Justin Snead

Thread for helping us cope with how different Discovery will be

Recommended Posts

Can we talk about the Klingons? It certainly seems like the Klingons will be one of the changes we fans will need to cope with. DSC is shaping up to be a Klingon-centric Trek series. 

I don't care so much about the look. But I am curious about the way the species is depicted. Will they be the same TNG/DS9 Klingons? With houses and chancellors and high councils? Frankly I was bored with how one-note the Klingons became on DS9. 

TOS Klingons were genteel by comparison. I don't even know if there was enough depth to them to even get a concept of what a Klingon is. So I don't feel any need to pay homage to the TOS version. Still, I want more than just the Klingon stereotype of late Trek. What is everyone's hopes or expectations?       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Klingons have been reimagined several times in ST history; starting with their shocking new lobster-headed look in TMP and most recently in 2012's STID with the more alien-looking "Bling-ons."  This is no different.   There's nothing to cope with, other than the Klingons, once again, have changed looks.  It may or may not get an onscreen canonical explanation, but I really don't care if it does or doesn't; I look at the rich and wondrous varieties of human beings on Planet Earth and different looking Klingons really doesn't seem to be that big of a deal...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JVM   

I've thought about this a lot lately, as I recently did an analytical paper on the development of the Klingons over the course of TOS. I haven't had the pleasure of reviewing the later series much in the last few years, but I did pay special attention to each episode's portrayal of them.

I think a really important thing to note is in all of the Klingon-centric episodes, the focus was almost entirely on a commander, be it Kor, Koloth, Kang, Kras, etc. all written as basically the same character, with actor availability being the deciding factor just as makeup was a deciding factor in the Klingons graduating to recurring villains. The important thing though, is the additional Klingons usually served as little more than henchmen. Excluding Mara for obvious reasons, I believe in "Errand of Mercy" and "Day of the Dove" in particular, there's only one scene each of Klingons amongst only themselves.

I say this because I think it leads to a rather simple solution - the more familiar, bald TOS Klingons can be the commanders, with the ridged Klingons of the later series can be the warrior "caste" working behind them. The commanders are aggressive and brutal, while the warriors are more concerned with honor - perhaps even just about following orders. There is, of course, some room to mix up between the two, a ridged captain here, a bald warrior there, but I would imply that this is the usual fashion of things.

There's ways to develop this. The aggressive commanders are chosen explicitly because they can undermine the Federation and scare them, similar to theories I've heard existed before ENT - one could even connect them to the Klingon aristocracy and caste system that had been implied but muted in previous series. (Kruge as a 'Lord', reference by Spock to a 'warrior caste', etc.) You could easily develop conflict from here - warriors torn between following orders more concerned with posturing than honor, even fostering bigotry against their leadership, i.e. the conflicts from Undiscovered Country that are mostly hidden behind the curtain of mystery around Gorkon and Chang's intentions until the former's death and latter's defeat.

This allows, in my opinion, an easy way to separate and co-exist the two versions of the race in an interesting way, that remains open for future development and conflict into the society while still respecting the prime timeline's overall continuity. Featuring the two sides interacting directly in particular would open up a completely new way to see Klingon society, which up to this point has been a tad uniform, whether the portrayal is negative or positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 9, 2017 at 6:22 PM, JVM said:

I've thought about this a lot lately, as I recently did an analytical paper on the development of the Klingons over the course of TOS. I haven't had the pleasure of reviewing the later series much in the last few years, but I did pay special attention to each episode's portrayal of them.

I think a really important thing to note is in all of the Klingon-centric episodes, the focus was almost entirely on a commander, be it Kor, Koloth, Kang, Kras, etc. all written as basically the same character, with actor availability being the deciding factor just as makeup was a deciding factor in the Klingons graduating to recurring villains. The important thing though, is the additional Klingons usually served as little more than henchmen. Excluding Mara for obvious reasons, I believe in "Errand of Mercy" and "Day of the Dove" in particular, there's only one scene each of Klingons amongst only themselves.

I say this because I think it leads to a rather simple solution - the more familiar, bald TOS Klingons can be the commanders, with the ridged Klingons of the later series can be the warrior "caste" working behind them. The commanders are aggressive and brutal, while the warriors are more concerned with honor - perhaps even just about following orders. There is, of course, some room to mix up between the two, a ridged captain here, a bald warrior there, but I would imply that this is the usual fashion of things.

