Gosh that'd be horrible. Do you feel both shows are trying to "out-do" their predecessors instead of simply contribute to the IP as a whole? Ironic since I have no idea what you mean. No offense. I really mean it I don't get the painting remark... Interesting... so it was a famous comedy bit by comedian Rowan Atkinson?
Line by line... No, I meant that just because one person thinks that painting over the Mona Lisa with their own pallets is correct and right and just, does not make it so. I was replying to Fox to confirm they were replying in kind. I had no knowledge of that sketch, probably Mr Bean
Yeah, I no clue he did a sketch like that either... well personally (my taste) aside from the original I very much enjoyed Deep Space Nine and still play re-runs from time to time. So it ... is definitely different when I see what the teams have done with these younger generations as it were. I do feel there may have been attempts to "cater to everyone" in certain aspects and at the risk of doing so failed in pleasing no one? Eh it's hard to tell. The show did try to showcase more LGBTQ+ elements I noticed so I wouldn't be surprised if it received misdirected angst simply from that alone.
It is systemic in current writing on television and it needs to stop. You have entire plotlines surrounding nothing more than how people feel over the course of an entire season, and that is the theme of the show. That should never be the case, and was without a doubt the biggest shift in the show; wherein it is not episodic, but overarching in theme: https://writtenby.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series_writers That is the list of who wrote which episode of the very original series. Each one of them (my favourite writer was Jean Lisette Aroeste) had to work within the confines of the characters; an independent episode to play out that week. This meant that instead of an entire season of plot to cope with, that can strain the very limits of any writer, we get one episode gems of original stories. IF you have a teevee show that has an ending, and you know that by the end of the season it will be resolved, then EVERYTHING the characters do is meaningless, because we have to sit through another week, then another, then another, then another until the characters have gone through all of these sides quests to get to the final boss fight at the end of the season. It's just...diabolical teevee, and DISC/PIC have both got this plod, plod, plod, bump in the road, plod, plod, plod, snake!, plod, plod, plod, wheel came off, plod, plod, campfire sing-song situation; week after week. And, it is the same on other teevee shows. So - changing the format was a bad idea, because Star Trek was always about single episodic slices of a Starship crew, and the only theme was how the crew banded together to solve this weeks problem. The problem of the week was the focus, not the crew and their (inter)personal problems and how this made them feel inside AND then you got the interpersonal feelings of Aliens, all as MAJOR plot-lines over the course of an entire season! Madness!
*placeholder* just reading your reply... EDIT: @Loobyluggs Okay, I ... I finally got it. I remember the older shows teaching a moral to a story within each episode that supported an underlying plotline (to an extent) but nowhere near as "overarching" as the newer ones which are less independent of each other and more tied together but they don't always have a clear or obvious "hey audience here is the lesson of tonight's episode and what we wanted to teach here" I'm personally indifferent about this but it is a departure from the traditional formula. Do you know what show is also a good example of that traditional storytelling? SG-1. A great example of that. Has an underlying plotline moving in the background yet each episode had their own "mini conclusions" with morals to them that represented different aspects of sociology to politics and other aspects of the human condition just shown through the fictional world the showrunners created. Do you know what the newer ones remind me of? The formula of a television mini-series... I think they have impacted many television shows in the past decade, with lower episode counts for one but not all shows write theirs the same way even within that setup. You have .. mmm ... So Amazon did a series based on Phillip K Dick's works that were scifi and technically a miniseries yet each episode had itself apart from one another so some still do that. I think it was called "Electric Dreams" ? It was interesting... check it out if you haven't I think you'd like it! I just think it may have been more of a commonality in the past where you had 24 episodes to a season (or more)
So, I think there is an element of that for sure. They are no longer 'episodes' but as you say 'mini-series', which I believe 'Foundation' will be for television (as an aside, the aspect ratio of 2.00:1 is interesting) as of this date. Not against mini-series Not against longer-themed mini-serials Not against the long-form story-telling I am against poor writing, with poor characters, and poor stories - so IF something has been infected with poor characters, stories and writing, I will call it out. Just because you put a female PoC as a lead character, does not mean it will automatically be good, nor does it mean it will automatically be immune from criticism, and it most certainly does not mean you (plural) can call people a long list of 'isms, 'ists and 'obias because of it. Only the cream should rise to the top (my favourite writer on TOS is female, hence why I listed her IMDB) not the dregs - and if we allow this level of writing to continue, we'll all pay the price. Said it before, if ANYONE knows of any SJW's out there that want to talk about how Kirk and the original series was bad, show them "If there in truth no beauty?" and tell them that Jean wrote it - fantastic episode.
