dead plotline no one bothered to remove...

 

[MarkB]

The last bit I saw was Saru ordering the engineer to torture a living and potentially sentient creature to death in order to save one Federation captain.

No. Not one captain. They were deep in enemy territory, and the spore drive was the only way out. Saru was trying to save the entire crew.

And ordering the ship's doctor to vivisect the creature in order to do so. Meanwhile, Captain Lorca - after confessing that he killed his entire crew in order to spare them from even a minute of torture at the hands of the Klingons - ing leaves Mudd behind to suffer that same fate. The fate Lorca literally considers worse than death.
Jebus, if an army colonel left a civilian contractor to be tortured by ISIS for the crime of being unwilling to take a beating, they'd be court martialed in a second.

And what about leaving a collaborator behind? Someone who was deliberately working with the Klingons to help them extract information from the other prisoners, meanwhile keeping himself out of harm's way? Does that sound like someone you want to bring with you on an escape attempt?

And it's a shame you didn't see the end of the episode. Because it means you missed Saru acknowledging his shortcomings in command, and ordering Michael to do everything in her power to save the Tardigrade; missed her succeeding, by setting it free and allowing it to continue its journey; missed Saru finally confronting Michael and admitting that what he felt towards her was not fear, but envy, for her being Captain Georgiou's protegee instead of him; missed Michael reconciling with him by giving him the telescope that Captain Georgiou had bequeathed to her.

And you'll also be missing the growing camaraderie that's been happening between the characters over the past couple of episodes, as these people who started out constantly at odds begin to forge better relationships with each other. Friendships that are actually earned, not just assumed.

 

[Hussar]

Something that always bothers me about the "canon" argument is that it's so transparently self-serving.

If the argument was we should respect canon and avoid changes, that would be fine. But, it's not. It's always, "I don't like this change, thus we should respect canon and avoid changes". No one ever argues, "I like this change, but, since changing canon is bad, we shouldn't do this."

If respecting canon was important, then every change to Klingons would be objectionable. But they're not. It's only changes that the observer happens to not like that are bad. It's an attempt to legitimize a personal preference by changing it into an objective standard. But, when that standard is only applied when the observer happens not to like the changes, then, well, it's pretty obvious what's going on.

Galactica was mentioned. Now, that was a reboot, so, changes are to be expected. But, they gender swapped Starbuck for no in world reason. But, since everyone (by and large) likes the Katie Sackoff (sp) in the role, the change is accepted and canon can go jump in the lake. Why? Because of personal preference.

 

[Ryujin]

Changes are bad, when they're bad. In this case the changes to the Klingons not only break canon apparently for no good reason, they also are subjectively bad because they get in the way of the actors being able to speak, move, and emote. It's also rather glaring that when the rest of the production shows where the money was spent, the Klingons just look like a bunch of guys in rubber masks.

 

[CapnZapp]

Something that always bothers me about the "canon" argument is that it's so transparently self-serving.

If the argument was we should respect canon and avoid changes, that would be fine. But, it's not. It's always, "I don't like this change, thus we should respect canon and avoid changes". No one ever argues, "I like this change, but, since changing canon is bad, we shouldn't do this."

If respecting canon was important, then every change to Klingons would be objectionable. But they're not. It's only changes that the observer happens to not like that are bad. It's an attempt to legitimize a personal preference by changing it into an objective standard. But, when that standard is only applied when the observer happens not to like the changes, then, well, it's pretty obvious what's going on.

Galactica was mentioned. Now, that was a reboot, so, changes are to be expected. But, they gender swapped Starbuck for no in world reason. But, since everyone (by and large) likes the Katie Sackoff (sp) in the role, the change is accepted and canon can go jump in the lake. Why? Because of personal preference.

Know what? You're right. Just referring to "canon" is a poor justification for arguing something.

That doesn't make the Discovery writers' sloppy decision-making look any better though.

Nobody has responded to the quotes I made: that the show secretly wants to be part of the movie universe (and that's no secret; the look and feel, lighting, personal focus and pacing is much more like the movies than earlier shows), and/or that they secretly want to eat the cake (discover new worlds and techs) and have it too (the prequel with Klingons and the Spock family).

It's all well and good to discuss individual highlights of the show, but that doesn't help when the overarching framework makes your head hurt.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Ryujin]

Know what? You're right. Just referring to "canon" is a poor justification for arguing something.

That doesn't make the Discovery writers' sloppy decision-making look any better though.

Nobody has responded to the quotes I made: that the show secretly wants to be part of the movie universe (and that's no secret; the look and feel, lighting, personal focus and pacing is much more like the movies than earlier shows), and/or that they secretly want to eat the cake (discover new worlds and techs) and have it too (the prequel with Klingons and the Spock family).

It's all well and good to discuss individual highlights of the show, but that doesn't help when the overarching framework makes your head hurt.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I think part of the issue is that those who point at the "canon police" seem to think that we want everything to be rigidly locked into everything that has come before. As someone else noted every series has deviated from canon in some way or another. The difference is that they didn't eviscerate it; leave it in shreds on the floor. When you do that you're no longer making a Star Trek series; you're making generic SciFi.

If you want to be all "modern" and "edgy" there are other ways that you could do it, within the Star Trek framework. An actual Section 31 storyline. Independent mercenaries. Base a show on one of the other races like Romulans, Klingons, or the Orions.

 

[ART!]

""Lethe" (episode 6) left me not caring much, except about Lorca - I want to see where that goes. I don't care much what happens to Burnham, although I LOVE that the lead is a WOC. I know for a lot of people, ep6 was the one that sold them on the show or turned it around for them. Me, I'm not so sure about this show anymore. I will keep watching, though, for a while at least.

 

[Hussar]

The difference is that they didn't eviscerate it; leave it in shreds on the floor. When you do that you're no longer making a Star Trek series; you're making generic SciFi.

But, again, that's just your personal preferences. I mean, the change from TOS Klingons to TNG ones (or movie ones if you want to get pedantic about it) "evicerated" canon just as much as the new Klingons do. The only difference is, you liked that change and don't like this one.

Nobody has responded to the quotes I made: that the show secretly wants to be part of the movie universe (and that's no secret; the look and feel, lighting, personal focus and pacing is much more like the movies than earlier shows), and/or that they secretly want to eat the cake (discover new worlds and techs) and have it too (the prequel with Klingons and the Spock family).

Umm, this was answered. But, my answer again is, this is a feature, not a bug. Forcing the show to obey 50 years of canon just to satisfy you makes the show boring and unwatchable to me. I have zero interest in yet another show rehashing the past. So, lean on the stuff that Star Trek has, make lots of call backs, expand the universe and give me a decent show.

Because, at the end of the day, that's what I want. A decent show to watch. Is it interesting? Is it compelling? Is it good story telling? Then that's all that matters.

 

[Ryujin]

But, again, that's just your personal preferences. I mean, the change from TOS Klingons to TNG ones (or movie ones if you want to get pedantic about it) "evicerated" canon just as much as the new Klingons do. The only difference is, you liked that change and don't like this one.

One change is not an evisceration. Keeping almost nothing but the name and badge is.