There's ways to develop this. The aggressive commanders are chosen explicitly because they can undermine the Federation and scare them, similar to theories I've heard existed before ENT - one could even connect them to the Klingon aristocracy and caste system that had been implied but muted in previous series. (Kruge as a 'Lord', reference by Spock to a 'warrior caste', etc.) You could easily develop conflict from here - warriors torn between following orders more concerned with posturing than honor, even fostering bigotry against their leadership, i.e. the conflicts from Undiscovered Country that are mostly hidden behind the curtain of mystery around Gorkon and Chang's intentions until the former's death and latter's defeat.

This allows, in my opinion, an easy way to separate and co-exist the two versions of the race in an interesting way, that remains open for future development and conflict into the society while still respecting the prime timeline's overall continuity. Featuring the two sides interacting directly in particular would open up a completely new way to see Klingon society, which up to this point has been a tad uniform, whether the portrayal is negative or positive.

A good theory. But honestly I not that interested in retconning Klingons. What I am interested in is how the writers intend to use the Klingons to support the series themes. Undiscovered Coutnry, TNG and DS9 all crafted their own version of Klingon society in order to tell a particular story. Im less interested in all those versions being alike, as the next version being interesting and supporting an overall thematic vision. Since we know DSC is using Undiscovered Country as a touchstone, I believe this will be the case. It also may be why they chose to make the new Klingons even more alien and scary looking: it will be easier to tell a story about fear of the other with these guys than it would the cuddly TNG era Klingons.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   

I only just realized that when I wrote in the other thread:

I had to deal with this coping business before. For the first three years of being a ST fan, I didn't know any other production existed, but TOS. When I then saw the TOS movies for the first time, it was quite some shock. Because it was a radical stylistic departure, at very least visually, from TOS. And the Klingons were basically rebooted.

But somehow, I managed to embrace the TOS movies (and TNG/DS9/VOY that followed the TOS movie style to some extent) as a part of the same universe TOS is situated in (although I still feel TWOK is too u-boatish and lacking color, so I'm a little less fond of this movie as the general consensus seems to be).

That was 27 years ago, so I had almost forgotten about it. I now take it as granted that TOS and TOS movies/TNG/DS9/VOY are the same universe.

 

It looks like DSC will be a similar visual/stylistic reimagination, much like the step from TOS to the TOS movies. So what will it depend on whether fans will embrace the show or not?

I wasn't around then yet, but I read TMP got a mixed reception from TOS fans of the first generation back then. Mostly, because the characters appeared somewhat bland, they were lacking their TOS chemistry. TWOK was then a huge success, because it eased this deficit, by elevating the triumvirate again -- so most people even overlooked its radical stylistic departure that almost bordered on a reboot. (Older fans -- correct me if I'm wrong, please! :laugh: )

So what can DSC do to preserve the "heart" of Star Trek, much like TWOK revived the Kirk/Spock/Bones chemistry?

Guess with that question stands or falls the success of DSC among old fans. Not easy to answer, because the franchise is so varied by now, perhaps many people have a different idea what the "heart" of ST is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sim said:

I wasn't around then yet, but I read TMP got a mixed reception from TOS fans of the first generation back then. Mostly, because the characters appeared somewhat bland, they were lacking their TOS chemistry. TWOK was then a huge success, because it eased this deficit, by elevating the triumvirate again -- so most people even overlooked its radical stylistic departure that almost bordered on a reboot. (Older fans -- correct me if I'm wrong, please! :laugh: )

ST fans have a long history of being irked by change; TMP had a lot of folks complaining about the lack of character chemistry, etc.   Then I remember a handful of folks back in '82 complaining that TWOK was 'too militaristic' and that the alien slugs were too violent for little ones, etc.   Both movies were big hits (yes, contrary to popular myth, TMP made a boatload of money back in 1979/80).

The difference for the complaints about format changes for DSC are largely because DSC is supposed to 'fit' in preexisting canon (somehow); TMP and TWOK didn't have that issue, as they advanced the story forward, not backward.  

Now, if TWOK were supposed to be a prequel to TMP, I think it would've caused more than a few eyebrows to be raised.   But people accepted the new uniforms (which still look overly 'costume-y' to me) and Nick Meyer's new 'nautical-but-nice' tone as just another change in the nature of Starfleet somehow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im noticing a trend in some of my limited online Trek communities: a strong thread of opposition to Discovery seems to be Not-My-Star-Trekism. Not to be too psychoanalytical, but I'm picking up on the notion that some feel as though Star Trek is leaving them behind, that Star Trek is now being produced for other people. This provokes a strong emotional reaction against Discovery. It manifests in a couple ways, but one that I've noticed is a strong desire that CBS had done a Trek set in the TNG era and style. The fact that there is a portion of fandom who are saying they think The Orville might be their preferred show over Discovery is part of the reason I think this--It's wrong to think of Orville as a TNG parody. Sure there will be jokes, but I take Seth McFarland at his word when he says he is going to tell TNG-type science fiction stories and drama. 

