Star Trek: Discovery

[Emperorjones]

I would be surprised if they do explain "Calypso", but in "Facing the Strange" they did touch on it, and I'm guessing that Zora wondering if she was having another "dream" will serve as the explanation for the "Calypso" story. I think they could've went to the "Calypso" future, but they didn't. Granted, there was only so much time in that episode, but I'm guessing if they were going to address it directly that was a good time to do it.

[Donald]

Today's episode is an undercover away mission gone wrong so let's go ahead and break the prime directive several times one (Like Justice, Who Watches the Watchers, First contact TV episode, Homeworld etc)

You're not a real Star Fleet captain until you've broke the prime directive at least once.

[Anthony W]

So is Owosekun gone for the rest of the season? I wouldn't blame her for leaving after Burnham left her behind trapped in a force field and only reported it after the ship blew up. Or will her and Detmer be back for the series finale.

[ducklord]

So is Owosekun gone for the rest of the season? I wouldn't blame her for leaving after Burnham left her behind trapped in a force field and only reported it after the ship blew up. Or will her and Detmer be back for the series finale.

I predict that they will pull a Han Solo, piloting a rapidly-refurbished ISS Enterprise to the rescue at a critical juncture, captained by Saru ('cause that would be fitting, given the ship's history).

[thwhtGuardian]

My parents, in-laws, and aunt/uncles that love Trek don't care about actor updates or if things are different looking.

They're in their 70s and 80s.

Older fans in their 40-60s are different than the ones that actually grew up with TOS, not reruns.

I'm pretty sure that's what they're talking about, the 70+ crowd, when they say older.

I'm talking about most of the people actually watching the show, and it isn't sarcasm it's just that it's a rational take to understand that a show is going to look different when trying to appeal to an audience sixty years after it debuted.

I get not liking the look, or wishing it was more similar to how it looked before. Personal taste varies after all and that's totally fine I just take issue when that kind of change is said like it objectively breaks the show.

[BeastieRunner]

I'm talking about most of the people actually watching the show, and it isn't sarcasm it's just that it's a rational take to understand that a show is going to look different when trying to appeal to an audience sixty years after it debuted.

I get not liking the look, or wishing it was more similar to how it looked before. Personal taste varies after all and that's totally fine I just take issue when that kind of change is said like it objectively breaks the show.

It's rather nit-picky, I agree.

"It's not EXACTLY like I wanted ..."

Etc.

[Emperorjones]

When it comes to differences in how things look, I don't think it's wrong to raise those questions. In large part because Trek creators have also addressed some of those questions, like why Original Series Klingons look different, and we've also had TNG and DS9 keep the look of the Original Series Enterprise. So, when Discovery, which starts ten years before the Original Series, and is supposed to be set in the same reality as all the other television Trek series, gives us a very different looking Enterprise and Klingons, it does raise questions, and it makes it harder to accept this is all part of the same reality.

Trek creators, old and new, have the right obviously to do what they want, and I also get why they made some of the changes, but still it can be jarring, and also feel like the changes to the alien species like the Klingons and Andorians were just done to do them as opposed to making them better. What ENT did with the Andorians made them better, the way I see it, while DISCO's redesigns just came off as needless artistic flourish. I'm more okay with making the Enterprise (as well as uniforms) look more futuristic for 21st century audiences, but if I had my druthers, I would keep to the established aesthetics as much as I could. The Axanar fan film project gets maligned a lot, but when that was a thing, I did like a lot of the costuming, ship designs, and concept art from Axanar. I felt that was a way to keep the aesthetic while also making it look fresher.

[ChrisIII]

Ship wise, the second season does explain a bit why the Klingons went from the organic-looking designs from the first season to the familiar D-7/K'tinga class from TOS.

Although it kind of throws out a more linear design evolution from Enterprise's D-5....and then there's the weird D7 ship in one early episode of Enterprise (Which I think was a last-minute thing, they originally intended to have an "D5" cruiser which looked less advanced).


And of course the ridged forehead look returned in SNW (although it doesn't quite explain why Kirk kept running into the smooth-headed ones). The current armor design seems to be a mix of the various eras, some elements from Discovery, movie/TNG/DS9/VOY style breastplates but a bit of the TOS "Chain mail" (No armor on the pants).

Of course there's the weird TUC look which is unseen elsewhere, where almost every Klingon is wearing padded armor (Doesn't quite work for it being just "Royal entourage" since we see it on a few other Klingons)

[BeastieRunner]

When it comes to differences in how things look, I don't think it's wrong to raise those questions. In large part because Trek creators have also addressed some of those questions, like why Original Series Klingons look different, and we've also had TNG and DS9 keep the look of the Original Series Enterprise. So, when Discovery, which starts ten years before the Original Series, and is supposed to be set in the same reality as all the other television Trek series, gives us a very different looking Enterprise and Klingons, it does raise questions, and it makes it harder to accept this is all part of the same reality.

