Star Trek Discovery

[Wrangler]

It will be interesting to see how the season turns out.

[roosterboy]

But, hey!  Maybe they are doing so well that they feel they can release season 2 for free on YouTube.  ::)

They aren't doing that.

As for being worried, I'm not. Hell, I'm not even angry anymore.  Here's why - Article from Midnight's Edge.

Remember what I was hoping for from the outset? That this was actually yet another Star Trek timeline? Well, guess what!

It's not! (Didn't see that one comin', did ya?)

(BTW: I sure as ****** can't be arsed to watch a nearly hour-long video that ultimately—judging by a quick scan of its summary and the first several comments—just reiterates the baseless fan claim that somehow Discovery is not "Canon Trek".)

Being able to justify it as not 'Canon Trek' means I can accept this in the same vein as the new movies.

This is 100% "Canon Trek". Any claims to the contrary are nothing but fan wankery wishful thinking.

Canon is whatever the rights holders claim and CBS says that Discovery is a canon prequel to TOS, therefore that's exactly what it is. No amount of fan disagreement or pretzel-logic justifications can change that. Each fan can decide for themself whether to accept the series into their own personal version of acceptable Star Trek, but fan opinion doesn't determine canon.

Now, the question is if I can stand the writing enough to watch Season 2 while it's on YouTube.

It's not. Only the first episodes of both extant seasons were up on YouTube and only for 2 weeks, which ended on Feb 7.

So, I'll get off your lawn, now, RB.  xp

That implies that I'm complaining about things changing and not being the way they were when I was young. Just the opposite, in fact. It's the fans who can't accept that Discovery is only available via streaming services, or decry the aesthetic updates made to accommodate modern production values and audience expectations, or the increasing diversity of the cast, or whatever else has the collective fan underwear in a bunch these days, who are the ones metaphorically shouting at the rest of us to get off their lawn. Everything must evolve or die, even intellectual properties. Star Trek is no exception.

[Maingunnery]

This is 100% "Canon Trek". Any claims to the contrary are nothing but fan wankery wishful thinking.

Canon is whatever the rights holders claim and CBS says that Discovery is a canon prequel to TOS, therefore that's exactly what it is. No amount of fan disagreement or pretzel-logic justifications can change that. Each fan can decide for themself whether to accept the series into their own personal version of acceptable Star Trek, but fan opinion doesn't determine canon.

According to that logic, if a new owner replaces humans with magical ponies, then magical ponies will be canon?

[roosterboy]

According to that logic, if a new owner replaces humans with magical ponies, then magical ponies will be canon?

Pretty much, yep. That's the way intellectual property works: The people who own it make the rules and the fans can either take it or leave it.

[Maingunnery]

Pretty much, yep. That's the way intellectual property works: The people who own it make the rules and the fans can either take it or leave it.

So it is a slight disagreement over the meaning/application of the word canon. What about if people refer to the situation as "old vs new continuity"?

[ANS Kamas P81]

Canon is canon and it is what the IP holder says it is.  However, the "timeline" thing is what's really being discussed, just what the "Prime" timeline is (specifically a creation of Paramount for the 2009 film) and what it  means for CBS sticking to the "Prime" timeline for future adaptations.

(BTW: I sure as ****** can't be arsed to watch a nearly hour-long video that ultimately—judging by a quick scan of its summary and the first several comments—just reiterates the baseless fan claim that somehow Discovery is not "Canon Trek".)

Not really the case; most of the video follows the rights of who owns what, how it changed over time, who gave orders and agreements on a corporate level for the rights splitup when Viacom broke up, spends some time on the whole timeline question, and then takes a look at the current affairs at CBS and Paramount as to who's running things now that Moonves is out and what that might mean for the future.

He does use the term 'canon trek' when referring to the combined universe of TOS/TAS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT and the first ten films, though I suppose the better term is the 66-05 Timeline I used before, referring to the years those things were made.  Then there was the 2009 reboot, which established two timelines going from there on out; the Prime timeline that Spock came from and the Kelvin timeline that Spock went to.  The three reboot films stayed in Kelvin, while CBS has used the "Prime" term over and over to settle Discovery - and frankly, putting Discovery in what is basically the Kelvin universe fits the aesthetics and design languages perfectly.  (There's mention of that in the video too, complete down to the uniform designs having the same starfleet logo worked into the uniforms as a small fill pattern)

It's a good watch, if you're interested in the corporate side of the history of the franchise.

[roosterboy]

It's a good watch, if you're interested in the corporate side of the history of the franchise.

