|
I think what might have worked better is having at least for the first few episodes a structure similar to Arrow, where you start later, all this stuff from the pilot happens and you keep flashing back to it, wondering "How do they get from there to here?" It's a cheap way to get serialization across while having some occasional standalone episodes that you can just kind of thematically tie in, with a downside of being sometimes stilted or breaking flow if you aren't doing it right.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
Tighclops posted:The most negative poo poo I've seen anywhere about all this are value judgments about people who didn't like the show coming from people that did. The TVIV thread is fine. In the other thread, I was getting more "Star Trek is about enlightened discourse and resolving situations diplomatically YOU loving RETARD."
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Pakled posted:the entire series appears to be a vehicle for justifying war crimes and subverting the ideals of the Federation because "we're at war now, we can't afford to be soft, the I really hope this isn't the direction they go, because that's like the polar opposite of Roddenberry's vision afaik.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:19
|
|
"
|
Fidel Cuckstro posted:Yeah this idea that the show is going to suddenly become something different seems really bizarre. It's not entirely out of the realm of possibility. Fuller wrote the first two episodes (though I'm sure there were rewrites once, you know, casting actually loving happened) and only had a broad outline of the season done before he was fired (because he couldn't get scripts done, as he was doing both Discovery and American Gods, and as we now know still negotiating to get another season of Hannibal made), and both Harberts and Berg have said they've deviated heavily from that outline.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
DSC would be a pretty good show if it weren't a Star Trek show.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I mean granted, Sisko does really do some lovely stuff. Like making a whole planet full of civilians uninhabitable out of spite. But that isn't your first impression of the character and it took him 6 seasons to get there. It was literally a proportional response to what the Maquis were doing to their neighbors and Starfleet did not have the resources necessary to intervene with more precision before the Maquis could drop WMDs on a bunch of other Cardassian planets. I mean there's obviously a personal element to Sisko's motivations but his actions aren't out of nowhere and probably were the correct response at that time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:Yeah. I wasn't even really making GBS threads on the show, I was just like "hey you know it's pretty decent, it just doesn't feel like Star Trek because the tone is all wrong and it feels more like BSG or Mass Effect" and that got immediately downvoted into oblivion and enraged fanboys felt the need to flame me lol But it wasn't spite. It was his "Vulcan Hello:" an extreme tactical measure to resolve an unresolvable situation. The fact that it let him indulge in spite was just icing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Yeah, I just watched "For the Uniform" last night, and Sisko's behavior is pretty odious, "we had to burn the village in order to save it" bullshit. And it's clear he's doing everything he does not because of terrorism, not because of flag, but because he simply wants to see Eddington burn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:Yes yes yes, oh my God, yes. This. The Drumhead is one of my favorite TNG episodes and really defines Picard as a character. That episode probably had a huge effect on me growing up. This is going to make a ton of people roll their eyes, but my moral compass is probably influenced by Captain Picard. I feel there's a serious lack of things like this today. And it kind of shows because we have almost a whole generation of kids who think the ends justify the means. I vehemently disagree with that sentiment because it's what's led people to commit horrible atrocities throughout history. If you have a moral high ground, don't sacrifice it. Ever. If others have done horrible things, that doesn't give you the right to do the same. Always aim to be the better man\woman\whatever. Amen, brother! (or sister - don't want to make assumptions)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Timby posted:Yeah, I just watched "For the Uniform" last night, and Sisko's behavior is pretty odious, "we had to burn the village in order to save it" bullshit. And it's clear he's doing everything he does not because of terrorism, not because of flag, but because he simply wants to see Eddington burn. Oh my God. This is a virus carried by hologram communicators. That explains everything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Sisko gets a bad wrap for his actions in For The Uniform. But is forcing a few hundred malcontents to leave a planet (where they are under threat from a hostile nation) really any worse than Picard tricking a colony into moving by secretly moving them in a holodeck? The end result is the same, except at least Sisko had the dignity to not trick the