Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I dunno, I've always liked the various Mirror Universe stories, both in the shows and the books, but I'm a sucker for any sort of 'what it?' situation that deals with different takes on familiar characters.

My only real issue with the Mirror Universe is that I liked the 'original' Captain Georgiou better than the MU version that we wound up with as a permanent fixture.

Mirror Universe I love - its so much fun to watch.

Some of the Discovery stuff was ok - the Emperor is good fun - but even the Mirror universe seemed to revolve around Burnham.

A much better and far more interesting universe for me would be one where Burnham was killed in the first episode after starting the war and the show moved on from there.

I watched season 3x01 earlier and to be honest, I'm kinda mixed...

Like, a whole chunk of the early part of it was just, well, urgh. It was like they were trying to do Firefly by way of Star Wars and not really succeeding at it at all. - I note the smuggler called himself 'Book' and seemed to be a shephard...

Although drugged Burnham did make me think I want to watch the actress in literally any other show... In that incoherent babble of sloppy writing that tried to sound deep, she showed an absolutely amazing acting range.

I'd also like to note the Star Trek: Burnham comments as, it was called Star Trek: Discovery, that didn't have the Discovery in it...

But onto the good parts. Honestly the last chunk of the episode was great, pretty much everything after the beastie showed up. From there to the ending I honestly really enjoyed and I don't really know what to say more than that. It seems like a really good premise that could be a lot like the old 'Andromeda' TV show, but, you know, actually done well...

Maybe.

So yeah, mixed opinions on it, but considering 2x01 was like everything I hated about Discovery condensed into one episode, 3x01 is a huge great step up.

 insaniak wrote:
My only real issue with the Mirror Universe is that I liked the 'original' Captain Georgiou better than the MU version that we wound up with as a permanent fixture.

Each to their own I guess. Emperor Georgiou is my fav character on the show, and Michelle Yeoh looks like she's having so much fun with the role.

Oh yeah, she's clearly having a ball. I'm not sure what it is, though, but Emperor Georgiou just gets irritating in large doses.

Willing to see how she develops, though... they were starting to show some glimpses of a less generic-story-book-villain character for her by the end of season 2.

We weren't sure what to watch last night so decided on TNG since we haven't sat down with that for months. Settled on I, Borg. What a refreshing hour of tv. Characters you care about dealing with a wartime moral quandary all without a weapon ever being fired or any hint of action. We will probably never see that from Star Trek again.

Wouldn't be amazing if people made new IPs instead of mutilating pre-existing ones in a blatant cash grab?

ENT and DIS should have never been made. I can only think of a handful of prequels that were done well (and one of them is a bloody children's book).

 trexmeyer wrote:
Wouldn't be amazing if people made new IPs instead of mutilating pre-existing ones in a blatant cash grab?

ENT and DIS should have never been made. I can only think of a handful of prequels that were done well (and one of them is a bloody children's book).

Ssssooooooooo... Next Gen and Deep Space 9 should also have never been made because those weren’t original IP either?

The problem with Enterprise wasn't that it was a prequel, it was that it was dull, and (from what little I watched of it) focused too heavily on Archer, with the rest of the crew being cardboard cutouts.

Likewise, Discovery's main problem is with focusing so heavily on the least interesting member of the crew, although it's not to the same extent as Enterprise.

Of course, there are also the continuity issues that arise from both shows, but Star Trek continuity has always been rather flexible, where it suits whoever happens to be in charge at the time.

 AduroT wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Wouldn't be amazing if people made new IPs instead of mutilating pre-existing ones in a blatant cash grab?

ENT and DIS should have never been made. I can only think of a handful of prequels that were done well (and one of them is a bloody children's book).

Ssssooooooooo... Next Gen and Deep Space 9 should also have never been made because those weren’t original IP either?

The thing is sometimes a franchise is used simply because its there and popular. DS9 and TNG and Voyager and I'd say Enterprise tried, were all mostly built upon the back of Star Trek. Some of the newer series and those new films were all trying and wanting to do different things and different takes on the formula, but didn't want to stick to the original stories. So they invent ways to do whatever they want within the franchise - like alternate time lines and such. Some of it has been done before (which to old fans feels like recycling*) and some is just taking small bits and extending them from one episode to a whole series or film. Sometimes it works, sometimes it feels like they wanted to make something else; knew they wouldn't get the budget and so slapped ST onto the title.