I gave up about ten minutes in when he started talking about Sumner Redstone surviving a fire. Dude needs a good editor to cut out the completely irrelevant chaff. Life's too short.

[ThePW]

Canon is canon and it is what the IP holder says it is.  However, the "timeline" thing is what's really being discussed, just what the "Prime" timeline is (specifically a creation of Paramount for the 2009 film) and what it  means for CBS sticking to the "Prime" timeline for future adaptations.
Not really the case; most of the video follows the rights of who owns what, how it changed over time, who gave orders and agreements on a corporate level for the rights splitup when Viacom broke up, spends some time on the whole timeline question, and then takes a look at the current affairs at CBS and Paramount as to who's running things now that Moonves is out and what that might mean for the future.

He does use the term 'canon trek' when referring to the combined universe of TOS/TAS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT and the first ten films, though I suppose the better term is the 66-05 Timeline I used before, referring to the years those things were made.  Then there was the 2009 reboot, which established two timelines going from there on out; the Prime timeline that Spock came from and the Kelvin timeline that Spock went to.  The three reboot films stayed in Kelvin, while CBS has used the "Prime" term over and over to settle Discovery - and frankly, putting Discovery in what is basically the Kelvin universe fits the aesthetics and design languages perfectly.  (There's mention of that in the video too, complete down to the uniform designs having the same starfleet logo worked into the uniforms as a small fill pattern)

It's a good watch, if you're interested in the corporate side of the history of the franchise.

what I don't understand is why STD is being made using the bad robot license by CBS, who owns the TOS rights (paramount owns the MOVIE rights) as well as all the TV shows?

[roosterboy]

what I don't understand is why STD is being made using the bad robot license by CBS

It's not. Bad Robot has nothing whatsoever to do with the TV show. Seriously, check the credits at the end of any episode.

And, again, CBS has no need to license Star Trek from anyone; they own it.

Bad Robot made the reboot movies. Alex Kurtzman, whose Secret Hideout Productions is one of the actual production companies behind DSC, used to work at Bad Robot (for instance, on Fringe) but hasn't in at least five years. That's the extent of the connection between Bad Robot and DSC.

This stuff is all easily researchable. It boggles my mind why some fans would rather spread disinformation than find out what the truth is. I guess it makes it easier to rant against something and dismiss it if you just make up your own facts.

[Lorcan Nagle]

Discovery - ten years prior to the Kelvin's trip into alternate history 

The Kelvin incident takes place in 2233, Discovery starts in 2256, and Star Trek is set in the alternate timeline's 2258. Spock is an instructor at Starfleet Academy in the Kelvin timeline at the time DISCO isset.

[I am Belch II]

There are multiple time lines going on in Star Trek now.....its kinda the problem doing Prequels and Reboots.

[Øystein]

Every TOS, TNG, VOY, DS9 and ENT (not to mention First Contact and Voyage Home) show that dealt with time travel in any kind shape or form created new timelines out the wazoo.

Which one is the correct one?

Picard ****** about with Cocraine might have created the mirror universe (according to one novel series) for instance. What other divergent paths have the crews of the Enterprises, Voyager and DS9 created over the years - not to mention all the other species?

[ThePW]

It's not. Bad Robot has nothing whatsoever to do with the TV show. Seriously, check the credits at the end of any episode.

And, again, CBS has no need to license Star Trek from anyone; they own it.

Bad Robot made the reboot movies. Alex Kurtzman, whose Secret Hideout Productions is one of the actual production companies behind DSC, used to work at Bad Robot (for instance, on Fringe) but hasn't in at least five years. That's the extent of the connection between Bad Robot and DSC.

This stuff is all easily researchable. It boggles my mind why some fans would rather spread disinformation than find out what the truth is. I guess it makes it easier to rant against something and dismiss it if you just make up your own facts.

so if STD is made by CBS... explain why they still had to make STD 25% different? aka Hairless Klingons? I can understand the distancing from TOS era visuals (because everything up to this point was made from the POV of tech improvement/visuals of ENT as well as Kelvin-visuals) but why did they not embraces old school visuals?

[Øystein]

so if STD is made by CBS... explain why they still had to make STD 25% different? aka Hairless Klingons? I can understand the distancing from TOS era visuals (because everything up to this point was made from the POV of tech improvement/visuals of ENT as well as Kelvin-visuals) but why did they not embraces old school visuals?

Because frankly TNG was old and 80s and a view of the technology of the future that was horrible when we know what we have today?

Why did the klingons change from TOS to the movies? A span of merely years in universe. How come Khan in TOS/WoK was sent on a space ship but as the most brilliant military mind ever couldn't phantom to think in 3D?