I do not share this view, but I recognize it's real for people and I don't think it's possible to debate this because it is an emotional decision. I do hope that all the skeptics will be won over by the final product. But if not, to each his own.            

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the transition from 1986 movie Sar Trek to 1987 TNG was not nearly as shocking or jarring as today. Discovery went for blue outfits, more like ENT. TNG had still the classic colors, with some swapped, and still used similar styles, ideas and people. The new one seems too advanced, but not too far from JJ Trek. Nowif only they had just said, this is JJ Trek TNG set some years after them, sure, it would work. It is too soon to tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Justin Snead said:

Im noticing a trend in some of my limited online Trek communities: a strong thread of opposition to Discovery seems to be Not-My-Star-Trekism. Not to be too psychoanalytical, but I'm picking up on the notion that some feel as though Star Trek is leaving them behind, that Star Trek is now being produced for other people. This provokes a strong emotional reaction against Discovery. It manifests in a couple ways, but one that I've noticed is a strong desire that CBS had done a Trek set in the TNG era and style. The fact that there is a portion of fandom who are saying they think The Orville might be their preferred show over Discovery is part of the reason I think this--It's wrong to think of Orville as a TNG parody. Sure there will be jokes, but I take Seth McFarland at his word when he says he is going to tell TNG-type science fiction stories and drama. 

I do not share this view, but I recognize it's real for people and I don't think it's possible to debate this because it is an emotional decision. I do hope that all the skeptics will be won over by the final product. But if not, to each his own.            

This hits the nail on the head. Leaving out the bigot fans now who hate on Discovery for their own personal reasons, there IS a large part of the fandom that is driven by something else entirely, and that's nostalgia. This is what you're looking at here, nostalgia at work. Those fans want their 90s Trek, they want the Trek they grew up with, and they've been demanding it ever since ENT was announced. These are the same folks who riled against the whole "this ain't your father's Star Trek" thing and who tend to either detest the Kelvin timeline OR say "it's nice for a popcorn movie but it's not Star Trek".

These folks are clinging to a past that can't be revived, no matter how much they might want for this to happen. 90s Trek was what it was, 90s Trek. CBS can't hand out another TNG, and they won't. It would sink faster than I can say Jean-Luc Picard because TNG is not a show for a modern audience. DS9 is the only show that comes close to what today's audience might want, but it just paved the way for serialized television, it's by no means as sophisticated as The Walking Dead or other heavily serialized shows. It was a BASIS, not a MODEL. But the fans want their nostalgia. They want the Trek they watched as kids, and since TNG was a huge success and brought in a lot of new fans who were either curious about the show or who were simply the children or siblings of TOS fans who watched the show with them, this particular group in the fandom is pretty big, if not THE biggest. They're all around my age by now, and I know how much my generation loves its nostalgia because we are the last (and sometimes lost) generation that grew up without technology but was slammed down by it at some early point in our teenage years and had to adjust incredibly fast to keep up because young people are always expected to keep up with things. I had a screamingly big and yellow cell phone one year, the next I had one half its size that could do twice as much as the one I had before. This is how fast things went and how we struggled to keep up because it was expected of us. We don't have a long past we can cling to, we have bits and pieces of nostalgia, and for a LOT of Trekkies around my age, 90s Trek is one of those strong bits of nostalgia. And that's why these people feel so lost and angry now that Trek has clearly moved on from the 90s Trek they grew up with. They want the feeling of wonder they had when they sat down and the intros of TNG or DS9 or VOY started. They want the shows that, back then, seemed flawless to them. They want this feeling. And Trek can no longer give it to them. Their anger is understandable if you look at it from this particular viewpoint. They want what they can't have, and Trek slams them down now, first with ENT, then the Kelvin timeline and now Discovery. To them, this is an escalating thing - ENT at least TRIED somewhat to preserve their nostalgia, the Kelvin timeline smashed it into pieces by simply being Action Trek AND now Discovery is prepared to trample even the last shreds of nostalgia that are left by being a series that has clearly been adjusted to match the taste of younger and modern audiences. These nostalgic Trekkies had high hopes for Discovery after the Kelvin timeline, a lot of them told me "I'm so glad the Kelvin timeline nightmare is over, now we get Trek on TV back, now we can get back to what Trek is really about". And then... then they got Discovery, set in an era in the prime timeline's PAST, introducing characters no one has ever heard of, it's being promoted with a tagline that mentions the word "war" and seems to be heavily action-based (don't trust trailers tho, but those fans have made up their minds). NONE of these things are what nostalgic Trekkies want to see. They want the sense of wonder back, and they're not getting it from Discovery, and that's why they're so angry and frustrated and feel so left behind.