Ahh, I see. Hmm, I'd have to take a deeper look at the last season as I haven't watched it up to the current (Saw the 1st episode) I think with time-traveling and or time-line modifying (irony how this relates to many other properties as well) "aka retconning" it has been a risky decision. There is a gulf between critical reception and monetary satisfaction with content sometimes. DC film-properties post-Nolan (up till now at least) appear solely focused on total gross and lack of concern in critical content or as you said "thoughtful writing" to paraphrase you - I know you worded it differently. Ironically, their TV works are not. In fact, that could almost be said for much of TV right now. There is a lot of good writing on TV. This eludes me. Possibly the people involved? I'd have to take a deeper dive another time. You have the issue of note with the (laying off?) of Snyder during Justice League. Any personal misgivings aside, I found that very tacky. Regarding creative control. You hire someone to do a job let them do it; that is their job to do. They are there for it to come to fruition; it's better to make judgments for better or worse after the fact, in my opinion. (unless they are violating company policy and harassing staff or something along those lines etc) Back to Star Trek Discovery...One thing I do wonder is how much "creative control" is actually given to the writing staff? Are some things we discuss being imposed by external forces? For example, Phil Lord & Chris Miller were fired from Solo a Star Wars Story regarding refusal to yield creative control, only to segway into winning an Oscar on Spider-Man: Into the Spiderverse. That property grossed Sony $375.5 million (budget of 90) / Solo $393.2 million (budget of 275) & the reshoots estimated at $250 million. Now to be fair it's reported that Ron Howard shot 70% of the film. I am confused by reports that state the reshoots cost 250 against a 275 budget but whatever... in the end, I feel like it was unfortunate for Disney, no one wants the perception of unnecessary spending or to feel like "it was our loss" as it's clear those were(are) two very talented Directors. In fairness, there are also two sides to every story, and as a matter of policy, I imagine Disney generally is relative mums the word on such matters for the sake of corporate policy etc...privacy of those involved (matters that I am not thinking of etc) Still, it's an interesting thing that happened, perhaps some things can be extrapolated from it & good lessons can be learned. I believe the old adage of can't please everyone holds true here. Far as writing is concerned EDIT: showrunner/the writing was concerned with Star Trek Discovery.. I read something a while back... trying to find it... Here it is; reg. when S1/S/2 changes made. "Alex Kurtzman has taken over showrunning duties for season two of CBS All Access' Star Trek: Discovery. Kurtzman will replace Gretchen Berg and Aaron Harberts, longtime collaborators of Bryan Fuller, who took over the show after his involvement with the series ended after clashing with CBS." Star Trek Fires Showrunners After Complaints of Verbal Abuse (vulture.com) Thanks for the link btw - been looking over this, an interesting read. Pardon me I really edited this post a lot had some thoughts afterward...
Sorry, I made choice to not waste 1st of January on meaningless things like going into details of how STD is bad. (As I did it in past.) And yes, sketch is part of Mr. Bean's series. (Easy to find.)
I am also pretty sure that it wasn't the Mona Lisa rather it was Whistler's Mother he ended up painting over and yeah STD is pretty bad. I was one of the defenders in the early days, I stuck to the line that TNG was pretty bad in it's first season, in fact almost all of the ST shows were bad in their first season but they all improved with time and for a small moment STD looked like it would do that with S2 using a fair degree of nostalgia baiting and S3's jump to the future moving the whole story arc far enough out side of the established canon that it could stretch it's legs and try new things without stepping on too many established canon toes, It then proceeds to 1). Continue to mess with established canon. 2). Promotes an underqualified, inexperienced Ensign to Second in Command against any and all established rules of promotion and sense. That promotion alone makes me question if Saru is even qualified to be Captain! 3). Continues with the crying game 4). Continues to make Burnham the centre of everything 5). Continues with the god awful agenda pushing, dealing with topics and stories that previous ST shows just did without making it look like ham fisted agenda pushing. 6). Introduces stupid and gimmicky future tech, warp nacelles that aren't attached??? Ships that break apart and reform 7). It's set 900 years from when Discovery left yet all the meebers of The Federation still use matter anti matter controlled by Dilithium as their primary form of power. Let's not forget that the Romulians did not use this for powering their Warbirds and that was some 800 years before the current time line of STD, are they seriously trying to tell us they didn't find a single viable alternative method of propulsion in all that time?