Trek creators, old and new, have the right obviously to do what they want, and I also get why they made some of the changes, but still it can be jarring, and also feel like the changes to the alien species like the Klingons and Andorians were just done to do them as opposed to making them better. What ENT did with the Andorians made them better, the way I see it, while DISCO's redesigns just came off as needless artistic flourish. I'm more okay with making the Enterprise (as well as uniforms) look more futuristic for 21st century audiences, but if I had my druthers, I would keep to the established aesthetics as much as I could. The Axanar fan film project gets maligned a lot, but when that was a thing, I did like a lot of the costuming, ship designs, and concept art from Axanar. I felt that was a way to keep the aesthetic while also making it look fresher.

Growing up with comics changing artists mid run, a different Bond every decade, TV shows recasting moms, and so on ... Didn't seem to hurt anything continuity wise, let alone story, artistically, ratings, or sales most of the time.

Sometimes you get a dud (an art run so bizarre that it doesn't fit, a Bond that only sticks for 1 film, etc), sometimes the aesthetic change is cheekily referenced (Aunt Vivian in Fresh Prince), sometimes it is just ignored (Rhodes in Iron Man), and sometimes the change becomes storyline (Doctor Who regeneration, Real Ghostbusters Janine, the aforementioned Klingons).

It is fun when you can go back and copy the look but it just isn't always tenable. X-Men 97 drastically improved the animation style and changed the aesthetics along with voice actors. Godzilla has gone from suitimation with obvious zippers showing at times to Oscar winning special effects and numerous look changes. You don't really see a clamoring to go back to "the way things were" with those properties except for a small minority (like the restore Rogue's ass creeps).

Would it be fun to see 60s era switches and buttons? Yes! It was during the DS9 episode but IIRC that was largely camera tricks. Even the movies of the OG crew updated aesthetics and effects. It was a rather expensive set piece to re create the TNG bridge for Picard, imagine doing all the old sets again. It just doesn't seem tenable when the studio keeps scraping sets from the shows.

Is it show breaking? Not for most. Would an explanation be fun? Yes! Is it needed? Not really but it would be nice past the retrofitting explanations.

You also have to take into account that Trek creators, writers, and even actors had strong opinions about continuity getting in the way of story.

Personally, I would love to see the DISCO/SNW era acknowledged as an alternative timeline so we can get another show with most of the SNW cast because I enjoy them so much. But I also want to see another Enterprise main show that is in the future of the TNG cast.

[ChrisIII]

The TOS bridge in TNG's Scotty episode "Relics" was also not the whole thing either, kind of used the "Trials" method of mixing TOS footage with a few pieces of set for Doohan and Stewart to interact with and filming from certain angles.

[ChrisIII]

Also as a Gundam fan this kind of thing happens with that franchise too.


Originally it was a fairly linear line from the original to the sequels in terms of the tech, with the Gundam from the original generally being fairly unique (although it does get mass-produced towards the series half-way point as the GM). The first Gundam in "Zeta Gundam" (The first sequel) is even called the Gundam Mark II and is built eight years later. The MSV model series brought in a prototype and some armor changes but that was more or less it for a decade.

However starting in 1989 the OAV series start going back to the One Year War and introducing more Gundams during the war, and also 0083 reveals that the Mark II wasn't the second Gundam but that were a whole bunch of other ones in-between.



The original series also often is seen as outdated with it's fairly rough late 70's TV animation (although the compilation movies fix some of that). The Origin series is sort of a semi-reboot in many ways but the anime version hasn't re-animated the whole series except for the "lost" episode Doan's Island. (SEED is sort of a semi reboot but more akin to say, Ultimate Marvel).

[Emperorjones]

Growing up with comics changing artists mid run, a different Bond every decade, TV shows recasting moms, and so on ... Didn't seem to hurt anything continuity wise, let alone story, artistically, ratings, or sales most of the time.

Sometimes you get a dud (an art run so bizarre that it doesn't fit, a Bond that only sticks for 1 film, etc), sometimes the aesthetic change is cheekily referenced (Aunt Vivian in Fresh Prince), sometimes it is just ignored (Rhodes in Iron Man), and sometimes the change becomes storyline (Doctor Who regeneration, Real Ghostbusters Janine, the aforementioned Klingons).

It is fun when you can go back and copy the look but it just isn't always tenable. X-Men 97 drastically improved the animation style and changed the aesthetics along with voice actors. Godzilla has gone from suitimation with obvious zippers showing at times to Oscar winning special effects and numerous look changes. You don't really see a clamoring to go back to "the way things were" with those properties except for a small minority (like the restore Rogue's ass creeps).

Would it be fun to see 60s era switches and buttons? Yes! It was during the DS9 episode but IIRC that was largely camera tricks. Even the movies of the OG crew updated aesthetics and effects. It was a rather expensive set piece to re create the TNG bridge for Picard, imagine doing all the old sets again. It just doesn't seem tenable when the studio keeps scraping sets from the shows.

Is it show breaking? Not for most. Would an explanation be fun? Yes! Is it needed? Not really but it would be nice past the retrofitting explanations.

