Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Star Trek Discovery not getting any better I fear.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7581211" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>You're wrong there. </p><p>Roddenberry was really the big cheese for the first half of the first season. Do you remember a huge uptick when he passed the reins to a different head writer for the second half? Meanwhile, he was still there as a producer until season 5, giving feedback on scripts and such.</p><p>What changed was they brought in different head writers. That's the thing, the show didn't just get better for no reason. They had four or five different head writers over the first three seasons. But until they brought in someone good it didn't improve. The writing changes in TOS and TNG and DS9 have everything to do with good writing and good editing.</p><p></p><p>But the new writers still kept his vision and ideas. They still worked with him until he got ill.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Yeah, all of it cheesy and dated and with messages and social commentary aimed at the world of twenty to thirty years ago. </p><p></p><p>Look, a different take on <em>Star Trek</em> is a good idea. But this is the first <em>Star Trek</em> show in a decade. You don't launch with something different and strange. You launch with something safe and earn the audience's trust. Then you go new directions and do new things, when you've earned the trust.</p><p>You <em>don't</em> start by alienating and pushing away the core fanbase. </p><p>The <em>Discovery</em> showrunners haven't earned that trust. They haven't shown me they can reliably handle the baseline ideal of <em>Star Trek</em>, so I have zero faith that they know what they're doing when they try and subvert it. </p><p></p><p> </p><p>See above. </p><p></p><p>But right now, there's an eff-tonne of dark TV shows. Everyone is doing dark. Everyone is doing post apocalypse of twisted futures. Zombies. Alien invasions. Nobody is doing optimistic. We <em>need</em> an optimistic reminder of the future that has messages for today.</p><p></p><p>Dark is a crutch. It's a lazy way of not having to commit to an ideal. It's a sign they're afraid of the show being able to stand on its own and so it has to look like everything else on TV. </p><p></p><p></p><p>If I want dark, gritty science fiction, I can watch <em>the Expanse</em>. In fact, I DO watch <em>The Expanse</em>, in part for that reason. I recommend it. It's excellent.</p><p></p><p>If I want to watch optimistic, uplifting science fiction, I go to <em>Star Trek</em>. A dark, gritty, pessimistic version of the future isn't really <em>Star Trek</em>. <em>Star Trek</em> has always been about finding the positive. Even in <em>Deep Space Nine</em>, they were hopeful. And when they do cross a line it feels like it matters. </p><p></p><p>But... even in <em>Discovery</em> Starfleet is still always white hats. </p><p>Here's the thing. <em>Star Trek Discovery</em> is terrible as a dark show. </p><p>Dark means people doing questionable things for selfish reasons and horrible consequences for actions. But <em>Discovery</em> is pretty much a consequence free zone. The worst of the bad stuff being done is conveniently being done by someone outside of Starfleet (mirror double and generic evil AI). It dodges having people feel bad by not having the main characters be held responsible for the actions. There's no fallout for poor choices. And then everything works out at the end as the standard "Star Trek Reset Button" is pressed. </p><p></p><p><em>Discovery</em> isn't dark. It has the illusion of darkness. It's a junior high edgelord version of dark, with lots of posturing and posing but no real substance.</p><p></p><p>There are so many better ways to tell a dark <em>Star Trek</em> show. But they'd actually have to KNOW <em>Star Trek</em> to do that. </p><p></p><p>One episode (the episode before last) was the only one that really bothered to show the fallout of actions. But they didn't follow up on that and maintain the inertia. And with two episodes left, there's not a lot of time to continue that either. There's likely be left unresolved. </p><p></p><p></p><p>They did it just fine in '87. And that was 20 years after <em>The Original Series</em>. </p><p>They looked at what worked and kept it. They looked at what didn't work and ignored or changed it. But they kept the tone and attitude. It seemed to have a strong respect for the original. </p><p>Why can't they do that again? </p><p></p><p>Heck, the freakin' <em>Orville</em> nailed it out the gate. And did it while managing to invent its own canon. </p><p>Why can't we get a <em>Star Trek</em> show that's a serious version of the <em>Orville </em>but with the sets and budget of <em>Discovery</em>?</p><p></p><p></p><p>For the exact same reason fans get upset when their sport team has a line-up change and begins playing poorly. Or a favourite band changes their sound. Or an edition of a game changes into something you don't want to play. </p><p>You want things to evolve and grow, but it needs to be recognizable, or it loses something that drew you to that in the first place. It still needs to be enjoyable.</p><p></p><p>Fans are emotionally attached. And losing something they're emotionally attached to hurts. By definition. </p><p>Some fans do take it too far. The equivalent of stalking or emotional abuse. They take the "ownership" too far and become toxic fans. </p><p>But, at the risk of going No True Scotsman... if you're not emotionally invested, are you really a <strong>fan</strong>? Or are you just a <strong>viewer</strong>? After all, a lot of people just watched the movies, but never got into the shows, are they <em>really</em> fans? I'd hardly qualify everyone who watches the Batman or Marvel movies as "comic book fans". That feels like someone just watching the Superbowl: are they really a <em>fan</em> of football, or just watching the big event? </p><p></p><p></p><p>I complain because I think the show can/could get better. As every <em>Discovery</em> supporter tripped over themselves saying last season, TNG and DS9 got better as they went on. That could happen here too. </p><p>And season 2 did look better. The trailer was good, and the first couple episodes were good. But, man, that middle was just weak and full of poorly thought out ideas. And that last episode was a masterclass on unsubtle emotional manipulation and forced tragedy. And it looks like they're doing the same damn dodge as last season, by brushing off all the bad things Section 31 did to apprehend Spock as the will of an Evil AI rather than Starfleet.