illegals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Timby posted:Yeah, I just watched "For the Uniform" last night, and Sisko's behavior is pretty odious, "we had to burn the village in order to save it" bullshit. And it's clear he's doing everything he does not because of terrorism, not because of flag, but because he simply wants to see Eddington burn. I'm going to have to rewatch it then, but my recollection is that the Maquis were otherwise just going to skip around bio-bombing every Cardassian colony in the DMZ. I'm not sure how that doesn't eventually lead to the Cardassians sending a couple of warships over to just annihilate the Maquis colonies in retaliation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:It was literally a proportional response to what the Maquis were doing to their neighbors and Starfleet did not have the resources necessary to intervene with more precision before the Maquis could drop WMDs on a bunch of other Cardassian planets. I mean there's obviously a personal element to Sisko's motivations but his actions aren't out of nowhere and probably were the correct response at that time. You're probably right. I haven't seen it in a while. Sisko is a very interesting character because he's basically designed to be the Anti-Picard. He has a different sense of morals and background. Picard will uphold his principles no matter what while Sisko will sometimes get his hands dirty and do crappy things for the greater good. But, the area where both Picard and Sisko are the same is that they are both good men with extremely strong moral character. Both of them will do what they believe is right and uphold the values of the Federation no matter what. There's also a somewhat similar thing and interesting going on in TOS. I'm sure you've all heard it a million times, but Kirk, Spock and Bones all represent the logos, pathos and ethos and the three of them together are all essential to the thought process and decision making of the Enterprise's crew. Bucswabe posted:Amen, brother! (or sister - don't want to make assumptions)  Seriously, "the Drumhead" is something that should probably be shown in school. Some people are like "what would Jesus do?" but I often think to myself "what would Picard do?" I know, it sounds really silly for me to say this. In just about any given situation, if you stop and think "hmmm how would Jean-Luc Picard handle this", you'll probably end up with the morally correct thing to do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jph2qWXJ-Tk&t=477s "Chain of Command" is probably another episode everyone should watch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
I don't know I tried that once and I ended up in a dune buggy chase
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I don't know I tried that once and I ended up in a dune buggy chase Well, dune buggies are fun. You made the right choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:Some people are like "what would Jesus do?" but I often think to myself "what would Picard do?" I know, it sounds really silly for me to say this. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
I know, I know. I was embarrassed typing that out. Lord knows how I'd feel if I said that aloud.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Oh you would take Jesus as an example but not another fictional character?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
It's really weird because most of the criticisms of STD I'm reading in this thread can be levelled equally against DS9. The same things that people loved about DS9 are now bad because you've already been primed to dislike STD. What is it about STD's execution doesn't work for you? Anyways, I really like what they did with the Klingons, and I particularly liked that they bothered to explore the idea that morality would be fundamentally different between alien cultures (ie the Vulcan Hello). Star Trek has always shown human values to be the "correct" ones, despite the fact that ethics is not objective, especially when talking about literal aliens who have completely different thought processes. I agree the tone was off, the design of the shenzhou was awful and looked like something out of STO, and Saru is basically Sheldon from Big Bang Theory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Oh you would take Jesus as an example but not another fictional character?  Nothing wrong with emulating Picard, though. You could do far worse. Like 99.99% of all real people or fictional characters worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Subyng posted:It's really weird because most of the criticisms of STD I'm reading in this thread can be levelled equally against DS9. The same things that people loved about DS9 are now bad because you've already been primed to dislike STD. What is it about STD's execution doesn't work for you? I really don't think "cultural relativism is true and good" is a message that Trek is or should be putting forth.  I also think you are way off that the criticisms of SDT pilot are legit if leveled at DS9 pilot. DS9 started bleak and ended hopeful and positive, with Sisko un-resigning, the promise of the wormhole, and first contact with some truly alien aliens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