What IS fascinating is indeed The Orville. There is this comedy series, by Seth MacFarlane, that has simple uniforms that look a lot like the TNG ones, a starship that is reminiscent of 90s Trek... and those fans run towards it, CLING to it like as if it's a lifeboat in an ocean. "I am looking forward to The Orville MUCH more than to Discovery". THAT is nostalgia at work, 100%. They recognize their 90s Trek in this comedy show, and they run towards it, love everything about it without even really knowing much. It's like MacFarlane pulled out a flag that said "want your 90s Trek? HERE!" and they just run towards it. It's a very fascinating development, and I am REALLY curious as to whether the Orville can deliver what they want. (I doubt it, but then, pessimist again.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
1 hour ago, Mr.Picard said:

This hits the nail on the head. Leaving out the bigot fans now who hate on Discovery for their own personal reasons, there IS a large part of the fandom that is driven by something else entirely, and that's nostalgia. This is what you're looking at here, nostalgia at work. Those fans want their 90s Trek, they want the Trek they grew up with, and they've been demanding it ever since ENT was announced. These are the same folks who riled against the whole "this ain't your father's Star Trek" thing and who tend to either detest the Kelvin timeline OR say "it's nice for a popcorn movie but it's not Star Trek".

These folks are clinging to a past that can't be revived, no matter how much they might want for this to happen. 90s Trek was what it was, 90s Trek. CBS can't hand out another TNG, and they won't. It would sink faster than I can say Jean-Luc Picard because TNG is not a show for a modern audience. DS9 is the only show that comes close to what today's audience might want, but it just paved the way for serialized television, it's by no means as sophisticated as The Walking Dead or other heavily serialized shows. It was a BASIS, not a MODEL. But the fans want their nostalgia. They want the Trek they watched as kids, and since TNG was a huge success and brought in a lot of new fans who were either curious about the show or who were simply the children or siblings of TOS fans who watched the show with them, this particular group in the fandom is pretty big, if not THE biggest. They're all around my age by now, and I know how much my generation loves its nostalgia because we are the last (and sometimes lost) generation that grew up without technology but was slammed down by it at some early point in our teenage years and had to adjust incredibly fast to keep up because young people are always expected to keep up with things. I had a screamingly big and yellow cell phone one year, the next I had one half its size that could do twice as much as the one I had before. This is how fast things went and how we struggled to keep up because it was expected of us. We don't have a long past we can cling to, we have bits and pieces of nostalgia, and for a LOT of Trekkies around my age, 90s Trek is one of those strong bits of nostalgia. And that's why these people feel so lost and angry now that Trek has clearly moved on from the 90s Trek they grew up with. They want the feeling of wonder they had when they sat down and the intros of TNG or DS9 or VOY started. They want the shows that, back then, seemed flawless to them. They want this feeling. And Trek can no longer give it to them. Their anger is understandable if you look at it from this particular viewpoint. They want what they can't have, and Trek slams them down now, first with ENT, then the Kelvin timeline and now Discovery. To them, this is an escalating thing - ENT at least TRIED somewhat to preserve their nostalgia, the Kelvin timeline smashed it into pieces by simply being Action Trek AND now Discovery is prepared to trample even the last shreds of nostalgia that are left by being a series that has clearly been adjusted to match the taste of younger and modern audiences. These nostalgic Trekkies had high hopes for Discovery after the Kelvin timeline, a lot of them told me "I'm so glad the Kelvin timeline nightmare is over, now we get Trek on TV back, now we can get back to what Trek is really about". And then... then they got Discovery, set in an era in the prime timeline's PAST, introducing characters no one has ever heard of, it's being promoted with a tagline that mentions the word "war" and seems to be heavily action-based (don't trust trailers tho, but those fans have made up their minds). NONE of these things are what nostalgic Trekkies want to see. They want the sense of wonder back, and they're not getting it from Discovery, and that's why they're so angry and frustrated and feel so left behind.

What IS fascinating is indeed The Orville. There is this comedy series, by Seth MacFarlane, that has simple uniforms that look a lot like the TNG ones, a starship that is reminiscent of 90s Trek... and those fans run towards it, CLING to it like as if it's a lifeboat in an ocean. "I am looking forward to The Orville MUCH more than to Discovery". THAT is nostalgia at work, 100%. They recognize their 90s Trek in this comedy show, and they run towards it, love everything about it without even really knowing much. It's like MacFarlane pulled out a flag that said "want your 90s Trek? HERE!" and they just run towards it. It's a very fascinating development, and I am REALLY curious as to whether the Orville can deliver what they want. (I doubt it, but then, pessimist again.)