*such as the Picard and Data elements of the latter 2 TNG films which felt like they were treading old ground we'd seen in the TV series and even in First Contact.

Disco and Picard are both relatively young shows.

Whilst I enjoy Disco, the first two season were quite disjointed, as if it couldn’t quite make up its mind what it wanted to be. And I do get the Burnham criticism.

Picard? The first season had the job of if not colouring in, at least sketching out whats happened in the intervening two or three decades, whilst also providing a plot for Picard.

Disco? Season 3 is make or break for me. First episode showed promise, so I’m hopeful.

Picard? Too early to fairly judge.

And remember, TNG and DS9 took a while to find their feet and really get going.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Wouldn't be amazing if people made new IPs instead of mutilating pre-existing ones in a blatant cash grab?

ENT and DIS should have never been made. I can only think of a handful of prequels that were done well (and one of them is a bloody children's book).

You could say the same about TNG, DS9 and VOY (some people would likely agree with VOY!). At least ENT was dealing with a time period and themes that ST had previously not really visited and it left them enough room to build something of their own due to the time period they chose. ENT's problem was more with the execution than the idea, I think. In the case of DIS I think both are fundamentally flawed. The ST IP is a varied and expansive universe for writers to explore but they chose probably the most restrictive set-up they could have, in a clumsy attempt to cash-in on nostalgia. By setting DIS so close to TOS they wrote themselves into a corner before they even started and it only got worse when we find out Burnham is Spock's sister, which just highlights how ham-fisted everything about the creation of the show was.

The only thing so far that has saved DIS are the performances of Jason Isaacs and Anson Mount, along with Michelle Yeoh having more fun than everyone else put together.

It is a little weird, with the story they wanted to tell, that they went with making it a prequel. It could as easily have been set post - Voyager, where the technology level would have made more sense, and the Klingon war turned into a face off with a new civilisation, or a Cardassian resurgence, or even a Klingon off-shoot. And Anson Mount would have been just as cool as Captain Newcharacter of the Enterprise F or G instead...

for what it's worth my sister told me she's become a fan of discovery, it's the first trek series she's really watched so it does seem to bring in new people. *shrugs*

just for the record my sister is mid thirties and isn't "girly" at all. we routinely swap book and movie reccomendations

Two people who love Star Trek talking about Star Trek:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Two people who love Star Trek talking about Star Trek:

I think they legalized recreational drugs in Wisconsin between this video and the previous ones in the series; some of those choices were on my least favorite list! That said... holy crap was Ashley Judd gorgeous back then.

Just finished Lower Decks.

My opinion that it's by far the best thing to come out of Star Trek in years, if not almost a couple decades, remains firm

Haven't caught the new Discovery however, I'll have to get to that at some point.

 AduroT wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Wouldn't be amazing if people made new IPs instead of mutilating pre-existing ones in a blatant cash grab?

ENT and DIS should have never been made. I can only think of a handful of prequels that were done well (and one of them is a bloody children's book).

Ssssooooooooo... Next Gen and Deep Space 9 should also have never been made because those weren’t original IP either?

Moving forward in the timeline so long as you remain true to the spirit of the IP isn't a bad thing by itself. Prequels basically never work out well. Even the Star Wars prequels are an incoherent mess that IMO adds nothing to the OT despite Lucas being the creator of both.

And to be fair, while I really love DS9, I also think it is such a departure from TOS that I would not disagree with anyone who argues it isn't true Star Trek. The jump from TOS to DS9 is so jarring as to be comparable to the difference between the original BSG and the re-imagining.
VOY and TNG fit in with TOS much better.

IMO, a prequel isn't necessarily an inherently bad thing.

Where I think a show like ENT went wrong was that it was far, far too easy for fans of previous iterations of the show to say "X character is just a copy of Y character from previous show Z"

T'Pol was some weird mesh of 7 of 9 and Spock. Trip was merely white/southern Geordi LaForge/Scotty, etc. etc.