The Bloop posted:Nothing wrong with emulating Picard, though. You could do far worse. Like 99.99% of all real people or fictional characters worse. Yeah. I just kind of want to shove myself in a locker and steal my own lunch money though because it's probably the nerdiest thing anyone has ever said, ever. Although Picard really kind of the the ideal role model. He's idealized to the point where no actual real person could ever really be like that, but it's something nice to shoot for. I mean, that's kind of what Star Trek is to begin with. The utopian society that is the Federation is pretty much impossible in real life but it's something you want to strive for. Star Trek isn't realistic, practical, cynical or even remotely plausible. But it's not really meant to be. It's basically youthful idealism distilled into TV form.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
The darkest parts of DS9 are also built towards in a gradual, slow process. We're given five seasons before we see For The Uniform, six before we see In The Pale Moonlight. Even then, it never dwells in the darkness long and these incidents are portrayed as unambiguously huge breaches of Federation ethics. Contrast to Discovery which is nothing but dark, desperate violence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
I don't really give a poo poo about Sarek because I never watched TOS. But if you do, how much does this mess with his character? "Hey Michael, you met the Klingons for the first time in a century huh? You should do something loving insane and attack them without even talking to them. I am the greatest diplomat in the universe."
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
I thought Sarek basically said "what worked for us might not work for you, be really loving careful with how you use this information"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
I think the Sisko comparison is good for showing why there's no real comparison. Sisko and Burnham are both introduced as having lost family members to alien attacks, but whereas Sisko is explicitly struggling with his grief, trying to be a good officer and single father while leading a life that feels empty and painful, Burnham has buried her grief and denies that it has any effect on her even though that is clearly not true. Sisko doesn't physically confront a Borg in the pilot and viciously kill it against his own best interests at the time; he confronts a former enemy, now a superior officer, who doesn't even realize that he has wronged Sisko until Sisko, clearly furious and barely keeping himself under control, makes him aware. In fact, he never DOES confront the Borg physically, he comes to terms with his grief through understanding who he is and what he feels, not through violence. Burnham is wronged by Klingons, meets Klingons, lies and connives to try and attack the Klingons and present this as moral high ground, kills some Klingons, and loses her only friend and mentor (and career) because of it. DS9 presents a Starfleet officer whose strong moral compass and commitment to learning and exploring see him through his suffering; STD presents a Starfleet officer in denial about her suffering who does morally wrong and violent things in a way that ruin her life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I thought Sarek basically said "what worked for us might not work for you, be really loving careful with how you use this information"? Did he? I guess I only remembered that Michael came out of that conversation demanding they attack and then went for a 1-man mutiny to make it happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
[quote="“Farmer Crack-rear end”" post="“476824619”"] I thought Sarek basically said “what worked for us might not work for you, be really loving careful with how you use this information”? [/quote] Yeah, there were multiple people implying to Burnham that violence is probably a very bad idea, including Sarek. Michael was the only once acting like a complete loon, and in the end she got punished for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Did he? I guess I only remembered that Michael came out of that conversation demanding they attack and then went for a 1-man mutiny to make it happen. Yes, he did. He says "Be very considered how you use this information", and after all, it's not like it was public knowledge to begin with -- the Vulcans obviously don't want to give out that they'd shoot on sight. Burnham basically ignores this warning and concludes that the thing to do is attack immediately at all costs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
