though sadly seems very hard for most in real life...
Sorry, but the secular humanism of Star Trek (katras notwithstanding) is one of the elements I'm very much all in on.
Given all the chaos, DIS could've been a lot worse.
- Thread starter KlingonCereal
- Start date
though sadly seems very hard for most in real life...
Sorry, but the secular humanism of Star Trek (katras notwithstanding) is one of the elements I'm very much all in on.
The Berman era had more than its share of chaos behind the scenes, regardless of how much of a rut the shows appeared to be in in front of the camera.
As enough time has passed from S1, the uniforms and ships aren’t really a dealbreaker. Its pretty clear that in universe, the creative juices of the Klingons were unleashed between ENT and TOS to challenge the status quo.
Considering that the fate of Prime Lorca is still in the air, that idea might still be explored one day.
There might still be mileage in that idea, both as to its origins in the 23rd century and its uses in the 32nd century.
That idea might still come to fruition someday too. Maybe as a season or series finale down the line? Or even a season long arc?
DIS dodged a bullet with that theme, imo. Their current theme is leagues better. The unused theme does not feel like it would fit DIS at all, or any other Trek show for that matter..
Very insightful post. And, yeah, I agree with others about being glad they didn't go with Cliff Eidelman's theme.
I'm not going to lie, I don't think I would've preferred Bryan Fuller's version of Discovery to what we got. Much like The God Thing, it's an instance where the less I know, the better of an image I have in my mind of what it would've been.
I didn't know Nick Meyer's script for "The Battle at the Binary Stars" was tossed out, but it doesn't surprise me. None of it feels like his writing style.
As someone who considers himself an Agnostic, I think the way religion was treated on TOS and TNG was a mistake. DS9 had it right: skeptical and unsure but not dismissive and patronizing.
That's interesting. For me, the best part of Discovery, although still deeply structurally flawed, is the first half of season 1 (after that the Berg/Harberts first six episodes of season 2, then the back half of season 1, and finally the worst being the Alex Kurtzman / James Duff / Michele Paradise part of season 2).
I just listened to a podcast from Inglorious Treksperts (Google || Apple) interviewing Jesse Alexander and Aron Eli Coleite about the Mudd time loop episode and why they left. They, and Joe Menosky, had one year deals that all expired just as "Magic" was set to film, and weren't renewed over budget concerns (although it should be noted that equally ranked co-executive producers replaced them...). They definitely come across as good people with their hearts in the right place, and manage to go the entire time without mentioning Harberts and Berg, and if there is any reference to Alex Kurtzman at all, it must be incredibly easy to overlook. Both have a long history with Bryan Fuller, and also have surprisingly nice things about Akiva Goldsman to say (knowledge of franchise history, willingness to go to bat for the show with CBS). They say that the show did go out of its way to not hire people with past Star Trek experience. They end by joking that once NDAs and the statue of limitations(!) expire in about 10 years there should be a lot of interesting information available to those interested.
Went out of its way not to hire people with past Trek experience?
It's been reported before that was the mentality among those in charge of the first season. IIRC, it's why Jeffrey Combs was rejected when he tried to audition.
I was sort of excited to watch STD as I wanted to see where they'd take the exploration aspect of it, but was saddened to see it was only about conflicts. No strange new worlds, no seeking out new life, just fighting, both "enemies" and internal conflicts. I really didn't care about a female with a male name, nor the same sex couples and the like, I wanted to see some science fiction. Too bad all the sci fi shows I've grown up on are now basically virtue signaling crap.
I forced my way through 4 seasons of STD and then I had to stop. It’s a show about telling you things: telling you how great its characters are, telling you how great its representation is, telling you how much logic is bad and emotions are good, and telling you that its Star Trek. It doesn’t show you any of those things. It just broke my heart and my brain over and over again. And the totally unprofessionalism of crying every show...
Logistics also comes into play. As both Disco and SNW are filmed in Canada, its cheaper to hire Canadian actors because it benefits Paramount. Jeffery Combs discussed it recently.
Basically, you could have had Combs guest star for a single episode, but only that episode. You could not have him as a recurring role unless he was a part of the main cast. And I'd imagine that Combs would want to be a recurring character at least.
Its not a coincidence that the actors/actresses playing supporting roles or villain of the season are all from Canada. And we haven’t seen a single appearance from Shran, Archer, Soval, etc.
https://heavy.com/entertainment/star-trek/jeffrey-combs-why-new-trek-different/
Which didn't happen.
That falls apart when you take into account the show has (and has had in the past) a lot of recurring roles played by non-Canadian actors, including Michelle Yeoh, Jayne Brook, Ethan Peck, Oded Fehr and Ian Alexander. You could also include Wilson Cruz and Tig Notaro, who were recurring when they started on the show and were added to the main cast at a later point.
When you put it like that, and consider their apperances...
Yeoh: 9 eps in S1, 9 eps in S2 8 eps in S3, 1 Short Trek
Brook: 7 eps in S1, 5 eps in S2
Peck: 11 eps in S2, 1 Short Trek, starring role in SNW
Fehr: 9 eps in S3, 8 eps in S4
Alexander: 4 eps in S3, 6 eps in S4
Cruz: 10 eps in S1, 9 eps in S2 (regular cast member), 11 eps in S3, all 13 episodes in S4
Notaro: 5 eps in S2 5 eps in S3, 4 eps in S4
Combs should be able to be brought in for a few episodes, even as a completely new alien.
Are the number of episodes per season or filming schedule factors? IDK. Is it a pay thing? IDK. But they don’t seem to want Combs for even a few episodes.
They always were, if by "virtue signalling crap" you mean "stories that make unsubtle points against bigotry." Kirk told off a bridge officer for his racism in an episode in 1967 ("Balance of Terror"). The show had an extremely unsubtle racism story in 1969 ("Let That Be Your Last Battlefield"). Some people considered the mere presence of Uhura, Sulu, and Chekov controversial. And it wasn't just Star Trek. The Twilight Zone, during its original run from 1959 to 1964, wasn't any more subtle in some of its political allegories. Star Trek is just doing what Star Trek and a lot of other science fiction have always done.
That was the purpose of making Star Trek science fiction.
I seem to remember some Roddenberry guy saying something like that once.
Trying to make a point or give a lesson about society is not the same, I think, as virtue signaling. That phrase seems to be pejorative, questioning the motives of the signaler as wanting to be seen as virtuous or hopping on a bandwagon of the current virtue du jour.
Maybe The GR and Berman crews had that going on in their motivations. I don’t know.
Maybe The GR and Berman crews had that going on in their motivations. I don’t know.
Imho, it's damn hard for a succesful work of fiction to engage in virtue signaling, because the supposed point is to show off to other people you are "right-thinking." Thus you'd need to not be viewing the show as if the characters are people, but as author avatars.
Similar threads