Plenty of inconsistencies in the earlier series, both in looks, visuals, technology and what not.

Sometimes you have to update things to stay current.

Yes 0.0002% of diehard trekkies will scream, but they can go ****** themselves frankly. their opinion does not matter. They are not watching anyways. :D

[Lorcan Nagle]

There are multiple time lines going on in Star Trek now.....its kinda the problem doing Prequels and Reboots.

It's only a problem if you make it a problem.

so if STD is made by CBS...

Not if, unless your claim is that everyone is lying

explain why they still had to make STD 25% different? aka Hairless Klingons?

This is based on a quote out of context.  The designers changed the Enterprise by a significant percentage to avoid paying royalties to older designers. The hairless Klingons was a stylistic choice.

Instead of listening to conspiracy theorists on YouTube, you could just read what the designers and producers have actually said.

[Maingunnery]

Because frankly TNG was old and 80s and a view of the technology of the future that was horrible when we know what we have today?

Why did the klingons change from TOS to the movies? A span of merely years in universe. How come Khan in TOS/WoK was sent on a space ship but as the most brilliant military mind ever couldn't phantom to think in 3D?

Plenty of inconsistencies in the earlier series, both in looks, visuals, technology and what not.

Sometimes you have to update things to stay current.

Update? Like adding details and feeling on visual aspects (think 3055 -> 3055U)? Or creating good story lines to smooth out older plot points? Well that would be actual updating, but 'update' isn't the correct word for what has occurred, I would suggest the word 'replace'.

Yes 0.0002% of diehard trekkies will scream, but they can go ****** themselves frankly. their opinion does not matter. They are not watching anyways. :D

Audience reviews tell a different story, indicating that most of the trekkies and general audience have already hate it. Eventually it is going to catch up.

This is based on a quote out of context.  The designers changed the Enterprise by a significant percentage to avoid paying royalties to older designers.

Lets assume that we believe them, even though they provide no evidence and have a clear motivation to lie. Then I have to assume that they suffer from 'utter incompetence', just pay off the rights holders or designers and get a lot more profit. And there were even alternative solutions, like having new aliens, which would give so much leeway.

[monbvol]

I still wouldn't put too much stock in those audience scores, especially if they come from Rotten Tomatoes.  It has a very binary rating system that causes extremes when if you actually look at the reviews the reactions are more moderate.

I say this mostly because when I decided season 1 was neither a prequel nor in the same continuity as TOS and the aliens were actually new aliens as well as any names of characters being coincidences and actually judged the show on it's own merits I actually found season 1 fairly decent.  I probably would have gave it a negative score still but I didn't hate it.

And I'll be honest Oyestien's number of how many people are bad mouthing ST:D is probably closer to accurate than most are willing to admit.

[Lorcan Nagle]

Lets assume that we believe them, even though they provide no evidence and have a clear motivation to lie. Then I have to assume that they suffer from 'utter incompetence', just pay off the rights holders or designers and get a lot more profit. And there were even alternative solutions, like having new aliens, which would give so much leeway.

The problem is that you're making personal judgements and passing them off as objective comments:  They have no clear motivation to lie, for example.  It's well-documented in the movie and TV business that rights and design elements can become complex and companies will often change things arbitrarily to cut people out of the profit line - Gene Roddenberry famously wrote   lyrics to the Star Trek theme that were never intended to be heard, but got him a writer's credit and a cut of the royalites. 

Similarly Marvel once cancelled all their comics that were based on characters created by Rob Liefeld and relaunched them in a slightly different format because he had a participation clause in the contract which ceded Marvel the rights to the characters - even though their sales at the time were below the line where he got a payout.

Declaring the work of the designers to be 'utter incompetence' is another judgement call without value.  By what metric are the designs in DISCO incompetent?  Do the phasers not look like guns?  Communicators not look like devices the characters talk into?  Do the aliens not look like aliens?

I mean, it's fine to not like DISCO, I dislike almost as much Trek as I like.  But making declarative statements about the production that are based on your opinion rather than verifiable facts dilutes your argument.  It's assuming an authoritative voice which is easily dismissed.

[roosterboy]

so if STD is made by CBS... explain why they still had to make STD 25% different?

Easy: They didn’t. That is yet another unsupported fan claim.

The designers changed the Enterprise by a significant percentage to avoid paying royalties to older designers.

Which isn't true, either. Yes, it's what was initially stated by the designers on the new show but they later walked that back and a spokesperson for DSC confirmed that CBS owns the rights to the original designs and there is no legal barrier to using them; the differences were a creative choice, not a legal requirement.

