In other words, setting up post VOY makes things easier from a blank slate point of view but the problem is you have to fill that slate. The Borg have been done to death and all other attempts to come up with unique and convincing villains through four series have come up short which is why they keep bringing the Borg back. Plus you have to come up with funky new tech like the holodeck and replicators (although the holographic communication in DIS would have looked better in the future). I think they didn’t want to risk another ENT where viewers can’t relate (and thus ratings stunk) and they didn’t want to do Borg again after VOY which left Klingons as a safe anti-hero but that means they had to do it somewhere pre-TNG and even pre-TOS because “peace talks” and “Khitomer Accords” (ie, Good Klingons) had already taken place.
I think that's still an easier proposition than trying to wedge a new series into an established past. I mean, a concept like the spore drive could easily be cutting edge technology post-Voyager, and establish ALL NEW sorts of adventures. You wouldn't even need to redesign the ships! Half of them look like steampunk Akira, Prometheus, and other classes. Among them, multiple Universes and time travel. Boom.
Also, they *did* come up with great adversaries post-Borg.
The Dominion and Cardassians namely. Those are already dealt with obviously, but it's not like the Borg were the last great villains.
Plus, the Romulans were hardly good guys by the end of DS9. They allied with the Federation solely for the purpose of saving the Alpha Quadrant. They could have made Romulans the main enemy if they really wanted to. Romulans are criminally underutilised.
DSC could have so easily been set post-VOY, and I think that is what they really wanted to do, just looking at the technology (holographic communication, the "worker bee" we saw Tyler use, the holodecks...), but someone somewhere wanted to do Klingons, so they had to stick it before TOS.
I kind of pointed that out briefly about DS9 and the Dominion War arc... but VOY went full Borg because the others (my opinion) like Kazon and Hirogen kind of were a little lame. The Romulans were always a secondary villain throughout all the series. Cardassians were done by the end of DS9. The ENT villains were lame and may be part of why the series died early.
I think DIS DOES belong post-VOY. But they didn’t want to roll the dice on a high budget production (flashship for CBS All Access online streaming) and end up with ENT. So they went Klingon and “edgier and darker” which puts it right smack pre-TOS. As much as long-time fans (I grew up on TOS and TAS) find exception to the loose ties to canon, the commercial success of DIS means they probably did the right choice.
They also wanted to expand viewership from the middle-aged Trekkies just like GOT and Walking Dead have a much more diverse (demographically... age, sex, etc) viewership than these type of genre had in the past. In that, they have probably succeeded as well. But that plot and writing style requires more human interaction (conflict) and character deaths than we are used to in Star Trek where only redshirts die (yeah yeah, I know Data, Trip, etc. but that’s at the end, not in episode 2).
Hopefully the success of DIS will spawn another series post-VOY once CBS gets comfortable with rolling the dice.
There are more character deaths, but I don't think that is necessarily more interaction or character depth. Just darker. The other thing is with fewer deaths like, for instance, Jadzia, you have a greater impact for that death. I know some GoT fans who are getting fairly blaze' about many of the deaths in the series -- that essentially makes more major characters just a red shirt with more lines.
And 'edgy' needs to be retired. Edgy meant you were taking risks. There is no real revolutionary risk here other than putting the Trek skin on the darker side like GoT, BSG, Walking Dead, etc, etc, etc.
Unfortunately it’s what sells best now. The ratings for the 18-40 have been quite good. So hopefully we have more Trek for some time to come and maybe another series afterward post VOY.
I agreed that it should have been after VOY already... unfortunately it isn’t.
Unfortunately it’s what sells best now. The ratings for the 18-40 have been quite good. So hopefully we have more Trek for some time to come and maybe another series afterward post VOY.
I agreed that it should have been after VOY already... unfortunately it isn’t.
Unfortunately it’s what sells best now. The ratings for the 18-40 have been quite good. So hopefully we have more Trek for some time to come and maybe another series afterward post VOY.
I agreed that it should have been after VOY already... unfortunately it isn’t.
Personally I have no issue with the Klingons orcified as they are for the simple reason rewatch Blood oath or other episodes in DS9 where Klingons appear. DS9 as good a series as it was it hasn't been digitally remastered and the make up and prosthetics look outdated by today's standards.
Unfortunately it’s what sells best now. The ratings for the 18-40 have been quite good. So hopefully we have more Trek for some time to come and maybe another series afterward post VOY.
I agreed that it should have been after VOY already... unfortunately it isn’t.
As the season has progressed, I have been satisfied that there are reasons for why this was set when it is and why things like the spore drive were abandoned. Some of those reasons have been partially shown already (spore drive is untenable for prolonged use). Some are still unclear, but I'm willing to trust that they're coming and that that this hasn't, in fact, been done willy nilly.
Some of the issues, though, really are answered with, "So what?" I get that that's upsetting for some, but for all of those instances, I'm in agreement with the writers. Disco tech (see what I did there?) is obviously superior to TOS tech. So what? Disco Klingons have a different biological appearance than other Klingons. So what? Those are ultimately superficial and unimportant elements.