Personally, I have not read from a single fan who wants DSC to be "like 90s Trek". But then, I don't use Twitter and for Trek related stuff, this is site is almost my exclusive source. :P

What I would have preferred, though, is the same kind of leap as TNG did to depart from TOS in 1987. "Star Trek: The Third Generation", so to speak.

The obvious choice would have been a show that's situated at least as many years after TNG/DS9/VOY as TNG was situated after TOS.

I was looking for something truly NEW, rather than another rehash of a previous era, a "boldly going where no one has gone before", rather than "timidly going back to where we've been a million times already".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If DSC offered nothing new or fresh, it would have no reason to exist.  I look forward to what's NEW about it, rather than what's the same...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
1 hour ago, Sehlat Vie said:

If DSC offered nothing new or fresh, it would have no reason to exist.  I look forward to what's NEW about it, rather than what's the same...

Yeah despite the familiar TOS era setting, I guess we'll at least get a very new (to Trek) storytelling approach... full serialization, longer character arcs etc. 

Looking forward to that!

14 hours ago, Chimera82405 said:

I think the transition from 1986 movie Sar Trek to 1987 TNG was not nearly as shocking or jarring as today. Discovery went for blue outfits, more like ENT. TNG had still the classic colors, with some swapped, and still used similar styles, ideas and people. The new one seems too advanced, but not too far from JJ Trek. Nowif only they had just said, this is JJ Trek TNG set some years after them, sure, it would work. It is too soon to tell.

Well visually at least, we got a very big break between TOS and TMP... and then again between TMP and TWOK. So the leap between TWOK/TSFS/TVH and TNG was, visually, not that big.

But that first visual reboot was kind of mitigated by the same actors playing the same characters, I guess.

But the tone and style of the stories made IMO quite a leap between TNG and what came before. It proved that ST is more than Kirk and Spock and works well without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of a conversation I witnessed recently. It was basically an old school 90s TNG Trek fan ranting about how Discovery had nothing in common with the "real Star Trek" (meaning the 90s Trek HE grew up with) and how it would have to change this and that (look less modern, more thoughtful, more aliens of the week, make the Klingons look like TNG Klingons, etc etc), and someone then asked him "what do you want, the same old stories of TNG?!"

The guy then simply replied "Yes, that's exactly what I want".

So... there IS an audience there that wants the very same 90s Trek (also indicated by the fact that a LOT of those 90s Trek fans are asking for Berman to come back to the franchise - ironically many of them are part of the same bunch that boo'ed him and Braga off the Trek stage after Nemesis and Enterprise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
2 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

This reminds me of a conversation I witnessed recently. It was basically an old school 90s TNG Trek fan ranting about how Discovery had nothing in common with the "real Star Trek" (meaning the 90s Trek HE grew up with) and how it would have to change this and that (look less modern, more thoughtful, more aliens of the week, make the Klingons look like TNG Klingons, etc etc), and someone then asked him "what do you want, the same old stories of TNG?!"

The guy then simply replied "Yes, that's exactly what I want".

So... there IS an audience there that wants the very same 90s Trek (also indicated by the fact that a LOT of those 90s Trek fans are asking for Berman to come back to the franchise - ironically many of them are part of the same bunch that boo'ed him and Braga off the Trek stage after Nemesis and Enterprise).

Part of me understands that sentiment... but I realize 90s style tv no longer works today.

That said, I wouldn't mind a *progression* of the 90s formula that feels somewhat "organic", if that makes any sense.

Like IMO TNG was a kind of natural progression from TOS... and DS9 took what TNG had established and took it even a step further. With full serialization and all, that could be just that.

Too bad the timeline of the show won't reflect this progression... but ah, let's see how DSC will be.

As for 90s Trek and its characters? Even if an entire show of that kind wouldn't work...  the nostalgic in me doesn't see what would be so terribly bad about something limited, a miniseries or a tv movie or two... especially, say, a TNG tv movie, since NEM was really not such a great farewell for the TNG cast imo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one complaint a lot of fans have - Discovery isn't moving forward. It's difficult to sell a show that progresses into a show that was shot in the 60s. ENT had the very same problem. And yet Discovery is trying to do the same, with the latest remarks indicating that "we will see how TOS emerges, but the times are far more troubled in Discovery", etc etc. This is so similar to what ENT tried to do with the Xindi arc that I just cringe when I read it because all I can think is "have they learned NOTHING from ENT at all". I'm not with the whiny naysayers (or with the hyped enthusiasts who love every single bit they see) but I can understand some of their complaints, and this one is one of them.

