Star Trek: Discovery

Hey, I'm telling you guys I have a book written 17 years before First Contact that says Cochran was an alien on Alpha Centauri who invented warp drive, and completed it after conferring with scientists from the Earth ship Icarus. This book was based on Roddenberry's writings, while the retcon in First Contact was done right after he died. It's the first major retconning of original ST continuity that I know of. (...and then there was... Abrams.)

Roddenberry was great for creating the world of Star Trek. I remember something to the effect that the original series was not quite what he envisioned because he wanted all humans to get along and be at peace with each other. This he intended for ST: The Next Generation and he got his way for a while, resulting in some pretty dull episodes for the first season, where only outside forces made the humans aboard the Enterprise-D oppose each other, like the episode The Naked Now where the crew encountered the same virus/disease? that the original Enterprise crew had encountered in The Naked Time. Plus, they always had Wesley Crusher saving the ship or coming up with an idea that would solve things. Roddenberry admitted that he based Crusher on himself. A lot of fans hated Wesley but, because of an episode where they encounter an alien called "The Traveler," the crew, especially Captain Picard, is urged by The Traveler to encourage Wesley because he "is special." It wasn't till years later, I think after Roddenberry's passing, that a final season episode of NG revealed that Wesley was actually a Traveler, despite having human parents. Whether this was a late-term tribute to Roddenberry or not, I don't know, but it "seemed" to tie this episode to the first season episode.

All this is to say that Roddenberry wanted a show where everybody got along. Someone behind the scenes on the show said, "it's a wonderful idea but it makes for boring television. Drama, by definition, is achieved by conflict, which Roddenberry didn't want among the crew." So, the first season, for the most part, was, except for a handful of episodes IMO, kind of boring. The last two episodes, especially "Conspiracy," were very good. "Conspiracy" even had Picard and Riker blowing off the head of an alien-infected man! Then they shot the creature that emerged from the corpse of the officer. I remember going, "Wow! I can't believe it!" This episode was like day and night compared to the episodes that had preceded it.

I think this might have begun the gradual pushing-aside of Roddenberry. I know it didn't happen immediately but little-by-little there started to be more drama and better and better episodes. Season Two was a bit better and by Season Three I was in love with the new series and followed the other series faithfully. I went from hating Picard at first to loving the character and putting him even with Kirk in my mind. But within that series Roddenberry basically had the show taken away from him. Despite anything Rick Berman (who took over the controls of the show and the Trek universe at large) would say about continuing Roddenberry's vision, the shows and the films belied that train of thought. There was drama, humans fought each other, fought aliens, things blew up, and most people were entertained.

That might have been the green-light to retcon certain ideas and canon of the show. I don't know for sure, but this is what I believe. So, expecting to be entertained, I've stuck with the shows and movies, good and bad, that is till now. Star Trek: Discovery will have to fly without me, at least until it's DVD time.

__________________
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."

Watched both episodes of this last night. I was not a fan.

__________________

What was it like?
Was the ship as ugly as it appears?

The production/sound design was excellent. Acting was good. My main issues were political. They basically crapped all over Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek while dropping anvils on my head about the issues of 2017. So much for escapism and entertainment.

RIP Star Trek

I haven't seen it and don't have much hope for it. So can you explain a bit how ST Discovery went against Roddenbery's original Star Trek vision? I'm just curious, as I'm a big fan of the original, pre Abrams stuff and just wonder how bad it is?

It's tough to go into specifics without heading into spoiler territory. Read ahead at your own risk. I will try to keep things as vague as possible.

They sort of had one character standing up for old school Star Trek ideals, then set another character against that character that represented a more aggressive stance, to say the least. In the process, they deconstructed the ideology of past shows and films, labeled it as ineffective, and promoted pretty much straight up collectivist militarism as the solution. Star Trek came close to this in the past, but one or more characters would push back with a strong moral center about maintaining diplomatic options and peaceful approaches, using military might and violence as a last resort. Older Trek shows (especially Voyager) promoted strong individuality as a critical component of a healthy society, even if they were also promoting sort of a fantastical pseudo-socialism in which economics wasn't necessary and everyone in the federation lived under their benevolent galactic nanny government. They did this basically by using magic tech that can probably never exist (replicators, transporters) that easily solved the two biggest issues of socialism, so it was all in good fun and it worked.

This show portrays individuality as corrupt and wrong, with the alien race that fights for freedom and individuality (specifically stated in so many words on the show) basically being nazi racial purists. Conflating nazis with the basic ideas of freedom is horse ****, and is firmly rooted in the negative rhetoric being thrown around today at people who support freedom of speech and individual liberty.

I have recently been watching some Deep Space 9, which is excellent. Sadly, the show seems almost conservative when compared to this new iteration. I will stick with DS9.

I heard there was a scene where crewmembers take a knee during the Federation anthem of allegiance!

Lulz!

Not sure I caught that, but I did read that cast did indeed take a knee in support of the NFL after the premier.

@Sedai, thanks for going into detail about ST Discovery. I might catch it some time in the future, and I'll probably be properly pissed at it

DSN is a favorite of mine, are you watching it in order from the beginning? If so the show really finds it's own self after season 3, and continues to get better and better, each season. I love the way the later seasons delve into long story arches and character development.

Yea, funny thing... I have seen all of the original series multiple times, all of TNG multiple times, Voyager a couple of times...but I had never really gotten into DS9. The idea of a space station setting at the time just didn't appeal to me. Alas, it may end up being the best of the bunch. I started it at the beginning and I think I am just about near the end of season 3.

Isn't everyone in agreement that the series should have explored further down the timeline? What happens after Deep Space 9 or Voyager. Don't people already know the outcome of the current issues?

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Was pretty excited early on, and even mixed reviews wouldn't have dissuaded me from watching if Fuller were still at the helm...but since he isn't, I'll probably skip it unless I hear very good things later.

Everyone except the execs, it seems.

I was looking forward to the new Star Trek series until I heard it was going to be on CBS All Access, and I was going to have to pay extra to watch it. I pay enough for cable TV now. I'm not going to pay extra just for one series.

I DVRed the first episode that aired on their standard CBS network, but I haven't watched it yet because I don't want to get attached to it. Unless the reviews are that it's the best Star Trek show ever, it'll have to wait until it's available on DVD, and probably on a Black Friday sale.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

This is interesting...

Wow, that sounds like total caca! Well, there goes the eventual DVD purchase. Totally going against everything Star Trek stood for. I've been getting into TOS lately and it's so supremely entertaining. I can't say I'd be unhappy if this new series got canned. Sounds like the bias has gone completely through the roof. Thanks for posting, Captain!

I couldn't finish the video because the guy was annoying.

Should The Orville have its own thread for discussion?
(Since some are saying it is a better homage to Star Trek than Discovery? Although reviews are mixed: many critics dislike it, while Trek fans are saying it is highly enjoyable.)

So, anyone else enjoying The Orville?

I'm currently watching "Mirror, Mirror" of Star Trek the original series.

If I may engage my inner Trekkie, I've got this theory... in the episode "City On the Edge of Forever," after travelling back in time to find Dr. McCoy, Spock explains that if they save the life of Kirk's newly met love interest of the 1930's, Edith Keeler (Joan Collins), it will indirectly lead to a series of events that would cause the Axis powers to win WWII and cast Earth into a savage, militaristic future.
My theory is that the alternate dimension in Mirror Mirror is the savage militaristic future that occurred in a timeline where Kirk (or McCoy) saved Edith Keeler from being killed by a truck. It makes so much sense.

Have others come up with this theory before?