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.

Prediction: one season.

So my main question is, is it all SGU style grim dark or does it actually have like hope and moral points and things like that which makes it, well, Star Trek.

 Frazzled wrote:
Prediction: one season.

Um...

http://renewcanceltv.com/star-trek-discovery-renewed-season-2-cbs-access/

I think we can call that prediction false.

Apparently the deal with netflix effectively paid all the production costs of the first season according to reports last year so CBS is apparently bullish on the show's prospects since it won't cost them anything directly. There's always a chance they'll cancel it regardless if they really don't get their greedy paywall CBS all access numbers boost but I doubt it.

 Compel wrote:
So my main question is, is it all SGU style grim dark or does it actually have like hope and moral points and things like that which makes it, well, Star Trek.

Just the thinnest veneer. You can see them trying to remember what Star Trek is at times but a first officer actually attacks her captain in it so she can fire first on some bad guy Aliens which is lrett much the opposite of ST.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Compel wrote:
So my main question is, is it all SGU style grim dark or does it actually have like hope and moral points and things like that which makes it, well, Star Trek.

Just the thinnest veneer. You can see them trying to remember what Star Trek is at times but a first officer actually attacks her captain in it so she can fire first on some bad guy Aliens which is lrett much the opposite of ST.

I think that was a very deliberate. Georgiou is very much a traditional ST captain (reminded me of Picard a bit, actually), having Burnham essentially mutiny against her is a pretty clear statement that this series isn't in that old-school vein and that morality is compromised by the situation they're dealing with. Which is not necessarily something I like from a ST point of view, but if that's what the series wants to be I'll give it a fair shot on its own merits.

Ideally, Burnham ending up with her own command will mould her more into that traditional captain's role over the course of the series. From what I've read about Jason Issac's character, he's very much a wartime captain, so hopefully he'll provide the contrast that allows Burnham to grow into something more than that.

In space no-one can hear you, Clem Fandango...

Passable opening couple of episodes, but not a fan of this drip drip approach Streaming services are taking, I want to binge bodammit

 Paradigm wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Compel wrote:
So my main question is, is it all SGU style grim dark or does it actually have like hope and moral points and things like that which makes it, well, Star Trek.

Just the thinnest veneer. You can see them trying to remember what Star Trek is at times but a first officer actually attacks her captain in it so she can fire first on some bad guy Aliens which is lrett much the opposite of ST.

I think that was a very deliberate. Georgiou is very much a traditional ST captain (reminded me of Picard a bit, actually), having Burnham essentially mutiny against her is a pretty clear statement that this series isn't in that old-school vein and that morality is compromised by the situation they're dealing with. Which is not necessarily something I like from a ST point of view, but if that's what the series wants to be I'll give it a fair shot on its own merits.

Ideally, Burnham ending up with her own command will mould her more into that traditional captain's role over the course of the series. From what I've read about Jason Issac's character, he's very much a wartime captain, so hopefully he'll provide the contrast that allows Burnham to grow into something more than that.

I'm not morally outraged by the show or anything like that. I liked it. The Federation-Klingon war is a part of ST history and I guess we're going to get a close-up examination of what it was like. There's something interesting about seeing Utopia at war and weather or not it can still hold onto it's ideals or go over to the grimdark side.. However, DS9 did cover that pretty well already and I'm afraid this show will give into the darkness.

I think that's the way to look at it; if this series goes dark, hopefully that's to hold up a mirror to traditionally utopian Trek and allow the inherent themes of that, tolerance, compassion, cooperation and all that stuff to show through even in the most adverse times. If it descends into 15 episode of escalating space battles, Klingon murder and trivialised violence then that's missing the point, but there is definitely an opportunity to get a message across here.

Honestly, I think a big part of it is that the title, Discovery, suggested a return to exploration, science, less of the military aspect, and in the first two episodes we've got the start of a war that looks like it's going to dominate the series, and while that's very interesting story-wise, it kind of sits at odds with the title. Unless of course, the show shifts its tone away from the military side of it as they realise Burnham clearly isn't fit to be fighting in the war, and so it falls to her and The Discovery to crack on with Starfleet's traditional role while the majority of its more significant ships are out on the front lines. That is something I could definitely get on board with, although if the show does want to stick with the Klingon war as the main focus then that's fine by me as well, those space battles were admittedly very cool indeed.

 warboss wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Prediction: one season.

Um...

http://renewcanceltv.com/star-trek-discovery-renewed-season-2-cbs-access/

I think we can call that prediction false.

Apparently the deal with netflix effectively paid all the production costs of the first season according to reports last year so CBS is apparently bullish on the show's prospects since it won't cost them anything directly. There's always a chance they'll cancel it regardless if they really don't get their greedy paywall CBS all access numbers boost but I doubt it.

good points and thanks for the info. Awesome avatar by the way.