As for the nostalgic ones... what they want is "my Star Trek", which was a Star Trek that was done during a specific era, an era that can't and won't return. It's only natural that TNG, DS9 and VOY had roughly the same ideas and structures and that there was an increasing amount of "wait, didn't we see this plot before" episodes - they were all roughly in one decade. But this is now. Many years later. A completely changed audience later. Even if we had a series set centuries after Nemesis the change would still be as glaring as the one Discovery has now - but, granted, it WOULD be more believable because the show would be set in Trek's future, not the past - but I can already hear the complaints anyway: "this isn't even close to the future I imagined!" "why did they do this, it makes no sense" "why doesn't the ship look like a very advanced Enterprise", etc etc etc - it would STILL not be what the nostalgic folks want.

Justin is right - they DO feel abandoned and alienated by Star Trek because they don't want to let go of the Trek they love. They want slight little changes, but nothing too glaring. Speaking in Trek history terms: They want the changes that occured from TNG to DS9 or from DS9 to VOY, and what they're getting is like the shocking change from TOS to TNG, and it's no wonder their reactions so much mirror the ones the TOS fans had when TNG came about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
11 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

That's one complaint a lot of fans have - Discovery isn't moving forward. It's difficult to sell a show that progresses into a show that was shot in the 60s. ENT had the very same problem. And yet Discovery is trying to do the same, with the latest remarks indicating that "we will see how TOS emerges, but the times are far more troubled in Discovery", etc etc. This is so similar to what ENT tried to do with the Xindi arc that I just cringe when I read it because all I can think is "have they learned NOTHING from ENT at all". I'm not with the whiny naysayers (or with the hyped enthusiasts who love every single bit they see) but I can understand some of their complaints, and this one is one of them.

As for the nostalgic ones... what they want is "my Star Trek", which was a Star Trek that was done during a specific era, an era that can't and won't return. It's only natural that TNG, DS9 and VOY had roughly the same ideas and structures and that there was an increasing amount of "wait, didn't we see this plot before" episodes - they were all roughly in one decade. But this is now. Many years later. A completely changed audience later. Even if we had a series set centuries after Nemesis the change would still be as glaring as the one Discovery has now - but, granted, it WOULD be more believable because the show would be set in Trek's future, not the past - but I can already hear the complaints anyway: "this isn't even close to the future I imagined!" "why did they do this, it makes no sense" "why doesn't the ship look like a very advanced Enterprise", etc etc etc - it would STILL not be what the nostalgic folks want.

Justin is right - they DO feel abandoned and alienated by Star Trek because they don't want to let go of the Trek they love. They want slight little changes, but nothing too glaring. Speaking in Trek history terms: They want the changes that occured from TNG to DS9 or from DS9 to VOY, and what they're getting is like the shocking change from TOS to TNG, and it's no wonder their reactions so much mirror the ones the TOS fans had when TNG came about.

Funny thing is that another franchise which was huge in the 90s does just that (pandering to nostalgia) -- "The X-Files".

The new mini-season we got two winters ago was basically the very old 90s formula, with next to no changes -- even season 8 and 9 back in the early 2000s departed more from the original X-Files formula than the 2016 miniseries did.

And granted, it perhaps didn't win many new fans, and the reception of critics was mixed -- BUT is was a huge success, it gave FOX so good ratings they ordered another season. And for me personally, it absolutely worked too, although I admit that its alpha and omega was the nostalgia factor... but I perfectly enjoyed the new (mini) season.

 

While I don't think Star Trek could adopt just this approach, remake 90s Trek, because if it's supposed to truly restart the franchise rather than just pandering to a very limited number of 90s fans for a limited revival -- that makes me think we're maybe too quick by discarding the nostalgia of fans. This very nostalgia can commercially be very successful, if done well. Maybe it's even less risky taking just that as a starting point, and only slowly venture into new territory -- rather than thoroughly revamping the entire thing from scratch.

So... maybe it wouldn't have been the worst idea to place the show 30 years after NEM, feature a couple of TNG or DS9 guest characters at the beginning, pump up the nostalgia and pick up the 90s fans -- only to then let the new thing fly on its own, slowly? I don't know.

But alas, too late for that.

 

Anyway, "The X-Files" recent miniseries success makes me think that even 90s nostalgia can well make a limited revival a (commercial) success. So even when I think Star Trek should boldly go forward -- I really wouldn't mind a tv movie or miniseries event for just the segment of 90s nostalgia fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok one thing needs to be said ...

The complaints need to be compartmentalized. I notice there is this broad brush approach when it comes to nay sayers. There is a distinct difference between the critics that are unreasonable and ones that are reasonable. I understand to all critics - their particular reasoning is reasonable, but some common sense can be applied here.