Regarding the "dark end edgy" tone, I feel like that has reflected not just the contemporary TV landscape, but contemporary society, as well. We're not in the same cozy place we were for most of the Berman era. A lot of episodes of TNG and VOY, and even some DS9, would feel outright naive and tone deaf if made today. They were right for their time, though, and part of why they endure is that they showed us the hope and confidence that we had at that time that things were beginning to come together, and that we had a lot to work with going forward.
Are these Klingons more brutal than their predecessors? Or were earlier Klingons just more talk than walk? The only real example we have of a Klingon freed from the restrictions of 1960's network TV and also not rehabilitated as friends of the Federation was Commander Kruge in The Search for Spock. As I watch Disco, I feel that Kruge would have fit in perfectly well with T'Kuvma, Voq, L'Rell, and Kol.
Lorca's ruthless, ends-justify-the-means approach seemed pragmatic to a lot of people up front. They bought into him, feeling he was the right Starfleet captain for both his and our time. How many fans have we heard, whether on this forum or elsewhere, cheer for his uncompromising tactics? And here we are, now knowing that he wasn't even from our universe. He was a Lorca with different values entirely, who was not trying to protect or defend our ideals because he didn't even hold them. I'm reminded of the end of M, where the mob puts the child murderer on trial, and in the process shames us for having become so blood thirsty that we wanted to see them do what the police could not.
The fact that there were so many long time Trekkers who bought into Lorca is a far more troubling matter for me than how many nostrils Klingons have or when holodecks started to be used.
Disco isn't shirking Trek history just to follow mainstream trends. It's a show for us as we are today. We're having to go back and re-fight a lot of social issues that seemed we had well in hand; even basic things, like how much sexual violence is acceptable (correct answer: none whatsoever). And what I have appreciated perhaps more than any other part about Disco is that its characters--especially Burnham and Saru--have consistently made the argument that we can, and even must, hold fast to our ideals during trying times; that to sacrifice them for the sake of expediency or to allow ourselves to be swept up in a tide of conflict and lose sight of those core values is how we lose whatever it is we're trying to protect in the first place.
What Burnham has been pushing for throughout this season has been not just to fight against the Klingons, but to remain focused on what we're fighting for. She's done that time and again by insisting on respecting protocol and rescuing the space whale; defying Lorca to respect the beings on Pahvo and leave them out of the war; to revise the Sarcophagus ship mission to include rescuing Cornwell; to look for a way to reach better understanding with the Klingons.
I can't think of a more important or timelier statement for any incarnation of Star Trek to make.
Much has been said and read into Disco and how it reflects current politics and issues. In fact that has been said for all the Star Treks being a mirror on current US and global politics and social issues. End of Cold War and a collapsing Soviet Empire? We get Star Trek VI with an exploding Praxis and collapsing Klingon Economy...
However, even I am surprised by how much attention and commercial success DIS is getting outside of the core fan base. I think this recent article is very interesting to read:
Much has been said and read into Disco and how it reflects current politics and issues. In fact that has been said for all the Star Treks being a mirror on current US and global politics and social issues. End of Cold War and a collapsing Soviet Empire? We get Star Trek VI with an exploding Praxis and collapsing Klingon Economy...
However, even I am surprised by how much attention and commercial success DIS is getting outside of the core fan base. I think this recent article is very interesting to read:
I saw that Forbes piece. It made me self-conscious that I actually haven't talked about it much online away from this forum. I've only had a few Facebook posts and some tweets so far. Most of my actual conversations have been private, which presumably aren't being monitored and included in the Parrot Analytics data. (Or are they...? O_O )
As the season has progressed, I have been satisfied that there are reasons for why this was set when it is and why things like the spore drive were abandoned. Some of those reasons have been partially shown already (spore drive is untenable for prolonged use). Some are still unclear, but I'm willing to trust that they're coming and that that this hasn't, in fact, been done willy nilly.
Some of the issues, though, really are answered with, "So what?" I get that that's upsetting for some, but for all of those instances, I'm in agreement with the writers. Disco tech (see what I did there?) is obviously superior to TOS tech. So what? Disco Klingons have a different biological appearance than other Klingons. So what? Those are ultimately superficial and unimportant elements.
Regarding the "dark end edgy" tone, I feel like that has reflected not just the contemporary TV landscape, but contemporary society, as well. We're not in the same cozy place we were for most of the Berman era. A lot of episodes of TNG and VOY, and even some DS9, would feel outright naive and tone deaf if made today. They were right for their time, though, and part of why they endure is that they showed us the hope and confidence that we had at that time that things were beginning to come together, and that we had a lot to work with going forward.