 Paradigm wrote:
I think that's the way to look at it; if this series goes dark, hopefully that's to hold up a mirror to traditionally utopian Trek and allow the inherent themes of that, tolerance, compassion, cooperation and all that stuff to show through even in the most adverse times. If it descends into 15 episode of escalating space battles, Klingon murder and trivialised violence then that's missing the point, but there is definitely an opportunity to get a message across here.

Honestly, I think a big part of it is that the title, Discovery, suggested a return to exploration, science, less of the military aspect, and in the first two episodes we've got the start of a war that looks like it's going to dominate the series, and while that's very interesting story-wise, it kind of sits at odds with the title. Unless of course, the show shifts its tone away from the military side of it as they realise Burnham clearly isn't fit to be fighting in the war, and so it falls to her and The Discovery to crack on with Starfleet's traditional role while the majority of its more significant ships are out on the front lines. That is something I could definitely get on board with, although if the show does want to stick with the Klingon war as the main focus then that's fine by me as well, those space battles were admittedly very cool indeed.

I think they're going with Burnham is the only one fit to fight in the war. That seems to be the message of the first 2 episodes. She's willing to fire first while those silly Starfleet Officers try to adhere to principles and all that.

Pleasantly surprised by Discovery.

Given its birth pains, I was expecting a steaming pile ala Enterprise.

But those two episodes were pretty damned good. Very much looking forward to the rest of the season.

I'm usually the first person to slag off stupid Star Trek stupidity, figured that I'd give it a look to potentially get more ammunition for my reasoning.

Turns out, not too bad for the first couple of episodes!

Maybe it worked for me because it's a reasonably decent Sci fi show with some Starfleet badges slapped onto it. Starfleet, Klingons and Sarek pasted over Battlestar Galactica is fine by me.

Added bonus: no "first shot takes the warp drive offline so we can't get away" bollocks!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Pleasantly surprised by Discovery.

Given its birth pains, I was expecting a steaming pile ala Enterprise.

But those two episodes were pretty damned good. Very much looking forward to the rest of the season.

I'm also expecting a slight change in focus with eps3+ as the showrunner got changed after the "pilot" (the first 2 episodes are essentially a pilot episode in the old paradigm. In these days of netflix and streamed tv, the first season is the pilot).

 Frazzled wrote:
Just watched the teaser episode. All I have to say is nope nope nope...

Spoiler:

seriously? What the hell was that? I counted at least three jump the shark moments. Plus the Klingons just sucked balls.

I watched the pilot, and I'm pretty damn sure that's not how a naval wessel operates. Hell, I don't think any chain of command would tolerate that crap between the top officers.

Garbage fire as far as I'm concerned.

And no, I won't be watching online. I don't like the characters or the motiviations or the storytelling, with the emphasis on telling instead of showing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
Burnham ending up with her own command

Just how fething incompetent is Starfleet that they'd give a command to a green officer who freaks out in battle and commits mutiny?

 Frazzled wrote:


good points and thanks for the info. Awesome avatar by the way.

Thanks! I didn't make it myself but found it online and loved it. No reason you can't be a fan of both.

FWIW, here's a video I found tonight:




Record numbers without actual details or context. I don't doubt the numbers were their best ever but if all the other numbers were abysmal then it doesn't actually mean much. For instance, a local subdivision posted a corner addition to their sign at the entrance to their property that 2016 was their record best selling year ever! Sounds impressive, right? That statement is likely 100% true but the part they left out is that they started first selling homes in the fall of 2015. Without that context, the true meaning of that sign isn't apparent. I suspect the show will continue on for the forseeable future as the reception overall IMO isn't negative but instead pretty evenly mixed.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

I watched the pilot, and I'm pretty damn sure that's not how a naval wessel operates. Hell, I don't think any chain of command would tolerate that crap between the top officers.

Starfleet isn't a navy. It's an exploratory group that has warships.

 insaniak wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

I watched the pilot, and I'm pretty damn sure that's not how a naval wessel operates. Hell, I don't think any chain of command would tolerate that crap between the top officers.

Starfleet isn't a navy. It's an exploratory group that has warships.

Sure, right. Regardless, that's not how chain of command works in any functional organization.

What I'm liking about it so far is that already we're seeing the Starfleet approach challenged straight off the bat.

Now, that's important. The Prime Directive, Temporal Prime Directive and other niceties sound easy, but are rarely so once you've actually left spacedock. Yet it's only through the rigorous testing of our morals that they actually mean anything.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

I watched the pilot, and I'm pretty damn sure that's not how a naval wessel operates. Hell, I don't think any chain of command would tolerate that crap between the top officers.

Just how fething incompetent is Starfleet that they'd give a command to a green officer who freaks out in battle and commits mutiny?

Yeah, I did not like the tension among the officers. I really dislike how aggressive Burnhan is.

