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: Section 31 ... THE MOVIE
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="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8996629" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>I don't think that's really a reasonable attitude, because I think SNW was quite difficult to work out - it wasn't just some format that had been widely requested prior to Discovery.</p><p></p><p>On the direct contrary, we hadn't had an actual Star Trek TV series for 13 years when Discovery came out. 13 years in which television changed hugely, from a situation where episodic shows were normal, when ENT started, to the "Prestige TV" era by the time Discovery started. During that time, what audiences accepted and were interested in seemed to change absolutely hugely.</p><p></p><p>Discovery wasn't quite what it needed to be, but I can see, logically, where they thought they were coming from in a "Prestige TV"-era Trek show. And when Discovery launched, people were absolutely advocating for a non-episodic Trek show, and for heavy continuity and so on. And the expectation, after intervening successful "Prestige TV" SF shows, that audiences would want something darker and more action-oriented than previous Trek shows was not an entirely invalid one.</p><p></p><p>What I'm saying is, SNW just wouldn't have gotten made in 2017. It wouldn't have happened. The money wouldn't have been there. Kurtzman et al could have absolutely advocating for it, saying it was what people wanted, but it wouldn't have happened.</p><p></p><p>There's a reason why S2 of Disco was essentially a backdoor pilot for SNW, and that's that it took the reaction to S1 of Disco, and the realization that there was demand for a more positive, bright-hearted, more old-Trek-like (but still more action-y) Trek series.</p><p></p><p>Also there's the Michael issue, which was that Disco piled way too much on to Michael's character:</p><p></p><p>1) She's the focus of the show, for no apparent reason, and all previous Trek shows focused around the captain/leader (though all except TOS were kind of ensemble pieces and TOS wasn't far off).</p><p></p><p>2) She's Spock's human sister, which is kind of a big, and initially very random-seeming deal, and which hamstrung the actor in S1 because she was initially clearly being directed to like "act like a human trying to be a Vulcan", something they later largely gave up on, and once they did, things improved.</p><p></p><p>3) She was a young-ish Black woman in an era when the chuds of the world were really doing everything they could to drag down any non-white male characters (leading to the famously insane "Star Trek has gone woke!" stuff, like wth do you think TOS and TNG were doing, mate?).</p><p></p><p>4) She's called Michael and it's never explained. Like, yeah you can have a masc name, but you're clearly femme as hell, so what's that about?</p><p></p><p>If they had removed any one of 1, 2 and 3, like say, made her in charge of scout ship (or even a full-size ship but she's seen as a sort of prodigy), so it made sense to focus on her, or made her just a human, not Spock's rando sister, I think that would really have helped how the show was received, though it might have caused people to focus more of some of the other weaknesses.</p><p></p><p>And actually Michael is representative of Disco's S1/S2 issues in general re: "having way too much going on".</p><p></p><p>But anyway they learned from Disco and SNW only took so long to get here because of the pandemic, I think.</p><p></p><p>Here's the UK version of the trailer - for me [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER]'s one shows "video unavailable" so I suspect there may be some geo-blocking going on in a weird way. I've noticed recently Youtube isn't always saying "Video not available in your region", which is extremely annoying.</p><p></p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]JW_P3SRrExw[/MEDIA]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8996629, member: 18"] I don't think that's really a reasonable attitude, because I think SNW was quite difficult to work out - it wasn't just some format that had been widely requested prior to Discovery. On the direct contrary, we hadn't had an actual Star Trek TV series for 13 years when Discovery came out. 13 years in which television changed hugely, from a situation where episodic shows were normal, when ENT started, to the "Prestige TV" era by the time Discovery started. During that time, what audiences accepted and were interested in seemed to change absolutely hugely. Discovery wasn't quite what it needed to be, but I can see, logically, where they thought they were coming from in a "Prestige TV"-era Trek show. And when Discovery launched, people were absolutely advocating for a non-episodic Trek show, and for heavy continuity and so on. And the expectation, after intervening successful "Prestige TV" SF shows, that audiences would want something darker and more action-oriented than previous Trek shows was not an entirely invalid one. What I'm saying is, SNW just wouldn't have gotten made in 2017. It wouldn't have happened. The money wouldn't have been there. Kurtzman et al could have absolutely advocating for it, saying it was what people wanted, but it wouldn't have happened. There's a reason why S2 of Disco was essentially a backdoor pilot for SNW, and that's that it took the reaction to S1 of Disco, and the realization that there was demand for a more positive, bright-hearted, more old-Trek-like (but still more action-y) Trek series. Also there's the Michael issue, which was that Disco piled way too much on to Michael's character: 1) She's the focus of the show, for no apparent reason, and all previous Trek shows focused around the captain/leader (though all except TOS were kind of ensemble pieces and TOS wasn't far off). 2) She's Spock's human sister, which is kind of a big, and initially very random-seeming deal, and which hamstrung the actor in S1 because she was initially clearly being directed to like "act like a human trying to be a Vulcan", something they later largely gave up on, and once they did, things improved. 3) She was a young-ish Black woman in an era when the chuds of the world were really doing everything they could to drag down any non-white male characters (leading to the famously insane "Star Trek has gone woke!" stuff, like wth do you think TOS and TNG were doing, mate?). 4) She's called Michael and it's never explained. Like, yeah you can have a masc name, but you're clearly femme as hell, so what's that about? If they had removed any one of 1, 2 and 3, like say, made her in charge of scout ship (or even a full-size ship but she's seen as a sort of prodigy), so it made sense to focus on her, or made her just a human, not Spock's rando sister, I think that would really have helped how the show was received, though it might have caused people to focus more of some of the other weaknesses. And actually Michael is representative of Disco's S1/S2 issues in general re: "having way too much going on". But anyway they learned from Disco and SNW only took so long to get here because of the pandemic, I think. Here's the UK version of the trailer - for me [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER]'s one shows "video unavailable" so I suspect there may be some geo-blocking going on in a weird way. I've noticed recently Youtube isn't always saying "Video not available in your region", which is extremely annoying. [MEDIA=youtube]JW_P3SRrExw[/MEDIA] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Star Trek: Section 31 ... THE MOVIE
Top