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 7581211, member: 37579"] You're wrong there. Roddenberry was really the big cheese for the first half of the first season. Do you remember a huge uptick when he passed the reins to a different head writer for the second half? Meanwhile, he was still there as a producer until season 5, giving feedback on scripts and such. What changed was they brought in different head writers. That's the thing, the show didn't just get better for no reason. They had four or five different head writers over the first three seasons. But until they brought in someone good it didn't improve. The writing changes in TOS and TNG and DS9 have everything to do with good writing and good editing. But the new writers still kept his vision and ideas. They still worked with him until he got ill. Yeah, all of it cheesy and dated and with messages and social commentary aimed at the world of twenty to thirty years ago. Look, a different take on [I]Star Trek[/I] is a good idea. But this is the first [I]Star Trek[/I] show in a decade. You don't launch with something different and strange. You launch with something safe and earn the audience's trust. Then you go new directions and do new things, when you've earned the trust. You [I]don't[/I] start by alienating and pushing away the core fanbase. The [I]Discovery[/I] showrunners haven't earned that trust. They haven't shown me they can reliably handle the baseline ideal of [I]Star Trek[/I], so I have zero faith that they know what they're doing when they try and subvert it. See above. But right now, there's an eff-tonne of dark TV shows. Everyone is doing dark. Everyone is doing post apocalypse of twisted futures. Zombies. Alien invasions. Nobody is doing optimistic. We [I]need[/I] an optimistic reminder of the future that has messages for today. Dark is a crutch. It's a lazy way of not having to commit to an ideal. It's a sign they're afraid of the show being able to stand on its own and so it has to look like everything else on TV. If I want dark, gritty science fiction, I can watch [I]the Expanse[/I]. In fact, I DO watch [I]The Expanse[/I], in part for that reason. I recommend it. It's excellent. If I want to watch optimistic, uplifting science fiction, I go to [I]Star Trek[/I]. A dark, gritty, pessimistic version of the future isn't really [I]Star Trek[/I]. [I]Star Trek[/I] has always been about finding the positive. Even in [I]Deep Space Nine[/I], they were hopeful. And when they do cross a line it feels like it matters. But... even in [I]Discovery[/I] Starfleet is still always white hats. Here's the thing. [I]Star Trek Discovery[/I] is terrible as a dark show. Dark means people doing questionable things for selfish reasons and horrible consequences for actions. But [I]Discovery[/I] is pretty much a consequence free zone. The worst of the bad stuff being done is conveniently being done by someone outside of Starfleet (mirror double and generic evil AI). It dodges having people feel bad by not having the main characters be held responsible for the actions. There's no fallout for poor choices. And then everything works out at the end as the standard "Star Trek Reset Button" is pressed. [I]Discovery[/I] isn't dark. It has the illusion of darkness. It's a junior high edgelord version of dark, with lots of posturing and posing but no real substance. There are so many better ways to tell a dark [I]Star Trek[/I] show. But they'd actually have to KNOW [I]Star Trek[/I] to do that. One episode (the episode before last) was the only one that really bothered to show the fallout of actions. But they didn't follow up on that and maintain the inertia. And with two episodes left, there's not a lot of time to continue that either. There's likely be left unresolved. They did it just fine in '87. And that was 20 years after [I]The Original Series[/I]. They looked at what worked and kept it. They looked at what didn't work and ignored or changed it. But they kept the tone and attitude. It seemed to have a strong respect for the original. Why can't they do that again? Heck, the freakin' [I]Orville[/I] nailed it out the gate. And did it while managing to invent its own canon. Why can't we get a [I]Star Trek[/I] show that's a serious version of the [I]Orville [/I]but with the sets and budget of [I]Discovery[/I]? For the exact same reason fans get upset when their sport team has a line-up change and begins playing poorly. Or a favourite band changes their sound. Or an edition of a game changes into something you don't want to play. You want things to evolve and grow, but it needs to be recognizable, or it loses something that drew you to that in the first place. It still needs to be enjoyable. Fans are emotionally attached. And losing something they're emotionally attached to hurts. By definition. Some fans do take it too far. The equivalent of stalking or emotional abuse. They take the "ownership" too far and become toxic fans. But, at the risk of going No True Scotsman... if you're not emotionally invested, are you really a [B]fan[/B]? Or are you just a [B]viewer[/B]? After all, a lot of people just watched the movies, but never got into the shows, are they [I]really[/I] fans? I'd hardly qualify everyone who watches the Batman or Marvel movies as "comic book fans". That feels like someone just watching the Superbowl: are they really a [I]fan[/I] of football, or just watching the big event? I complain because I think the show can/could get better. As every [I]Discovery[/I] supporter tripped over themselves saying last season, TNG and DS9 got better as they went on. That could happen here too. And season 2 did look better. The trailer was good, and the first couple episodes were good. But, man, that middle was just weak and full of poorly thought out ideas. And that last episode was a masterclass on unsubtle emotional manipulation and forced tragedy. And it looks like they're doing the same damn dodge as last season, by brushing off all the bad things Section 31 did to apprehend Spock as the will of an Evil AI rather than Starfleet. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Star Trek Discovery not getting any better I fear.
Top