Discussion: Star Trek Discovery!
With the recent announcement that Star Trek: Discovery will not follow traditional PG-13 rating for TV, it has caused some conflicting opinions on the matter. Some welcome the increase in rating, this reflects successful shows such as Game of Thrones and Orange is the New Black, while others feel that the show is moving away from the core roots of Star Trek.
With Discovery's TV-MA (Mature Audiences) rating, what do you think?
I for one welcome this. While Trek's always been a bit of a fluffy utopianist view of the future, there's been some pretty decent levels of violence and struggle to get there. Hopefully it's not just an excuse for a new version of Jolene Blalock to do T&A shots and it shows the struggle of humanity in a hostile world.
Discovery ticks a lot of the boxes I wanted from a new TV trek:
- Shorter season
- More serialised storytelling
- Interesting cast (I remember thinking when they announced it that it would be amazing if they got Doug Jones in to play an alien.)
- Diverse characters
Barring The Expanse, I don't watch any space sci fi on TV at the moment, which is really weird. I think any series with this cast and premise would be on my list, and the fact that it's Star Trek is an added bonus. I don't like prequels as a rule, but there's enough good stuff here to make me give it a chance.
I hope that the writers will use that freedom in ratings to tell us more mature stories than before, but those that still pull their inspiration from the Trek ethos. If they went for the TV-MA just to sell us sex and violence, I'm going to be extremely disappointed.
There's already plenty of rumor floating around out there about Discovery possibly breaking away from the philosophy and critical thinking the other shows brought up, that it's just a way for CBS to hang on to the license while another series beyond it is worked on.
"One thing that has nothing to do with Discovery is that I am working on another Star Trek project, but I can’t discuss that either." -Nicholas Meyer, 12/6/17
What I would like to know, is why do they go for the prequel stuff instead of trying to define something new? I don't want to know about Khan and his time on the wrong planet. I don't really care about the time before Kirk (I mean, I didn't care about ENT)
I've never understood (other than the money aspect) why these people always go for something 'before' which then they inevitably screw up the lore of the genre and leave fans confused, annoyed and generally disenchanted.
I'm in agreement with you, Sharr. Though I came to enjoy and appreciate ENT (but only after it had been cancelled), I would much rather see what happens later on. Thankfully there have been plenty of amazing novels to keep me entertained after Nemesis but I would be more excited about a series set in the future of the Prime U timeline than things that happened in the past for the most part.
Seeing the Earth Romulan War would be pretty cool, for a miniseries maybe. The founding of the Federation that they never got to do too. I'll give Discovery a chance (and my money) but I'm at a loss why they keep doing this when the general consensus amongst fans is we want to see what happens after VOY & Nemesis!
I have only watched the first half of the season (the 2017 episodes) and I enjoyed what was presented. I just haven't been in a "Let's watch something" mood beyond the occasional movie at the theater (now that I have Movie Pass, it will be more than just occasionally). Probably the exhaustion from treatment and gym time. Incidentally, the last time I was at the gym, the movie room was screening Star Trek Beyond.
As for prequels, I would much MUCH rather that they return to the post-Nemesis timeline, with or without the Hobus supernova. That said, Enterprise is tied for my favorite Trek series (with DS9). So many excellent characters in that series (much like DS9) that actually felt like what we flawed humans would be in our earlier years of interstellar travel. Hoshi Sato was easily the most believable to me, particularly exhibiting her phobias and paranoias. Space is dark and cold and thin. Space is death and disease and destruction. At least it is in the Trek universe. God knows what it's like out there in the real universe!
I will probably catch up on Discovery over the next couple of days. Energy levels permitting.
I'm just starting on Discovery myself, so I'll see how it goes.
Sometimes I do understand why people don't go for prequels much - why watch something when you already know how things are ultimately turn out? But on the other hand, it's sometimes fascinating to know why things developed the way they did. For example, when you think about it, why would the Federation sign a treaty agreeing not to use cloaking devices, especially during a time in which two of their major adversaries both used them?
We have several major time periods in which we know virtually nothing about, except for the occasional passing reference or time travel episode. What happened between the end of Enterprise and the beginning of TOS? Or between the end of the TOS movies and the start of TNG? Yes, I'm also one who'd like to see a post-Nemesis "Prime" series, but that doesn't mean I don't wonder as to what came before but was never really explored on-screen.