Are these Klingons more brutal than their predecessors? Or were earlier Klingons just more talk than walk? The only real example we have of a Klingon freed from the restrictions of 1960's network TV and also not rehabilitated as friends of the Federation was Commander Kruge in The Search for Spock. As I watch Disco, I feel that Kruge would have fit in perfectly well with T'Kuvma, Voq, L'Rell, and Kol.
Lorca's ruthless, ends-justify-the-means approach seemed pragmatic to a lot of people up front. They bought into him, feeling he was the right Starfleet captain for both his and our time. How many fans have we heard, whether on this forum or elsewhere, cheer for his uncompromising tactics? And here we are, now knowing that he wasn't even from our universe. He was a Lorca with different values entirely, who was not trying to protect or defend our ideals because he didn't even hold them. I'm reminded of the end of M, where the mob puts the child murderer on trial, and in the process shames us for having become so blood thirsty that we wanted to see them do what the police could not.
The fact that there were so many long time Trekkers who bought into Lorca is a far more troubling matter for me than how many nostrils Klingons have or when holodecks started to be used.
Disco isn't shirking Trek history just to follow mainstream trends. It's a show for us as we are today. We're having to go back and re-fight a lot of social issues that seemed we had well in hand; even basic things, like how much sexual violence is acceptable (correct answer: none whatsoever). And what I have appreciated perhaps more than any other part about Disco is that its characters--especially Burnham and Saru--have consistently made the argument that we can, and even must, hold fast to our ideals during trying times; that to sacrifice them for the sake of expediency or to allow ourselves to be swept up in a tide of conflict and lose sight of those core values is how we lose whatever it is we're trying to protect in the first place.
What Burnham has been pushing for throughout this season has been not just to fight against the Klingons, but to remain focused on what we're fighting for. She's done that time and again by insisting on respecting protocol and rescuing the space whale; defying Lorca to respect the beings on Pahvo and leave them out of the war; to revise the Sarcophagus ship mission to include rescuing Cornwell; to look for a way to reach better understanding with the Klingons.
I can't think of a more important or timelier statement for any incarnation of Star Trek to make.
Star Trek TOS, was reflective in some respects, but it also was the show that showed us who we could be. Same goes for the most part for later Treks. A pretty unabashed example of this are some of the dialogue moments between Lily and Picard in First Contact, though you also see the fragility and human condition of Picard in later moments they have together. DS9 though showed us, however, that there would be imperfections even with this striving, but that we should not stop that striving. (Yes we have Pale Moonlight Sisko, but you also have finale SIsko who will not drink the bloodwine on Cardassia.)
Similar themes were seen in contemporary to these Treks and later successful shows such as Babylon 5, Farscape, pre-actor take over creative rights Andromeda and to this day in the Marvel series, such as most of Defenders saga (Jessica Jones and Punisher being the exceptions). (To this point, the dialogues between Daredevil and the Punisher, mirrors again of who we can be and who we are as a people.)
Discovery, following these premises, is only the mirror with no goal or hope of something to become, because we will always be the same dirty people, without any evolution as a people other than better beepy toys, and frankly proving Q correct at Farpoint. (And I think Quark had a few things to say on the subject about the hoomans as well.)
(And like you I am more troubled by the cheering on of Lorca. And that is why I have the greater problem of his character having been given the pre-eminence that he did regardless of how they explained it, the Admiral letting it get that far is more telling of her and of Starfleet than his own essence)
If these ideas that we can be better and SHOULD be better, are naivete, then frankly, I feel like we are in a greater deal of trouble than we might have even realize.
It's been said that earlier than Angsty and Dark is what sells -- if that was all that sold, there would be no one going to see Captain America and Black Panther... and that gives me a little bit of hope. (And who wants to make a bet that Black Panther makes more than any two Trek movies of any universe combined worldwide?) That we can still cheer for some character somewhere who is actually 'good' and not so flawed as to make you question if you'd hire them if they interviewed at your company or even want to walk down the same street as them.
But it has a niche'. And once again, Trek does find a niche' it's just a different niche' abandoning some of what made it great to make it 'relevant' in some segments of the populations eyes. To call it a natural evolution may be correct on one level. Only if we assume the reflective, not the progressive, not the inspirational. Of course then all we see are the broken ships in the Ready Room -- not what comes next.
Star Trek TOS, was reflective in some respects, but it also was the show that showed us who we could be. Same goes for the most part for later Treks. A pretty unabashed example of this are some of the dialogue moments between Lily and Picard in First Contact, though you also see the fragility and human condition of Picard in later moments they have together. DS9 though showed us, however, that there would be imperfections even with this striving, but that we should not stop that striving. (Yes we have Pale Moonlight Sisko, but you also have finale SIsko who will not drink the bloodwine on Cardassia.)
Similar themes were seen in contemporary to these Treks and later successful shows such as Babylon 5, Farscape, pre-actor take over creative rights Andromeda and to this day in the Marvel series, such as most of Defenders saga (Jessica Jones and Punisher being the exceptions). (To this point, the dialogues between Daredevil and the Punisher, mirrors again of who we can be and who we are as a people.)