  1. The people who want this to look exactly like The Cage.
    • A story with those poor graphics, poor alien make up, poor set designs, etc. is not feasible in the 21st century on television or movies. Not unless this was meant to be specifically retro and it isn't.
  2. The people who want fan film quality of reproducing old Trek. "If Youtube videos can do it ... why can't a studio?".
    • Because they don't want to reproduce a TOS clone (or so they say). They can't just do the continuing adventures of Kirk staring random Youtube personalities. It's the equivalent of children saying "I'm good at role playing Star Trek on my front porch with my friends. Why can't we be actors in your show?" ... not feasible
  3. I've never seen this, but supposedly there are fans that want Trek to be a niche thing. Their thing. They don't want to lose it. "Not my Star Trek -itus".
    • Well ... this complaint is poor, because Star Trek doesn't belong to any of us. And this mindset would be the death of Star Trek. TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT are all gone and ended. If no new Trek is acceptable, then trek dies.
    • But one thing I will say ... I fully understand and support the mindset of "Not my Star Trek" when it comes to mind numbing explosions, mind numbing action, mind numbing doomsday plots. Yes, the original Treks had moments of that but it wasn't all about that. The reason Star Trek rose to fame was its morality tales. Not because of how cool it looked when a plastic toy Enterprise on strings fired phasers at a giant cone-shaped monster that ate starships. Sorry but that's the truth. If Star Trek loses that (I'm not saying it is with DSC) then that isn't my Star Trek.
  4. The people that want TNG-redux. Apparently, there is this idea that fans want the continuing adventures of elderly versions of the characters we grew up. I'm sure some fans want to see the stories conclude but I don't see this often.
    • This is a poor idea because most of the actors don't want to commit to another series. Their stories are ended. The studios and writers want a fresh group with fresh stories. Going back to the TNG era cast is, to me, the equivalent of going back to the TOS one. Their time has come and gone. (unless you pull an Abrams ....) If we want to find out what happened to Bajor, VOY-after-Earth, Picard, etc. Read the books or play Trek Online.

Having said all of that ....

I am a very cautious critic of DSC. I am not unreasonable, because I keep saying I want to try DSC and I hope it succeeds. That is literally the opposite of someone that cannot see reason. Again - that doesn't mean I have to lap up everything this show throws out with no criticism.

When I say I want a post-TNG era show - that does not mean I want more TNG/DS9/VOY. That is literally not at all what I am saying. It's not even close. It means I want to go beyond the TNG-era. Not stay in it. In fact - I am the one that wants more serialized Star Trek. The opposite of what that era was. If I am saying I want a jump into the future - that means new uniforms, new ships, new alien races, new characters. Everything is new. New ... but free from the constraints of the TOS time period. Why is this such a big deal?

How does that mean that I "can't let go" and want Star Trek to stay with what I grew up with in the 90s? DS9, while semi-serialized, is not what I have in mind. I mean serialized like Game of Thrones. As in events leading into the other. Recurring characters. etc. Maybe with some episodes that are random one-offs. But I don't want "planet/anomaly of the week" episodes.

Again .... that is the opposite of "Some people just can't let go ...." I want more Trek fans. I don't want Trek to be just "mine". I love the idea that Trek is a global phenomena.

As for the argument of "Even if the studios did everything "right" and jumped in the future.... fans would still hate it." So? Trek fans, like Star Wars fans, love to complain and scrutinize their respective universes. So do Game of Thrones fans. Lord of the Rings fans. etc. etc. etc. It's what we do.

That doesn't mean all criticism is unreasonable or not worth paying attention to.

If we critics are to be analyzed ... let's make sure we understand what people are complaining about. Don't lump some of us with people that want jellybean buttons and construction paper sets ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are indeed a lot of different groups of critics. The 90s nostalgia fans are also split into different sub-groups whose arguments range from "I want for Discovery to be an evolved form of 90s Trek" to "I want a show EXACTLY like TNG". What they have in common is their wish for Trek to be like the one they grew up with, to varying degrees. (And they argue with each other as well on a regular basis - it starts with the basics already, such as WHICH 90s Trek show they're basing their arguments on.)

I do long for a day on which fans just WAIT for something to actually AIR and THEN start complaining about the stuff they didn't like but I guess that's impossible for any fandom indeed (and pretty much why I don't get involved too much). ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

I do long for a day on which fans just WAIT for something to actually AIR and THEN start complaining about the stuff they didn't like but I guess that's impossible for any fandom indeed (and pretty much why I don't get involved too much). ;) 

There is an alternate universe where all of us are Vulcans and logic dictates we wait for a t.v. show to air BEFORE judging it. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Founder said:

There is an alternate universe where all of us are Vulcans and logic dictates we wait for a t.v. show to air BEFORE judging it. :P

Please take me there :laugh: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
2 hours ago, Mr.Picard said:

There are indeed a lot of different groups of critics. The 90s nostalgia fans are also split into different sub-groups whose arguments range from "I want for Discovery to be an evolved form of 90s Trek" to "I want a show EXACTLY like TNG". What they have in common is their wish for Trek to be like the one they grew up with, to varying degrees. (And they argue with each other as well on a regular basis - it starts with the basics already, such as WHICH 90s Trek show they're basing their arguments on.)