The Unlife Aquatic posted:The darkest parts of DS9 are also built towards in a gradual, slow process. We're given five seasons before we see For The Uniform, six before we see In The Pale Moonlight. Even then, it never dwells in the darkness long and these incidents are portrayed as unambiguously huge breaches of Federation ethics. Contrast to Discovery which is nothing but dark, desperate violence. Plus, DS9 wasn't the only Star Trek show we've seen after a 10+ year absence. It came into being while TNG was at the height of its popularity and almost always ran alongside another Star Trek show. Not only did DS9 kind of earn the right to experiment with the formula, it sort of had to or else it would have been stale. Contrast that with now. Star Trek has been gone for a long time and there is nothing like it on the air anymore. In a case like this, you want a return to form, not a deconstruction of the formula. And it isn't really experimenting with the Star Trek formula as it is taking the formula from other things, such as Battlestar Galactica. Discovery would make for a cool side story, but it's the only game in town right now so that's disappointing. PostNouveau posted:I don't really give a poo poo about Sarek because I never watched TOS. I dunno if the problem is "messing with Sarek's character." I don't think Sarek should be there in the first place. Why does Michael have to be connected to an established character? Why can't she just be her own person with her own story? It's a big galaxy. Nobody in TNG had any prior connection to anyone in TOS. The fact that they felt a need to insert this character into the story of other established characters to try and "legitimize her" just comes off as really lame. There is really no need for it and it just comes off as being kind of dumb and desperate. You could even leave her backstory 100% the same, but say she was adopted by some other Vulcan named Spork or something and it would be much, much better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
The way you describe Burnham makes her sound a little like Lt. Ro Laren
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
DS9 was the only Star Trek show that ran concurrently with other Star Trek shows for it's entire run, that's why it was able to really get away with a lot more messing with the formula of what it means to be Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
My thoughts on the Discovery premier: Better than The Cage or Encounter at Far Point not as good as Emissary. It keeps the standard Trek pilot theme of trying to keep your morals in an uncaring universe and gives Michael a strong place to grow from, since she has the personal pain of Sisko towards n antagonist she's liable to deal with, but the emotional fortitude and logical cunning to not succumb comb to that pain... Probably! She does actually mess up in this very episode! The preview hints that she takes personal blame on herself for the war and that's an interesting thing to saddle a character with. My truest hope is that the arc is more of a personal growth one for Michael and less of a WAR ARC for the Federation. Klingons to fight 2-3 more times decisively and a few more times through a proxy of some sort would be ideal. The rest of the episodes should be about Michael overcoming Star Trek issues (moral dilemmas and weird science) through reason and the lense of her current pain. It has the potential to go off tone into 24 or BSG territory, but I remain hopeful this is a more focused DS9 attempt. Only time will tell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
I legitimately suspect Sarek's inclusion was a concession from the CBS execs demanding some concrete connection to TOS, otherwise "people wouldn't get it" or something. The recent interview with Kurtzman suggests they're trying to avoid crossover with the Enterprise's domain as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Love Stole the Day posted:I really hope this isn't the direction they go, because that's like the polar opposite of Roddenberry's vision afaik. That's why it's set before TOS. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Would sad old Scott Bakula still be alive? I think Jolene Blalock likely would be, and even still young in appearance enough to be portrayed by the same actress. Not that they should
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Would sad old Scott Bakula still be alive? I think Jolene Blalock likely would be, and even still young in appearance enough to be portrayed by the same actress. Not that they should Archer's still alive enough in JJTrek '09 for Scotty to mention transporter accident-ing his dog, probably Porthos the Third so I guess yeah?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Also, no love for the Klingons screaming at the heavens to inform them a warrior is coming? That was important to me. I actually really like these weird Klingons, we only met a small, extreme faction of them, but there idea of an empire divided, now united by a war they may not want... There's lots of room for play there!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Also, no love for the Klingons screaming at the heavens to inform them a warrior is coming? That was important to me. I have to accept it all as just a different art style like when one artist draws someone else's characters or something. It's not more advanced than TOS/TNG it's just a different visual take. It's tough, but I think I can just about manage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:46 |
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Would sad old Scott Bakula still be alive? I think Jolene Blalock likely would be, and even still young in appearance enough to be portrayed by the same actress. Not that they should I wonder if it would have been more appropriate for T'Pol to be Michael's mentor. You get the torch-pass, nerd bonus, and avoid the canon issues
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2017 20:19
|
|