Discovery, following these premises, is only the mirror with no goal or hope of something to become, because we will always be the same dirty people, without any evolution as a people other than better beepy toys, and frankly proving Q correct at Farpoint. (And I think Quark had a few things to say on the subject about the hoomans as well.)
(And like you I am more troubled by the cheering on of Lorca. And that is why I have the greater problem of his character having been given the pre-eminence that he did regardless of how they explained it, the Admiral letting it get that far is more telling of her and of Starfleet than his own essence)
If these ideas that we can be better and SHOULD be better, are naivete, then frankly, I feel like we are in a greater deal of trouble than we might have even realize.
It's been said that earlier than Angsty and Dark is what sells -- if that was all that sold, there would be no one going to see Captain America and Black Panther... and that gives me a little bit of hope. (And who wants to make a bet that Black Panther makes more than any two Trek movies of any universe combined worldwide?) That we can still cheer for some character somewhere who is actually 'good' and not so flawed as to make you question if you'd hire them if they interviewed at your company or even want to walk down the same street as them.
But it has a niche'. And once again, Trek does find a niche' it's just a different niche' abandoning some of what made it great to make it 'relevant' in some segments of the populations eyes. To call it a natural evolution may be correct on one level. Only if we assume the reflective, not the progressive, not the inspirational. Of course then all we see are the broken ships in the Ready Room -- not what comes next.
I should clarify that when I said a lot of the Rick Berman-era Trek would play as naive if made now, I wasn't dismissing the ideals themselves. Rather, the way that a lot of episodes postulated how we might apply those ideals would play as naive. Take, for instance, "The Best of Both Worlds". Because of Berman's insistence on getting back to the wholly episodic structure, the only aftermath from that that we were shown was "Family". After that one cathartic mud fight with Robert, we were told that, yeah, Jean-Luc'll be fine.
In 1990, we didn't discuss things like mental health and PTSD openly enough that enough viewers said, "Uh, wait a minute. I have some problems with accepting that this guy is ready to get back to work and should be trusted with the flagship of the Federation so quickly." So when they put Picard right back on the bridge two weeks later, everyone went along with it. Onward and upward and all that!
In 2017, though, an entire generation of Americans has grown up in a world where we have been sending their older siblings, and now them, to Afghanistan. Disco's look at PTSD through Tyler is "dark and gritty" relative to, say, the TNG era, but it can also be said that TNG's whisking Picard past it is naive relative to today's era.
Berman was entirely right, incidentally, in 1990 to just get Picard and the crew back to their alien of the week adventures, incidentally. It would have been bold and daring had they spent even three or four episodes rehabilitating Picard, and maybe it would have worked. Maybe it would have been brilliant. But it would not have been what the general viewership (regardless of how enlightened we rush to claim we are as a group) actually wanted. The social climate and TV viewing habits of the day expected it.
I categorically reject the claim that Disco "is only the mirror with no goal or hope of something to become". I don't see Disco saying that whatsoever. What I see is Disco saying the same thing Benjamin Sisko once noted: It's easy to be a saint in Paradise. And Sisko wasn't just talking about the Starfleet brass back on Earth. He was talking about the rosy and often reductive world view of TNG, too.
But where the Maquis were saying, "We're not in Paradise so forget trying to be saints", that's not at all what the Disco crew have been saying. Time and again, Burnham and Saru in particular have interjected that even though we're no longer in Paradise, we still have the obligation to uphold our core values and ideals and to continue striving for sainthood. Burnham and Saru have not forsaken their pre-war ideals. They've made sure those ideals have continued to have a voice when it has been inconvenient, even incompatible with the immediate objective.
Lorca had no interest in responding to that space whale, but Burnham and Saru were the ones who said, "War or no war, that's an endangered species and we're supposed to give a damn." It matters very much that the show has thrown an endless barrage of cruelty at these people through the first 12 episodes, and yet they are still trying to find peaceful resolutions to conflicts; to better understand their adversaries; to continue standing up for the same things they stood up for before the war broke out.
That's not "no goal or hope of something to become". That's standing for something, and that matters. That matters a lot.
Star Trek TOS, was reflective in some respects, but it also was the show that showed us who we could be. Same goes for the most part for later Treks. A pretty unabashed example of this are some of the dialogue moments between Lily and Picard in First Contact, though you also see the fragility and human condition of Picard in later moments they have together. DS9 though showed us, however, that there would be imperfections even with this striving, but that we should not stop that striving. (Yes we have Pale Moonlight Sisko, but you also have finale SIsko who will not drink the bloodwine on Cardassia.)
Similar themes were seen in contemporary to these Treks and later successful shows such as Babylon 5, Farscape, pre-actor take over creative rights Andromeda and to this day in the Marvel series, such as most of Defenders saga (Jessica Jones and Punisher being the exceptions). (To this point, the dialogues between Daredevil and the Punisher, mirrors again of who we can be and who we are as a people.)