Well I want the new Star Trek show to be recognizable as Star Trek, if that's what you mean by "wanting it as the one I grew up with" when I say "progression" 

If it isn't, there is just no point in calling it "Star Trek". :P

2 hours ago, Mr.Picard said:

I do long for a day on which fans just WAIT for something to actually AIR and THEN start complaining about the stuff they didn't like but I guess that's impossible for any fandom indeed (and pretty much why I don't get involved too much). ;) 

Amen! 

And please don't take my moaning about DSC as an indication for rejection of the show. In fact, I'm very excited and curious about DSC and pretty sure I won't hate it, if it's halfway decently done... all nitpicking aside. :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything I've seen of DSC this week has me very excited.  I'm going into it with ST-style optimism.  As for the naysayers?  They're entitled to their opinions, of course, but they don't have to watch.  And if they don't watch, then their opinions aren't worth a nickel to me.

Most of the complaints I hear are from the 'I don't wanna pay for it' camp.  To that I say, how many of them paid to see the last three ST movies?  Or how many of them (like me) pay huge cable bills every month?  

News flash: you've been paying to see ST for a long time.  The cost of a couple cups of coffee a month aren't going to break the bank, I think.  If it does?  Then that person has far more pressing issues at hand than how to watch new ST....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sehlat Vie said:

Most of the complaints I hear are from the 'I don't wanna pay for it' camp.  To that I say, how many of them paid to see the last three ST movies?  Or how many of them (like me) pay huge cable bills every month?  

This.

They just want it on something they ALREADY pay for, like Netflix. And that's fine as a notion in and of itself, but, invariably, when they go off on this tangent, there's a tangible and unseemly sense of entitlement that goes with it. Like they're just...owed Star Trek in return for their fandom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sim   
2 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

Everything I've seen of DSC this week has me very excited.  I'm going into it with ST-style optimism.  As for the naysayers?  They're entitled to their opinions, of course, but they don't have to watch.  And if they don't watch, then their opinions aren't worth a nickel to me.

Most of the complaints I hear are from the 'I don't wanna pay for it' camp.  To that I say, how many of them paid to see the last three ST movies?  Or how many of them (like me) pay huge cable bills every month?  

News flash: you've been paying to see ST for a long time.  The cost of a couple cups of coffee a month aren't going to break the bank, I think.  If it does?  Then that person has far more pressing issues at hand than how to watch new ST....

Yes I agree ... $6/month really isn't all that much, if you *really* want new Star Trek. I'm very glad it'll be on Netflix over here, so I don't have this problem, though.

That said ... IIRC, someone explained to me that in many American regions, broadband internet required for CBSAA is simply not available. So for some people, it's not a matter of not wanting to pay $6/month, but even if they did, they couldn't watch the show. That's a complaint I understand.

But then, I assume a DVD/BD release will take place too, so these people can watch the show after all, after a couple of months ... but I understand waiting that long would be annoying, at least for genuine fans. But IIRC, that isn't new either ... wasn't UPN unavailable in quite a few regions either, back in the 90s? At least back then, you could ask people living elsewhere to send you VHS recordings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sim said:

That said ... IIRC, someone explained to me that in many American regions, broadband internet required for CBSAA is simply not available

I can, too, and it is an issue. But I don't see this as often as I see that people just wanting it on Netflix.

26 minutes ago, Sim said:

Yes I agree ... $6/month really isn't all that much, if you *really* want new Star Trek. I'm very glad it'll be on Netflix over here, so I don't have this problem, though.

That said ... IIRC, someone explained to me that in many American regions, broadband internet required for CBSAA is simply not available. So for some people, it's not a matter of not wanting to pay $6/month, but even if they did, they couldn't watch the show. That's a complaint I understand.

But then, I assume a DVD/BD release will take place too, so these people can watch the show after all, after a couple of months ... but I understand waiting that long would be annoying, at least for genuine fans. But IIRC, that isn't new either ... wasn't UPN unavailable in quite a few regions either, back in the 90s? At least back then, you could ask people living elsewhere to send you VHS recordings...

This is true. UPN only had something like 60-70% coverage, so Paramount sold it into syndication in markets they couldn't reach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now