Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Star Trek thread
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
OOOH shiny!!
https://shop.eaglemoss.com/eu/hero-collector/star-trek/u-s-s-enterprise-ncc-1707-d-gold-model-starship
Preordered one earlier
0 -
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 34375
Don't think we can rightly predict what the departed members of TOS would have thought of JJ/Discovery era, and projecting our own opinions onto the dead is poor form IMO
Nimoy acted in both JJ's films, so maybe he shared some opinions about the features himself, but otherwise the only thing I'd be confident in saying about opinions from the grave: they would all be AMAZED at how far FX & budgets had come that Trek could look that "realistic", and that cinematic. It's a far cry from bakelite props and cardboard sets. But even then who knows; people often pine for "simpler" times of slim budgeted innocence.0 -
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 34375
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ah you could argue that for any show, they all have their duds. Are we to say DS9 had bad writing because of this...
Again, who can say what writers no longer with us think? To do so is simply projection; and if one thing does hold any truth, it's that writers, directors, artists, etc. are often reluctant to dump on their fellow professionals.
Maybe DC Fontana loved Discovery, and saw past its failures, who knows? If she didn't give an opinion, it's speculation otherwise.
I wasn't stating what anyone else thinks. Your comment that perhaps "people often pine for simpler times of slim budgeted innocence", is what I was replying to; ie, the budget of a show I couldn't care less about, coherent writing is something I feel is sorely lacking re Discovery.
Perhaps DC Fontana loved Discovery, perhaps she thought it was tripe, maybe she never even watched it...we'll likely never know. Fontana certainly has her name to more than a handful episodes of Star Trek across the years, good and bad, so I'd not consider her opinion of Discovery all that important. I think the failures of Discovery are pretty well publicised at any rate, be it showrunners changing, writing teams changing, fan reaction, disjointed/confusing writing, heading for what looks like a third 'reset' in as many seasons, and so on. The only opinion regarding Discovery that matters to me, is my own, and thus far, it's been nothing but disappointing on all fronts.0 -
Ah you could argue that for any show, they all have their duds. Are we to say DS9 had bad writing because of this...
Yes
I think that's the point – they all had bad writing and bad episodes. It's easy to only remember the good stuff when you're looking back on it, but 'even' TNG was considered absolute horse-**** by many for a couple of seasons after it launched. Same with DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and now Discovery.
And that's just to say I'm not sure anyone would "turn in there graves do if they seen the JJ Trek movies or Discovery".
There's good stuff, there's bad stuff. Par for the course.0 -
Yes
DS9 hadn't got bad writing. It was the most well written, character rich show so far in the history of Star Trek. Yes, it had bad episodes, like all shows, but to generalise that by saying DS9 had bad writing is, well, kinda ridiculous. If you mean it had examples of bad writing, well yes it does, but your post very much sounds like a generalisation. Apologies if I've mistook what you wrote.I think that's the point – they all had bad writing and bad episodes. It's easy to only remember the good stuff when you're looking back on it, but 'even' TNG was considered absolute horse-**** by many for a couple of seasons after it launched. Same with DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and now Discovery.
You can't compare like for like...all previous Trek's started poorly, that I'd agree with. However, what they did do was work on character development, so by the time they got out of the 'new show rut', viewers at least had characters that were identifiable, unique, relatable, admirable, etc, in whatever one/combination you want to use. Discovery, is the Michael Burnham show. It's about to kick off with Season 3, and the sheer lack of character development for the majority of the other characters is a HUGE flaw in the approach of the show.
Yes, previous Trek's enjoyed more episodes per season, but that's all the more reason to not ignore character development. I probably couldn't name more than six characters off hand from Discovery, two seasons in. That's not good for a modern tv show. It's biggest failure for me though, is that it has no real soul or identity. All previous Star Trek shows had a core identity, which allowed the show to grow, even through the bad episodes. Discovery can't do that, because it just keeps resetting:
1) Prequel set before TOS - fine
2) Klingon War arc - ok
3) Mirror Universe arc - uh, ok, fine
4) Section 31 arc - groan
5) Red Angel arc - hmm, ok...
6) Future Timeline arc....rolleyes
^^ That's a lot of arcs for 29 episodes. Again, high ambition, very very poor execution.There's good stuff, there's bad stuff. Par for the course.
Discovery badly, badly needs some of the former.0 -
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHUg5HMkffY![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M53aE9jLdU
Advertisement