Discovery, following these premises, is only the mirror with no goal or hope of something to become, because we will always be the same dirty people, without any evolution as a people other than better beepy toys, and frankly proving Q correct at Farpoint. (And I think Quark had a few things to say on the subject about the hoomans as well.)
(And like you I am more troubled by the cheering on of Lorca. And that is why I have the greater problem of his character having been given the pre-eminence that he did regardless of how they explained it, the Admiral letting it get that far is more telling of her and of Starfleet than his own essence)
If these ideas that we can be better and SHOULD be better, are naivete, then frankly, I feel like we are in a greater deal of trouble than we might have even realize.
It's been said that earlier than Angsty and Dark is what sells -- if that was all that sold, there would be no one going to see Captain America and Black Panther... and that gives me a little bit of hope. (And who wants to make a bet that Black Panther makes more than any two Trek movies of any universe combined worldwide?) That we can still cheer for some character somewhere who is actually 'good' and not so flawed as to make you question if you'd hire them if they interviewed at your company or even want to walk down the same street as them.
But it has a niche'. And once again, Trek does find a niche' it's just a different niche' abandoning some of what made it great to make it 'relevant' in some segments of the populations eyes. To call it a natural evolution may be correct on one level. Only if we assume the reflective, not the progressive, not the inspirational. Of course then all we see are the broken ships in the Ready Room -- not what comes next.
I should clarify that when I said a lot of the Rick Berman-era Trek would play as naive if made now, I wasn't dismissing the ideals themselves. Rather, the way that a lot of episodes postulated how we might apply those ideals would play as naive. Take, for instance, "The Best of Both Worlds". Because of Berman's insistence on getting back to the wholly episodic structure, the only aftermath from that that we were shown was "Family". After that one cathartic mud fight with Robert, we were told that, yeah, Jean-Luc'll be fine.
In 1990, we didn't discuss things like mental health and PTSD openly enough that enough viewers said, "Uh, wait a minute. I have some problems with accepting that this guy is ready to get back to work and should be trusted with the flagship of the Federation so quickly." So when they put Picard right back on the bridge two weeks later, everyone went along with it. Onward and upward and all that!
In 2017, though, an entire generation of Americans has grown up in a world where we have been sending their older siblings, and now them, to Afghanistan. Disco's look at PTSD through Tyler is "dark and gritty" relative to, say, the TNG era, but it can also be said that TNG's whisking Picard past it is naive relative to today's era.
Berman was entirely right, incidentally, in 1990 to just get Picard and the crew back to their alien of the week adventures, incidentally. It would have been bold and daring had they spent even three or four episodes rehabilitating Picard, and maybe it would have worked. Maybe it would have been brilliant. But it would not have been what the general viewership (regardless of how enlightened we rush to claim we are as a group) actually wanted. The social climate and TV viewing habits of the day expected it.
I categorically reject the claim that Disco "is only the mirror with no goal or hope of something to become". I don't see Disco saying that whatsoever. What I see is Disco saying the same thing Benjamin Sisko once noted: It's easy to be a saint in Paradise. And Sisko wasn't just talking about the Starfleet brass back on Earth. He was talking about the rosy and often reductive world view of TNG, too.
But where the Maquis were saying, "We're not in Paradise so forget trying to be saints", that's not at all what the Disco crew have been saying. Time and again, Burnham and Saru in particular have interjected that even though we're no longer in Paradise, we still have the obligation to uphold our core values and ideals and to continue striving for sainthood. Burnham and Saru have not forsaken their pre-war ideals. They've made sure those ideals have continued to have a voice when it has been inconvenient, even incompatible with the immediate objective.
Lorca had no interest in responding to that space whale, but Burnham and Saru were the ones who said, "War or no war, that's an endangered species and we're supposed to give a damn." It matters very much that the show has thrown an endless barrage of cruelty at these people through the first 12 episodes, and yet they are still trying to find peaceful resolutions to conflicts; to better understand their adversaries; to continue standing up for the same things they stood up for before the war broke out.
That's not "no goal or hope of something to become". That's standing for something, and that matters. That matters a lot.
Time and again? In that very same episode you cite, Saru tells Burnham that she is just like Lorca, and they both have a drive to get what they want no matter what the consequences to others!
And saying, hey this makes me uncomfy isn't what standing up is.
Maybe it gets better after the first several eps, but I wouldn't use the Ripper ep as showing Burnham or Saru being anything other than mostly ineffectual from a we get better standpoint. And it takes so damn much for the right thing to happen there that it's a mirror of the fight over Guantanamo Bay -- again not an example of who we can become.
Feels like Burnham is good reacting in a way to survive at least from her actions.
And who and how is the power structure we see here?
As far as PTSD and other items, we have more 'realistic' examples then in DS9, with Nog's leg, consequences of Sisko's actions (though a bit magical moments regarding the prophets, etc).