Personally, when I watch DIS, I rather like that the characters can't really exactly be put so cleanly into that type of box. Saru is largely unlike other Trek characters we've had in the past. . . Sure, Tilly may have a bit of that "shut up, Wesley!!" thing going on for her, but she's generally this fun and lovable character to see.

Also, IMHO, the whole idea of "this isn't TRUE star trek" is a bunch of BS. . . . if the writers have the license, and there are starfleet uniforms in a UFP setting, guess what, it's Star Trek. . . . Frankly, it isn't all sunshine and roses, which I definitely appreciated some kind of depiction of the klingon war, as up to that point, we'd only had the most vague of mentions of it. And I get that DS9 has a large focus on the Dominion War without really depicting a full on war (like say, a band of brothers type show would do), so it still accomplished much the same thing: depicting times where the sun is gone and the roses are trampled.

By your logic, The Star Wars Holiday Special should also be considered part of the Star Wars canon.

I don't believe I said that prequels are inherently bad, but they are much harder to write and most writing across all genres is mediocre.

I think the single biggest issue is that if the world is well defined then much of the prequel is already revealed. I'll use Star Wars as the example because it is simpler to examine than Star Trek.

The audience already knows that Palpatine will take control of the Republic, destroy the Jedi (along with Vader), and transform the Republic into the Galactic Empire.
The audience also knows that Anakin will be trained by Obi-Wan, will engage in a sexual relationship with some woman (nothing in the OT establishes that is necessarily romantic, but that is a safe assumption), will fall to the dark side, and become Darth Vader.

At a high level, that is all the prequels cover. So we're left with how does this happen not what will happen. I'll go out on a limb here, but I think most speculative fiction, at least for film and movies, is focused on hooking in the audience with an interesting premise and then baits them along with what happens next. The how part of the process becomes secondary. Prequels don't have this luxury, they frequently live in the how, and if they fail there then...I guess all that's left is the hope for strong character development.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I don't believe I said that prequels are inherently bad, but they are much harder to write and most writing across all genres is mediocre.

I think the single biggest issue is that if the world is well defined then much of the prequel is already revealed. I'll use Star Wars as the example because it is simpler to examine than Star Trek.

The audience already knows that Palpatine will take control of the Republic, destroy the Jedi (along with Vader), and transform the Republic into the Galactic Empire.
The audience also knows that Anakin will be trained by Obi-Wan, will engage in a sexual relationship with some woman (nothing in the OT establishes that is necessarily romantic, but that is a safe assumption), will fall to the dark side, and become Darth Vader.

At a high level, that is all the prequels cover. So we're left with how does this happen not what will happen. I'll go out on a limb here, but I think most speculative fiction, at least for film and movies, is focused on hooking in the audience with an interesting premise and then baits them along with what happens next. The how part of the process becomes secondary. Prequels don't have this luxury, they frequently live in the how, and if they fail there then...I guess all that's left is the hope for strong character development.

I dunno, there's plenty of intreast in "how did it happen" a good prequal is about the journy rather then the destination. and people are certainly intreasted in it. part of the problem with a prequal is ensuring intreast, without going so off base that the fans are angry

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
By your logic, The Star Wars Holiday Special should also be considered part of the Star Wars canon.

It certainly will be if Cavan Scott gets his way...

Personally, when I watch DIS, I rather like that the characters can't really exactly be put so cleanly into that type of box. Saru is largely unlike other Trek characters we've had in the past. . . Sure, Tilly may have a bit of that "shut up, Wesley!!" thing going on for her, but she's generally this fun and lovable character to see.

There are potentially interesting characters in Discovery but sadly they seldom get screen time or development as this has all been reserved from Burnham and Tilly.

Brunham is such a awfully written character - hey look I am the best at everything on the ship - science, flying, tactics, fighting and oh everyone and the entire universe itself revolves around me/worships me nearly as much as the writers apparently do - the most self absorbed child could not come up with a worse concept.

Tilly is a bit better - her personaility is a quite fun but sadly if she was in Southpark she would be called "Token Fat" because of course she is the only person in the entire show thats overweight - and lets face it Scotty covered this aspect in the later films

Everyone else is just there to ask Burnham stupid questions and/or be shown that Burnham can do their job better.