It was not a bad show, but I would also like to watch some Star Trek.

I really dislike how they changed then Klingons aesthetic, not the physical look. I do not have a problem with them being less human looking, but I think the Klingons should be (and stay) Space Soviets. They are way too fancy, and the updated Bat'leth is hideous.

 chromedog wrote:
As for the darkness descending on ST. The eternal naivete of Roddenbery has passed. Humanity WILL NEVER dump it's petty tribalistic bickering and get its collective gak together, so his utopian fantasy will never happen. Tribalism is wired into us - all of us gravitate towards groups of "us" and "not us", regardless of hobby, political, religious or sporting affiliations.

Nah, I don't think the grimdark has anything to do with [ massive sarcasm ] "maturity" [ / massive sarcasm ] or utopian visions, that's giving too much credit. More likely the creators just noticed Game of Thrones and Walking Dead are hot at the moment, and are aping them by heaping on the darkness and making characters excessively flawed.

 Elemental wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
As for the darkness descending on ST. The eternal naivete of Roddenbery has passed. Humanity WILL NEVER dump it's petty tribalistic bickering and get its collective gak together, so his utopian fantasy will never happen. Tribalism is wired into us - all of us gravitate towards groups of "us" and "not us", regardless of hobby, political, religious or sporting affiliations.

Nah, I don't think the grimdark has anything to do with [ massive sarcasm ] "maturity" [ / massive sarcasm ] or utopian visions, that's giving too much credit. More likely the creators just noticed Game of Thrones and Walking Dead are hot at the moment, and are aping them by heaping on the darkness and making characters excessively flawed.

Right, cause Game of Thrones was why DS9 was so successful...

Was quite impressed having watched it last night.
Not sure it feels 100% Star Trek - one could strip out the mention of Starfleet, Klingons and photon torpedos and have it feel like humans encounter bad guys in space.
So far they have definitely moved away from the ST exploration/discovering sci-fi elements in place of a more DS9 war setting.
Some definite plot holes and light on secondary character development so far (I really wanted to see more of the little robot guy).

Having said that its pacey, has really excellent production values and has potential. Will continue watching with high enough hopes.....

 djones520 wrote:

 Elemental wrote:


Nah, I don't think the grimdark has anything to do with [ massive sarcasm ] "maturity" [ / massive sarcasm ] or utopian visions, that's giving too much credit. More likely the creators just noticed Game of Thrones and Walking Dead are hot at the moment, and are aping them by heaping on the darkness and making characters excessively flawed.

Right, cause Game of Thrones was why DS9 was so successful...

DS9 was "dark Trek" for a bare handful of episodes across all the seasons, even during the Dominion War. And tellingly, the Federation ultimately win through choosing not to abandon their principles and wipe out the Founders with an engineered plague.

Except for that one episode Sisko abandoned all his principals and blew up a government official from a neutral party (yeah yeah Garrek did it but we all know he only did it because Sisko expected him too ). And that other episode where he made a planet toxic to human life. And that one where he started a war with the Klingons cause there was nothing better to do that week.

But yes. Let's ignore long decades of "dark and edgy" televisions and act like the creators just want to cash in on GoT and TWD. I don't even consider GoT. GoT's is a sixteen year old's idea of mature.

The consensus seems to be emerging anyway.

Some reviewers are praising it because it's nothing like previous Treks, it's "dark" and "gritty" and "morally compromised"; it's Star Trek of Thrones and they think that's great.

The rest are damning it for the exact same reason.

So, people's opinion on the show seems to come down to whether or not they actually wanted to watch a new Star Trek show.

Sadly, I did.

 LordofHats wrote:
Except for that one episode Sisko abandoned all his principals and blew up a government official from a neutral party (yeah yeah Garrek did it but we all know he only did it because Sisko expected him too ). And that other episode where he made a planet toxic to human life. And that one where he started a war with the Klingons cause there was nothing better to do that week.

But yes. Let's ignore long decades of "dark and edgy" televisions and act like the creators just want to cash in on GoT and TWD. I don't even consider GoT. GoT's is a sixteen year old's idea of mature.

DS9 was absolutely superb, and did indeed go to some very, very dark places by Trek standards. Remember the episodes set on the front lines? Remember that the Federation doesn't exactly do solidering, but committed to the war all the same?

Ensign Nog losing his leg, Permanently. No 'ah we'll just grow you a new spine, Whorfypoos'.

It may very well have been done better in the past 20 odd years, but that's to be expected. Still doesn't detract from the thin veneer being scratched well and truly off during DS9's tenure. I think that's why I've never got on with Voyager. Too much 'same old, same old', and not new adventures set in a quadrant recovering from a devastating war. What could've been a pretty intense show about galactic diplomacy became 'The Next Generation But Like Way Over There Instead With Definitely Not Recycled Scripts'

 Yodhrin wrote:
The consensus seems to be emerging anyway.