TNG is never something that can be realistically compared to anything other than TOS. Why? Episodic.
But then you have DS9, Voyager and even Enterprise where actions did have consequences and arcs were there with character development.
Time and again? In that very same episode you cite, Saru tells Burnham that she is just like Lorca, and they both have a drive to get what they want no matter what the consequences to others!
And saying, hey this makes me uncomfy isn't what standing up is.
Sometimes it is. It depends on who's saying it, about what--and to whom--they're saying it.
Also, I wasn't referencing "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry". I was referencing "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad", when the ship encountered an endangered space whale that Lorca was content to ignore until Saru and Burnham spoke up and protested that their standing order to help those creatures whenever encountered couldn't be waved off due to the war. It was a clear delineation of what Saru and Burnham still see as essential Starfleet principles that Lorca viewed as dispensable--ergo, a perfect microcosm of the struggle between what to hold onto and what to let go of when things are not peaceful.
To go back to "Butcher's Knife", though, it's important to note that that was a very early test for Saru--his first time in the command chair--and for Burnham--still trying just to find a place for herself on a ship full of people who resented her. They were both stumbling, trying to find their ways. And what did ultimately carry them through was falling back on the core values of Starfleet. For Saru, it was desperately trying to find some way to accomplish everything rather than forfeit one victory to secure another. For Burnham, it was learning about, and then protecting, Ripper.
And give Stamets credit in that same episode for seeing a way to let both Saru and Burnham achieve their respective goals. What Stamets did went way past Cadet Kirk monkeying with the Kobayashi Maru simulator.
Maybe it gets better after the first several eps, but I wouldn't use the Ripper ep as showing Burnham or Saru being anything other than mostly ineffectual from a we get better standpoint. And it takes so damn much for the right thing to happen there that it's a mirror of the fight over Guantanamo Bay -- again not an example of who we can become.
Feels like Burnham is good reacting in a way to survive at least from her actions.
And who and how is the power structure we see here?
If you bailed after "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry", then you've missed 75% of the season to date. It's going to be difficult, and even pointless, to debate the significance of anything from those first few episodes. I will say this, though, for whatever it may be worth: I was every bit as skeptical early on as the next viewer. I was prepared to accept that this wasn't a Trek show for me, just as VOY wasn't. I've seen enough development of characters, relationships, and themes, throughout these first dozen episodes that I have been (obviously!) won over by it.
I can now better appreciate why things played out the way they did in those earlier episodes that left me apprehensive, but it took until the aforementioned "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" (episode 7) that I truly connected with the show, and it wasn't until the next episode, "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum", that I felt I could most clearly point to Disco and say, "There! THAT is Star Trek!"
Comments
There are more character deaths, but I don't think that is necessarily more interaction or character depth. Just darker. The other thing is with fewer deaths like, for instance, Jadzia, you have a greater impact for that death. I know some GoT fans who are getting fairly blaze' about many of the deaths in the series -- that essentially makes more major characters just a red shirt with more lines.
And 'edgy' needs to be retired. Edgy meant you were taking risks. There is no real revolutionary risk here other than putting the Trek skin on the darker side like GoT, BSG, Walking Dead, etc, etc, etc.
Unfortunately it’s what sells best now. The ratings for the 18-40 have been quite good. So hopefully we have more Trek for some time to come and maybe another series afterward post VOY.
I agreed that it should have been after VOY already... unfortunately it isn’t.
No need to get angry about it.
But anger is dark and edgy
I sense much fear in you
Some of the issues, though, really are answered with, "So what?" I get that that's upsetting for some, but for all of those instances, I'm in agreement with the writers. Disco tech (see what I did there?) is obviously superior to TOS tech. So what? Disco Klingons have a different biological appearance than other Klingons. So what? Those are ultimately superficial and unimportant elements.
Regarding the "dark end edgy" tone, I feel like that has reflected not just the contemporary TV landscape, but contemporary society, as well. We're not in the same cozy place we were for most of the Berman era. A lot of episodes of TNG and VOY, and even some DS9, would feel outright naive and tone deaf if made today. They were right for their time, though, and part of why they endure is that they showed us the hope and confidence that we had at that time that things were beginning to come together, and that we had a lot to work with going forward.
Are these Klingons more brutal than their predecessors? Or were earlier Klingons just more talk than walk? The only real example we have of a Klingon freed from the restrictions of 1960's network TV and also not rehabilitated as friends of the Federation was Commander Kruge in The Search for Spock. As I watch Disco, I feel that Kruge would have fit in perfectly well with T'Kuvma, Voq, L'Rell, and Kol.
Lorca's ruthless, ends-justify-the-means approach seemed pragmatic to a lot of people up front. They bought into him, feeling he was the right Starfleet captain for both his and our time. How many fans have we heard, whether on this forum or elsewhere, cheer for his uncompromising tactics? And here we are, now knowing that he wasn't even from our universe. He was a Lorca with different values entirely, who was not trying to protect or defend our ideals because he didn't even hold them. I'm reminded of the end of M, where the mob puts the child murderer on trial, and in the process shames us for having become so blood thirsty that we wanted to see them do what the police could not.