Those reasons are to do with a Bad Robot contract 'loophole', wherein they have to make a significant departure from canon so they can get a merchandising percentage, as they can then claim that it differs from the original in such a way that they can get paid for being the designer of it, and in a way, a new piece of IP. Uniforms / apparel and of course toys, being the biggest. Bad Robot have had this deal since before Star Trek 2009, which is why this current crop is called the 'Kelvin' timeline, and they are trying to put their little pathetic paw prints on as much as the cannon as possible, so they can call (recall?) it theirs. This is the only saving grace because, I can watch this 5hit, knowing full well that none of it ever happened, because it has all happened in a different non-Trek timeline. I can still call it what it is though and nothing can stop that, but it will depress me knowing it's all because of a company trying to get a slice of the Star Trek money, by retconning as much as they can get the hands on. Q will be next. Words Marked. Only this time he'll be gay and look like Trump, no doubt.
I do not know if Iam reading you correctly, but the Kelvin timeline were the ST movies with Chris Pine.
My understanding was that the two divisions that ended up with this splitting of the established Trek Universe (Paramount) and everything ST from the Kelvin movies onwards (CBS) was meant to have been resolved towards the end of last year with the reunification of these two separate parts of the same business? Yes and no, everything CBS is considered to be set within the Kelvin time line, the recent movies and the new TV shows. I believe a recent episode of STD even mentions the events of the first movie that lead to Spock and The Narrada travelling back in to time officially linking it to that time line. The truth is that it comes down to contractual rights. Looby mentioned it, basically CBS can use the name Star Trek and it's 'content' up to a certain point. If it goes beyond that point it looses any rights to merchandising associated with those 'items' and I think they may have to pay fees to Paramount. anyway merchandise is where the big money lies, at least with the old Trek stuff it was. The thing is no one wants the new Trek stuff, as far as I am aware they didn;t even release a model of the new Kelvin Enterprise and when you look at forums and groups on the internet people aren't clamouring to make or build new Trek stuff they are sticking to the old and honestly much better look ships. I used to build old Trek models and I ended up moving on to The Expanse cause the new Trek stuff was so gawdy and ugly. Anyway all this means is that the new Trek stuff has to us a fair bit of old Trek iconography, looks, names, uniforms, etc to actually try and anchor it within the established ST Universe. I am guessing that some shows like STD touch on it while trying to go in their own direction. Picard had little choice but has tried damn hard to keep it's distance from established look and feel. One scene of the old Enterprise D, very little use of his actual name, former rank, etc. Weirdly the new show that comes closest to the actual look and feel of the old ST is lower decks. The ships in it certainly look like the more established ST universe, the uniforms are a much closer match to TNG, Klingons actually look like Klingons that most folk who saw the original movies, TNG, Voyager, DS9 etc would recognize. I suspect the nature of the show meant they had no real plans to try heavily merchandising the content and the only thing that they could get away with The Cerratos is at least unique to the show.
^^ mostly correct re: CBS 'in color' as it was known (this is why the original series had bright purples and pink as backdrops, and the uniforms were yellows, reds, blues) but all I knew about was the Bad Robot deal. CBS wanted something that would push their channel forward in '65, and began acquiring programs that supported this ideal. The original Pilot and even, 'where no man has gone before' had a slightly less colorful uniform and look to it, but all the other fell in line with what CBS wanted.
seeing I was disgusted by why they did with kilgons in first episode which was also the only epsiode aired on NBC, I still have yet to watch any of this and probably never willl. I dont like thay NBC lock star trek behind there "payed" platform. and only episodes of "picard" i seen are one that were aired on Pluto tv When NBC air them on NBC channel I will watch them till then i wont sadly. I did like "picard" episodes I seen on Pluto tv though
Damn , I really loved this season. It was so much better then season 2. (which i didnt realy like) lots of effects and cool stuff. It made it look like a top tier movie. last episodes ending really put a smile on my face. just wholesome. Looking forward to season 4.
Like a lot of the people my age, I became a fan of Star Trek through the syndication of the original series. I mostly know about that era as far as the history is supposed to go. I guess I don't outright hate Discovery, but I think it has waaaay too many touchy-feely moments, and a lot of "slickness" that allows them to write poor story lines. Poor story lines are nothing new to Star Trek, I mean just look at season 3 of TOS and you'll see it's almost a hallmark. But I think this new Discovery series (and indeed the movie reboots) are all about slickness and special effects and drama and not so much about complex social problems and stuff like that. It's more like candy for kids or something. Everything has to be in crisis mode all the time non-stop and they always need to be on the verge of total annihilation or whatever. But they still have time to share tender moments all over the place, somehow.