Brunham is such a awfully written character - hey look I am the best at everything on the ship - science, flying, tactics, fighting and oh everyone and the entire universe itself revolves around me/worships me nearly as much as the writers apparently do - the most self absorbed child could not come up with a worse concept.

Whatever things DIS does right, it does them right in spite of Burnham dragging the entire concept down like an anchor. There's a lot of things I can nit pick about DIS, but ultimately Burnham is why I stopped watching and relegated it to the trash heap.

She really is like a character straight out of a bad fanfiction. And it's kind of funny too, because the kind of character Burnham is is generally popular in other media right now. Hyper-competent women characters are very much all the rage, but in Star Trek she stands out like a sore thumb for being too competent and too special, evoking the fandom's extremely close familiarity with A Trekkie's Tale and Mary Sue characters. She's not the first in the franchise, but she is easily the worst just because the entire show revolves around her in increasingly absurd ways.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Tilly is a bit better - her personaility is a quite fun but sadly if she was in Southpark she would be called "Token Fat" because of course she is the only person in the entire show thats overweight - and lets face it Scotty covered this aspect in the later films

With all due respect to James Doohan (and there is lots of respect due), he did not hide it particularly well.

I have no particular issues with author intent when it comes to determining what is or is not canon, especially when it comes to new people picking up a property after a gap in production. I feel strongly that the reader/viewer should approach each series, or even each episode, as its own work that pulls from an established mythology. Sometimes they are more consistent with each other, sometimes not.

There's a three-episode arc in Enterprise where they're on their way to Risa and they keep getting delayed. That's a nice touch of continuity between the different episodes, but each are different in tone and execution. I like those business-as-usual kind of arcs.

 LordofHats wrote:

Brunham is such a awfully written character - hey look I am the best at everything on the ship - science, flying, tactics, fighting and oh everyone and the entire universe itself revolves around me/worships me nearly as much as the writers apparently do - the most self absorbed child could not come up with a worse concept.

Whatever things DIS does right, it does them right in spite of Burnham dragging the entire concept down like an anchor. There's a lot of things I can nit pick about DIS, but ultimately Burnham is why I stopped watching and relegated it to the trash heap.

She really is like a character straight out of a bad fanfiction. And it's kind of funny too, because the kind of character Burnham is is generally popular in other media right now. Hyper-competent women characters are very much all the rage, but in Star Trek she stands out like a sore thumb for being too competent and too special, evoking the fandom's extremely close familiarity with A Trekkie's Tale and Mary Sue characters. She's not the first in the franchise, but she is easily the worst just because the entire show revolves around her in increasingly absurd ways.

Comparing her to other hyper-competent Trek characters is quite revealing. The three that fit most into that niche would be, I think, Spock, Data and Seven and all three of those, while being probably more knowledgeable and competent in many areas, even compared to the other experts on the ship (particularly the latter two), have character flaws or disadvantages holding them back. For all three a lack of understanding of emotional issues and the nuances of interactions between people causes problems and they also tend to lack the ability to "think outside the box". It's unlikely that Data, for all his obvious advantages, would ever have become a Captain, for example. It's also worth noting all three of those have solid reasons for their extreme competence which stems from them not being human (or not any more in the case of Seven), and therefore having abilities outside the norm for our experiences.

Compare to Burnham, who gets to be the expert at everything, while also having none of those drawbacks and no real explanation behind her competence. On top of that, she's somehow central to everything that happens up to and including a massive war written into the timeline specifically to service her character and a potential universe-ending catastrophe that only her biological parents - and then her - can prevent, but only after she's reconciled with her estranged brother...one of the most beloved characters in the whole of Star Trek. Would it really have been such a hardship for the writers to maybe not connect the Red Angel directly to Burnham, for example? Would that have made the plot any less meaningful? Here's a thought, maybe they could have had it have some minor relevance to one of the other crew members?

Just her being Spock's adopted sister is enough justification to write off the character and the show. The fact he never mentioned her is secondary. He never mentioned a lot of things.

My issue with it is twofold. They're shrinking the universe with these forced connections and it's a lazy ploy to draw in viewers.