The fact that there were so many long time Trekkers who bought into Lorca is a far more troubling matter for me than how many nostrils Klingons have or when holodecks started to be used.
Disco isn't shirking Trek history just to follow mainstream trends. It's a show for us as we are today. We're having to go back and re-fight a lot of social issues that seemed we had well in hand; even basic things, like how much sexual violence is acceptable (correct answer: none whatsoever). And what I have appreciated perhaps more than any other part about Disco is that its characters--especially Burnham and Saru--have consistently made the argument that we can, and even must, hold fast to our ideals during trying times; that to sacrifice them for the sake of expediency or to allow ourselves to be swept up in a tide of conflict and lose sight of those core values is how we lose whatever it is we're trying to protect in the first place.
What Burnham has been pushing for throughout this season has been not just to fight against the Klingons, but to remain focused on what we're fighting for. She's done that time and again by insisting on respecting protocol and rescuing the space whale; defying Lorca to respect the beings on Pahvo and leave them out of the war; to revise the Sarcophagus ship mission to include rescuing Cornwell; to look for a way to reach better understanding with the Klingons.
I can't think of a more important or timelier statement for any incarnation of Star Trek to make.
Much has been said and read into Disco and how it reflects current politics and issues. In fact that has been said for all the Star Treks being a mirror on current US and global politics and social issues. End of Cold War and a collapsing Soviet Empire? We get Star Trek VI with an exploding Praxis and collapsing Klingon Economy...
However, even I am surprised by how much attention and commercial success DIS is getting outside of the core fan base. I think this recent article is very interesting to read:
www.forbes.com/sites/ianmorris/2018/01/30/hulu-is-gaining-on-netflix-but-star-trek-discovery-is-an-unstoppable-monster/amp/
I saw that Forbes piece. It made me self-conscious that I actually haven't talked about it much online away from this forum. I've only had a few Facebook posts and some tweets so far. Most of my actual conversations have been private, which presumably aren't being monitored and included in the Parrot Analytics data. (Or are they...? O_O )
Star Trek TOS, was reflective in some respects, but it also was the show that showed us who we could be. Same goes for the most part for later Treks. A pretty unabashed example of this are some of the dialogue moments between Lily and Picard in First Contact, though you also see the fragility and human condition of Picard in later moments they have together. DS9 though showed us, however, that there would be imperfections even with this striving, but that we should not stop that striving. (Yes we have Pale Moonlight Sisko, but you also have finale SIsko who will not drink the bloodwine on Cardassia.)
Similar themes were seen in contemporary to these Treks and later successful shows such as Babylon 5, Farscape, pre-actor take over creative rights Andromeda and to this day in the Marvel series, such as most of Defenders saga (Jessica Jones and Punisher being the exceptions). (To this point, the dialogues between Daredevil and the Punisher, mirrors again of who we can be and who we are as a people.)
Discovery, following these premises, is only the mirror with no goal or hope of something to become, because we will always be the same dirty people, without any evolution as a people other than better beepy toys, and frankly proving Q correct at Farpoint. (And I think Quark had a few things to say on the subject about the hoomans as well.)
(And like you I am more troubled by the cheering on of Lorca. And that is why I have the greater problem of his character having been given the pre-eminence that he did regardless of how they explained it, the Admiral letting it get that far is more telling of her and of Starfleet than his own essence)
If these ideas that we can be better and SHOULD be better, are naivete, then frankly, I feel like we are in a greater deal of trouble than we might have even realize.
It's been said that earlier than Angsty and Dark is what sells -- if that was all that sold, there would be no one going to see Captain America and Black Panther... and that gives me a little bit of hope. (And who wants to make a bet that Black Panther makes more than any two Trek movies of any universe combined worldwide?) That we can still cheer for some character somewhere who is actually 'good' and not so flawed as to make you question if you'd hire them if they interviewed at your company or even want to walk down the same street as them.
But it has a niche'. And once again, Trek does find a niche' it's just a different niche' abandoning some of what made it great to make it 'relevant' in some segments of the populations eyes. To call it a natural evolution may be correct on one level. Only if we assume the reflective, not the progressive, not the inspirational. Of course then all we see are the broken ships in the Ready Room -- not what comes next.
I should clarify that when I said a lot of the Rick Berman-era Trek would play as naive if made now, I wasn't dismissing the ideals themselves. Rather, the way that a lot of episodes postulated how we might apply those ideals would play as naive. Take, for instance, "The Best of Both Worlds". Because of Berman's insistence on getting back to the wholly episodic structure, the only aftermath from that that we were shown was "Family". After that one cathartic mud fight with Robert, we were told that, yeah, Jean-Luc'll be fine.