You also have to take into account that Trek creators, writers, and even actors had strong opinions about continuity getting in the way of story.

Personally, I would love to see the DISCO/SNW era acknowledged as an alternative timeline so we can get another show with most of the SNW cast because I enjoy them so much. But I also want to see another Enterprise main show that is in the future of the TNG cast.

While I'm sure some creators do have complaints about established canon getting in the way, the Berman Era creators often strove to respect that canon for the most part-there were mistakes or changes here or there, but they sought to respect a lot of what came before. Canon need not be a burden. Before TNG started, I read that Roddenberry really wanted to go beyond what he had done before and didn't want any Original Series species on the series, but somewhere along the way, things changed, and they brought in Worf, and they had Dr. McCoy pass the torch and they brought back the Klingons and Romulans, and to a lesser extent the Vulcans. TNG respected the past, while also doing something new. DS9 and VOY did the same. There was more griping when it came to ENT, but especially in its last season, it also was coming into its own as an Original Series prequel while still forging its own path.

Within canon, there can be space to fill in blanks or do your own thing without upsetting the apple cart. I think DISCO just went too far with too futuristic ship designs and other technology, very different looking Klingons, and even unnecessarily making Burnham Spock's sister. (They could've just had Burnham being Soval's adopted daughter, which would've been a nice nod to ENT, the series it was suceeding, while not needlessly complicating Spock's or Sarek's backstory). It felt like they were hedging on the Burnham character, and wanted to really sell her importance to the audience because they were nervous that a Black woman-led Trek series wouldn't be readily embraced, so they thought if they made her Spock's sister there would be no way the character would be rejected. When it comes to the Klingons, in Season 2, they did explain the bald look from the first season, with a half-baked reason that Klingons shaved their heads in wartime, though we had never seen that before. I get wanting to make really alien aliens and cool starships, and so forth, but Trek has decades of history and a fandom that often respects that history, and so I think you can get both. The DISCO Klingons didn't even need to be Klingons really for Burnham's story to work. They could've been a brand-new enemy, or one from ENT, like the Xindi-Reptilians. Or one we had heard about before, but never saw, like the Tzenkethi.

I think Strange New Worlds is even more cavalier, with La'an Noonien Singh on the same Enterprise with Spock and Uhura, and how they depict the Gorn. They are just doing what they want, and while they do have that right-they also want us to shrug about it not fitting what has come before. But if you start shrugging off one or two things, you could start shrugging off a lot of things. When your part of a decades-long franchise, I think (this is my opinion) that part of the job should also be to build up the whole franchise, though making a good series in the here and now should be the number one thing. I also feel the Tzenkethi could've worked on SNW instead of the Gorn, and it would've also built up the whole franchise. Because then it leads to an article about DS9 and the Tzenkethi and that might turn new viewers onto DS9. La'an could've been a Soong (descended from ENT's Arik Soong), or she could've been a descendant of Stavos Keniclius (from the animated series). It doesn't change her character much at all, because Keniclius was also part of the Eugenics Wars, it frees them up to do more with her, and it keeps the surprise of "Space Seed" and Star Trek 2 for new viewers. It also wouldn't confuse them if they go from SNW to "Space Seed" and ask why anyone doesn't bring up La'an. It's little things like that that I think respects the canon while also not impeding the stories they are telling.

[ChrisIII]

Think the futuristic ship design thing was kind of was already broken by ENTERPRISE, although it's interiors didn't quite look as 'comfy' as the later Enterprises.

Apart from the Nacelles the exterior largely just seems to be taken from the Akira class which appeared in First Contact and a few DS9s and Voyagers.

Funny thing is the Shenzou, Discovery etc. kind of look fine as descendants of the NX-01 but don't quite fit as contemporary with the TV show constitution class.

[Anthony W]

Wow this was a slog.

We had to spend time with Tilly, Adira and Tig Notaro as she stole yet another paycheck.

Raynor continues to be the MVP of the season dominating whatever scene he is in.

Once again Starfleet gets out witted by L'ak because he HACKS THE MED BED IN PLAIN VIEW OF SECURITY BECAUSE.... MOLL STOOD IN FRONT OF HIM SO NO ONE NOTICED?!

Why weren't they separated? Straight from the Doctor's mouth "Keeping them apart would only put more stress on his systems" Sigh, whatever show.

[ChrisIII]

So some think DS9 might show up next episode given that it's fairly close to the Badlands (and also the Cardassian border, although I think it's unclear whether Cardassia is now part of the Federation. There is of course Rillak but she's just one person).

You'd figure Discovery would also have had a larger sickbay by now. The one they have seems to be as small as the Defiant's. It's saucer is roughly the same size of the NCC-1701 Enterprise's (although there's some negative space there) and usually those ships had pretty big ones (even with the somewhat more limited budgets-The TNG sickbay is a redress of the movie one for example).

Heh. Just looking this up and the bar in Star Trek III is a redressed sickbay set. No wonder McCoy seemed to be a regular there.