Did anyone in TNG have a connection to anyone from TOS? I don't remember anything of that sort.

In DS9, Sisko was at Wolf 359, but so were many other Starfleet ships. Jadzia Dax had been Curzon Dax and Curzon was buddies with the Klingon Three Musketeers of TOS. I'm not a fan of Jadzia or Dax, but at least this relationship was between secondary characters. Worf and Miles were brought over from the Enterprise, but the in-universe justification made sense. For Miles it was just a transfer and Worf had connections in the Klingon Empire that were needed. Both were also secondary characters that were developed much more on DS9. It's not as if Sisko was Picard's foster brother.

VOY had the Maquis carryover from DS9, but the Maquis were a tertiary faction.

I don't know about ENT because I couldn't watch stand it for more than a handful of episodes. The male actors were grating.

Slipspace wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

Brunham is such a awfully written character - hey look I am the best at everything on the ship - science, flying, tactics, fighting and oh everyone and the entire universe itself revolves around me/worships me nearly as much as the writers apparently do - the most self absorbed child could not come up with a worse concept.

Whatever things DIS does right, it does them right in spite of Burnham dragging the entire concept down like an anchor. There's a lot of things I can nit pick about DIS, but ultimately Burnham is why I stopped watching and relegated it to the trash heap.

She really is like a character straight out of a bad fanfiction. And it's kind of funny too, because the kind of character Burnham is is generally popular in other media right now. Hyper-competent women characters are very much all the rage, but in Star Trek she stands out like a sore thumb for being too competent and too special, evoking the fandom's extremely close familiarity with A Trekkie's Tale and Mary Sue characters. She's not the first in the franchise, but she is easily the worst just because the entire show revolves around her in increasingly absurd ways.

Comparing her to other hyper-competent Trek characters is quite revealing. The three that fit most into that niche would be, I think, Spock, Data and Seven and all three of those, while being probably more knowledgeable and competent in many areas, even compared to the other experts on the ship (particularly the latter two), have character flaws or disadvantages holding them back. For all three a lack of understanding of emotional issues and the nuances of interactions between people causes problems and they also tend to lack the ability to "think outside the box". It's unlikely that Data, for all his obvious advantages, would ever have become a Captain, for example. It's also worth noting all three of those have solid reasons for their extreme competence which stems from them not being human (or not any more in the case of Seven), and therefore having abilities outside the norm for our experiences.

Compare to Burnham, who gets to be the expert at everything, while also having none of those drawbacks and no real explanation behind her competence. On top of that, she's somehow central to everything that happens up to and including a massive war written into the timeline specifically to service her character and a potential universe-ending catastrophe that only her biological parents - and then her - can prevent, but only after she's reconciled with her estranged brother...one of the most beloved characters in the whole of Star Trek. Would it really have been such a hardship for the writers to maybe not connect the Red Angel directly to Burnham, for example? Would that have made the plot any less meaningful? Here's a thought, maybe they could have had it have some minor relevance to one of the other crew members?

I think some of it is contextual honestly.

In a show with a stronger overall cast - where everyone had moments of brilliance rather than everyone setting up one character to look brilliant every moment - Burnham might not be so bad. Seven was hyper-competent, but she had a personal struggle most people could relate to (being human), and that's a struggle that didn't really get any nods in DIS because Burnham was honorary Vulcan. Her circumstance comes off quite blatantly as some kind of wish fulfillment rather than a character trait. The writing itself is bad, way worse than DS9, TNG, or ENT season 1 bad. It leaves you with nothing to do but watch how Burnham is going to save the day today, and notice how absurd her character is.

The other recent work of fiction where this stood out really bad was The Predator, where the female lead's hyper-competence might not have stood out so badly had the rest of the film been more well put together. But it was awful, and the awfulness ended up highlighting Olivia Mum's character as... Almost too smart to be in the dumb situation she was in.

"Burnham is socially awkward and all logic because of her Vulkan upbringing"

Two...seconds...later...

"Oh Burnham you made a rash decision based on emotion but it was the perfect thing to do and everyone loves you and you're the best thing in Starfleet!"


Repeat that every episode and you just described STD.