In 1990, we didn't discuss things like mental health and PTSD openly enough that enough viewers said, "Uh, wait a minute. I have some problems with accepting that this guy is ready to get back to work and should be trusted with the flagship of the Federation so quickly." So when they put Picard right back on the bridge two weeks later, everyone went along with it. Onward and upward and all that!
In 2017, though, an entire generation of Americans has grown up in a world where we have been sending their older siblings, and now them, to Afghanistan. Disco's look at PTSD through Tyler is "dark and gritty" relative to, say, the TNG era, but it can also be said that TNG's whisking Picard past it is naive relative to today's era.
Berman was entirely right, incidentally, in 1990 to just get Picard and the crew back to their alien of the week adventures, incidentally. It would have been bold and daring had they spent even three or four episodes rehabilitating Picard, and maybe it would have worked. Maybe it would have been brilliant. But it would not have been what the general viewership (regardless of how enlightened we rush to claim we are as a group) actually wanted. The social climate and TV viewing habits of the day expected it.
I categorically reject the claim that Disco "is only the mirror with no goal or hope of something to become". I don't see Disco saying that whatsoever. What I see is Disco saying the same thing Benjamin Sisko once noted: It's easy to be a saint in Paradise. And Sisko wasn't just talking about the Starfleet brass back on Earth. He was talking about the rosy and often reductive world view of TNG, too.
But where the Maquis were saying, "We're not in Paradise so forget trying to be saints", that's not at all what the Disco crew have been saying. Time and again, Burnham and Saru in particular have interjected that even though we're no longer in Paradise, we still have the obligation to uphold our core values and ideals and to continue striving for sainthood. Burnham and Saru have not forsaken their pre-war ideals. They've made sure those ideals have continued to have a voice when it has been inconvenient, even incompatible with the immediate objective.
Lorca had no interest in responding to that space whale, but Burnham and Saru were the ones who said, "War or no war, that's an endangered species and we're supposed to give a damn." It matters very much that the show has thrown an endless barrage of cruelty at these people through the first 12 episodes, and yet they are still trying to find peaceful resolutions to conflicts; to better understand their adversaries; to continue standing up for the same things they stood up for before the war broke out.
That's not "no goal or hope of something to become". That's standing for something, and that matters. That matters a lot.
Time and again? In that very same episode you cite, Saru tells Burnham that she is just like Lorca, and they both have a drive to get what they want no matter what the consequences to others!
And saying, hey this makes me uncomfy isn't what standing up is.
Maybe it gets better after the first several eps, but I wouldn't use the Ripper ep as showing Burnham or Saru being anything other than mostly ineffectual from a we get better standpoint. And it takes so damn much for the right thing to happen there that it's a mirror of the fight over Guantanamo Bay -- again not an example of who we can become.
Feels like Burnham is good reacting in a way to survive at least from her actions.
And who and how is the power structure we see here?
TNG is never something that can be realistically compared to anything other than TOS. Why? Episodic.
But then you have DS9, Voyager and even Enterprise where actions did have consequences and arcs were there with character development.
Sometimes it is. It depends on who's saying it, about what--and to whom--they're saying it.
Also, I wasn't referencing "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry". I was referencing "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad", when the ship encountered an endangered space whale that Lorca was content to ignore until Saru and Burnham spoke up and protested that their standing order to help those creatures whenever encountered couldn't be waved off due to the war. It was a clear delineation of what Saru and Burnham still see as essential Starfleet principles that Lorca viewed as dispensable--ergo, a perfect microcosm of the struggle between what to hold onto and what to let go of when things are not peaceful.
To go back to "Butcher's Knife", though, it's important to note that that was a very early test for Saru--his first time in the command chair--and for Burnham--still trying just to find a place for herself on a ship full of people who resented her. They were both stumbling, trying to find their ways. And what did ultimately carry them through was falling back on the core values of Starfleet. For Saru, it was desperately trying to find some way to accomplish everything rather than forfeit one victory to secure another. For Burnham, it was learning about, and then protecting, Ripper.
And give Stamets credit in that same episode for seeing a way to let both Saru and Burnham achieve their respective goals. What Stamets did went way past Cadet Kirk monkeying with the Kobayashi Maru simulator.
If you bailed after "The Butcher's Knife Cares Not for the Lamb's Cry", then you've missed 75% of the season to date. It's going to be difficult, and even pointless, to debate the significance of anything from those first few episodes. I will say this, though, for whatever it may be worth: I was every bit as skeptical early on as the next viewer. I was prepared to accept that this wasn't a Trek show for me, just as VOY wasn't. I've seen enough development of characters, relationships, and themes, throughout these first dozen episodes that I have been (obviously!) won over by it.
I can now better appreciate why things played out the way they did in those earlier episodes that left me apprehensive, but it took until the aforementioned "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" (episode 7) that I truly connected with the show, and it wasn't until the next episode, "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum", that I felt I could most clearly point to Disco and say, "There! THAT is Star Trek!"