[Lorcan Nagle]

Which isn't true, either. Yes, it's what was initially stated by the designers on the new show but they later walked that back and a spokesperson for DSC confirmed that CBS owns the rights to the original designs and there is no legal barrier to using them; the differences were a creative choice, not a legal requirement.

I hadn't heard that the original statement had been walked back.  It's still the origin of the "they had to change the show by X% claim" though.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I thought the 25% thing was for the Bad Robot movies, to separate it from the previous Treks?

[Lorcan Nagle]

I googled "bad robot change 25% of Star Trek" and everything relevant appears to be comments under unrelated articles or speculation on forum posts (and even then it's a mix of comments about JJ Trek and DISCO)

So I'm willing to bet it's a fan game of telephone at best

[ANS Kamas P81]

But that's never happened before!

[Maingunnery]

The problem is that you're making personal judgements and passing them off as objective comments:  They have no clear motivation to lie, for example.

Retention of nostalgia. Current media relies heavily on nostalgia to get people watching. For example, I myself am a bit of a TNG fan, so the new Picard series pitch would have been interesting for me, but the new continuity is disconnected from the old continuity, so a very different Picard. A bit like false advertising, why even bother calling it a Picard show. Therefore I have no innate interest in the proposed new Picard series, if I hear good reviews from people that I trust, then I might give it a watch later but it will not get any priority.
 

It's well-documented in the movie and TV business that rights and design elements can become complex and companies will often change things arbitrarily to cut people out of the profit line - Gene Roddenberry famously wrote   lyrics to the Star Trek theme that were never intended to be heard, but got him a writer's credit and a cut of the royalites. 

Similarly Marvel once cancelled all their comics that were based on characters created by Rob Liefeld and relaunched them in a slightly different format because he had a participation clause in the contract which ceded Marvel the rights to the characters - even though their sales at the time were below the line where he got a payout.

So what? Motivation isn't much of an issue, whatever the motivation, the creatives should still be able to properly update it beyond any old rights, or if they aren't capable of that then be humble enough to continue license it (do it right or just don't do it).

Declaring the work of the designers to be 'utter incompetence' is another judgement call without value.  By what metric are the designs in DISCO incompetent?  Do the phasers not look like guns?  Communicators not look like devices the characters talk into?  Do the aliens not look like aliens?

Could they have easily avoided their problems? The answer is an obvious Yes.

I mean, it's fine to not like DISCO, I dislike almost as much Trek as I like.  But making declarative statements about the production that are based on your opinion rather than verifiable facts dilutes your argument.  It's assuming an authoritative voice which is easily dismissed.

As far as liking goes, I like "Into Darkness", but I would not claim that it is a good movie or even conforms properly to core aspects of ST.

[Lorcan Nagle]

Retention of nostalgia. Current media relies heavily on nostalgia to get people watching. For example, I myself am a bit of a TNG fan, so the new Picard series pitch would have been interesting for me, but the new continuity is disconnected from the old continuity, so a very different Picard. A bit like false advertising, why even bother calling it a Picard show. Therefore I have no innate interest in the proposed new Picard series, if I hear good reviews from people that I trust, then I might give it a watch later but it will not get any priority.

I don't see how that addresses my point.

So what? Motivation isn't much of an issue, whatever the motivation, the creatives should still be able to properly update it beyond any old rights, or if they aren't capable of that then be humble enough to continue license it (do it right or just don't do it).

That's not your call to make.  The Creative team on DISCO have properly updated Trek by the standards of the owners of the property.  You're well within your rights to not like what they did, but that's all.

[HobbesHurlbut]

So, why are they giving the Klingons their hair back? Why are they bringing the classic D7 or K'Tinga back?

[Lorcan Nagle]

So, why are they giving the Klingons their hair back? Why are they bringing the classic D7 or K'Tinga back?

To be honest, I think they're trying too hard to appease the grognards. Personally I'd prefer if they hadn't done the Klingon stuff last week, or had Pike order the holo comm removed from the Enterprise this week.  It doesn't improve the show and I doubt it's going to convince the people who hate the show because of its stylistic choices to change their minds.

[ThePW]

Deleted because I don't care anymore about this subject... LOL.

[roosterboy]

but the new continuity is disconnected from the old continuity

No, it’s not.

[HobbesHurlbut]

I googled "bad robot change 25% of Star Trek" and everything relevant appears to be comments under unrelated articles or speculation on forum posts (and even then it's a mix of comments about JJ Trek and DISCO)

So I'm willing to bet it's a fan game of telephone at best

https://youtu.be/05AX0RrvSTI?t=1687   Apparently this is where it all orginated from.