Some reviewers are praising it because it's nothing like previous Treks, it's "dark" and "gritty" and "morally compromised"; it's Star Trek of Thrones and they think that's great.

The rest are damning it for the exact same reason.

So, people's opinion on the show seems to come down to whether or not they actually wanted to watch a new Star Trek show.

Sadly, I did.

I think it's possible to have enjoyed Discovery while still wanting something different. In a perfect world, this would just be a spiritual successor to TNG with a slightly shinier coat of paint, but that's not what we're getting with Discovery. However, I still watched and greatly enjoyed those two episodes on their own merits, so the fact it's not really Star Trek in tone or concept is made up for by the fact that it had a good script, strong cast, very pretty visuals and a compelling story which is arguably more important. Whether that keeps up or not remains to be seen, but I won't knock it for not being the ST show I want when what they've made I still found very enjoyable to watch.

From the trailers and media stories around the production I was expecting a trainwreck of a series, so I'll take a good sci-fi show that's ST in name only over a show that is more Trekky but also badly made, inconsistent and boring.

I only watched the first episode on normal TV so I can't tell yet whether or not it truly feels "trek" ... but it certainly didn't hook me either and my first impressions are that it doesn't. There was too much jjverse style variance from established trek like ignoring the prime directive in the opening scene, mutiny at the drop of a hat between a long time crewmember and her cherished captain, dark visuals more in line with a JJverse meets BSG crossover than traditional trek, etc. From clips on youtube from the second episode, it seems like the starship combat goes full on starwars/jjverse tiny pew pew lasers instead of more traditional trek beams/large pulses and there are even more breaking of the rules of physics. If that's folks thing and they really want this to be something almost totally different (barring the occasional bridge beep boop or door swoosh) then so be it but it won't hook me. YMMV. I'll wait till the season is over and then try to binge watch the show during the free week assuming they don't do what they said and only ever have 3 episodes available for paid streaming at a time specifically to prevent one month memberships. Orville is already losing me with it's weird mix of irreverent out of place comedy (not enough to actually make it a comedy and too much for a drama given the situations IMO) and preachy SJW attitude in the first two post pilot episodes and I may stop watching that as well if this week's episode is more of the same.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Except for that one episode Sisko abandoned all his principals and blew up a government official from a neutral party (yeah yeah Garrek did it but we all know he only did it because Sisko expected him too ). And that other episode where he made a planet toxic to human life. And that one where he started a war with the Klingons cause there was nothing better to do that week.

But yes. Let's ignore long decades of "dark and edgy" televisions and act like the creators just want to cash in on GoT and TWD. I don't even consider GoT. GoT's is a sixteen year old's idea of mature.

DS9 was absolutely superb, and did indeed go to some very, very dark places by Trek standards. Remember the episodes set on the front lines? Remember that the Federation doesn't exactly do solidering, but committed to the war all the same?

I wrote a long post about this at work during my lunch break. Not to want to write the whole thing again, I'll give the cliffnotes version.

The 2 key points people bring up for the whole "Dark and edgy" morally compromised DS9 are typically.

For The Uniform.
And
In The Pale Moonlight.

Now, I've not seen Discovery yet but I can talk about the morality of those two episodes.

For the Uniform, Sisko and Starfleet are specifically the villains in a complex situation. Sisko specifically calls himself out as the villain, of being Javert in Eddington's "Les Mis" fantasy. He does something villainous. Broadly speaking, the moral judgement of the episode was, doing this was not morally right.


As for "In the Pale Moonlight" well... I don't think I can say anything better than the man himself.

Captain Benjamin Sisko" said wrote:"[i]At oh-eight-hundred hours, station time... the Romulan Empire formally declared war against the Dominion. They've already struck fifteen bases along the Cardassian border. So, this is a huge victory for the good guys! This may even be the turning point of the entire war! There's even a "Welcome to the Fight" party tonight in the wardroom!... So... I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover up the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But most damning of all... I think I can live with it... And if I had to do it all over again... I would. Garak was right about one thing – a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it...Because I can live with it...I can live with it. Computer – erase that entire personal log."

The entire premise of the episode and Sisko's character development, the effect of the war on a person came down to that episode. It wasn't just some event that happened over the course of the episode, it was a major turning point in many ways.

And, perhaps, most importantly, it was a difficult, complex choice, that ultimately came down to Sisko admitting it was immoral. He believed it was necessary (we'll never know for sure), but it was immoral.

Of course, like I think someone said earlier in the thread, the ending of DS9, they had a similar choice again... Yet... It was the moral choice that ultimately provided peace.

My issue is that they immediately started with the jumping the shark stuff, whether or not it was really ST universe or not aside, it wasn't logical.