Last night’s episode of Star Trek: Discovery answered a few questions, but raised a few as well. Today on Twitter and last night on After Trek some of those questions have been answered. We have highlights below.
They didn’t eat Mirror Saru
TrekMovie’s review of last night’s episode assumed that the Kelpien Burnham and the Emperor ate was just some random slave, but enough fans here and elsewhere came away thinking it was Mirror Saru for us to pose that question to the screenwriter for “Vaulting Ambition,” Jordon Nardino. He made it clear that Mirror Saru was not on the menu.
This was most definitely not Saru! They were from the Emperor’s personal, uh, collection. The only people who came to the Charon from Shenzhou are Lorca and Burnham. https://t.co/2mp4Jd8Z5A
— Jordon Nardino (@jnardino) January 22, 2018
There was also a video package on After Trek which revealed that in the Mirror Universe, Kelpien are “one of the finest and rarest delicacies.”
Lorca needed Burnham to get to Emperor
On After Trek, Nardino also confirmed that Mirror Michael Burnham is dead and said more would be revealed about her and her relationship with Lorca in the next episode. But he did provide some insight into their relationship:
Mirror Lorca and Mirror Michael had some kind of relationship, but he wasn’t that invested in her emotionally…It was more the opportunity. She was the key to the palace. Lorca could not got on board that ship without [her].
Emperor Georgiou used historic hyperbole with Roman connection
Responding to another question on Twitter, Nardino posted a series of tweets talking about the Terran Empire related to the Roman Empire:
Lots of discussion in the room about the origins of the Terran Empire. In terms of canon, as always, it’s what’s on screen and nothing more. Unanswered questions leave avenues for future seasons / iterations of Trek to explore.
I do not know if MU’s “point of departure” is a specific incident, or the entire history of the MU somehow darkly mirrors ours. Canon locks us into an origin no later than the 20th century. Georgiou’s “millenia” could be construed as hyperbole.
But I firmly do not believe the Terrans are merely a continuation of the Roman Empire. MU earth history should roughly (but darkly) mirror our history as much as possible. I think Rome never falling would diverge too much.
Leaders with imperial pretensions have adopted the styles and titles of the Romans since… well… the minute Rome “fell”! Napoleon took the title Augustus. So it’s natural the Terrans looked back to Rome too.
Emperor Georgiou is connected to Empress Sato
Later in the evening, Nardino did another Twitter thread, this time about the Emperor’s many titles and her connection to Empress Hoshi Sato (from Star Trek: Enterprise):
“All Hail her most Imperial Majesty, Mother of the Fatherland, Overlord of Vulcan, Dominus of Kronos, Regina Andor, All Hail Philippa Georgiou Augustus Iaponius Centarius.” But what’s it mean??!?
When we began digging into the Terrans last year, I had just read a newer history of Rome and was excited to use it as inspiration. (SPQR by Mary Beard, check it out.) Here’s some of the titles Roman Emperors used: [LINK]
So into her titles: – Father of the Fatherland is easy, we turned that into Mother of the Fatherland (even tho we de-gendered Emperor, it felt right) – Overlord of Vulcan: an early conquest of the Terrans, they see themselves as their protectors. It’s paternalistic / delusional.
– Dominus of Kronos: Terrans are very proud of conquering Qo’noS. Dominus is a harsher title the Emperor at the time took as a result (and Georgiou kept for herself). “We OWN them.” Qo’noS mispronounced out of cultural chauvinism.
– Regina Andor: Andoria is a jewel in the Terran crowd. Subjugated warrior race. Early Terran conquest, pre-Sato. The title was created to celebrate this achievement. Now as for Georgiou’s many names…
“Philippa Georgiou Augustus Iaponius Centarius” Philipa Georgiou: her given name and her family name, just like Prime. Augustus: the Terrans see themselves as inheritors of the Roman Empire so their Emperors take the title of its first Emperor.
Iaponius is Latin for Japanese. This (in my fever dream) is a title Hoshi Sato adopted when she named herself Empress, to honor her homeland. “So is Georgiou descended from Hoshi!?” Well…
Hoshi was Empress. 100 years later, Georgiou is Emperor. Georgiou took one of Hoshi’s titles as her own to connect them. So Hoshi’s legacy as Empress must be good and Georgiou must either be connected to her in a chain of succession or might want to create that connection…..
But they have different ethnic backgrounds. Hoshi is Japanese, Philipa is Chinese-Malaysian. So I don’t think it’s likely Philipa is a direct descendant like a great-grandchild. Cousins is possible. More likely tho…
…whoever inherited Hoshi’s throne was someone she adopted as a child & heir, the way most Roman emperors did. And that Emperor adopted his/her heir, and so on, until we get to Georgiou. And she is proud of the connection and flaunts it with the title Iaponius. But…
…it’s not canon until it’s on screen so that’s just one writer’s opinion. As for Centaurius, I figured it was the first system colonized by the Terrans since it’s closest to Sol so it was a title the Emperor at the time took in tribute. Hope someone found this informative!
Burnham keeps Georgiou’s badge on her
On After Trek, Nardino clarified that Michael Burnham didn’t bring Capt. Georgiou’s badge to the ISS Charon in case she needed it to prove she wasn’t from the MU, adding:
It was just a sentimental item. It was something that meant a lot to her from the destruction of the Sarcophagus ship when she retrieves it. It was just a nice item we were able to track with the relationship through the very end.
Toy fidget spinner inspired Emperor’s killer device
Nardino also talked about how they came up with the flying disc she used to keep her top Lords silent. You can watch that bit below.
Mirror Stamets won’t be helpful with mycelial problem and is just a lonely guy
When asked on After Trek if the Mirror Stamets would be able to help out now the USS Discovery’s supply of space fungus was dead, actor Anthony Rapp revealed they were on their own:
I don’t think I can count on Mirror Stamets to do anything. No, that is a real problem that is going to require some ingenuity.
Rapp was also asked if Mirror Stamets had someone to take care of him like Tilly, and he said he did not, noting:
I think Mirror Stamets is sad and lonely. There is no Hugh [Culber]. He is like what regular Stamets could have become had he not met Hugh. I think that Stamets can get totally caught up in his work and may have a friend, but that is Mirror Stamets’ life. He is totally locked away.
Rapp also noted that following the events of the last few episodes, his Stamets will “absolutely” be closer to Tilly, noting how it is all part of the “little steps that we take for all of our characters going forward to plant really wonderful seeds, that will hopefully bear fruit in season two and beyond.”
Stamets and Tyler are going to deal with death of Culber
Actor Anthony Rapp discussed an upcoming scene where Stamets is going to have kind of reconciliation with Tyler, who (as Voq) killed Hugh, saying:
I’m not sure if it is next week. There is a really cool moment between [Stamets and Tyler] and when I read it in the script I was really [puts his hand on his heart], I was really satisfied. On a serialized show, there are so many balls in the air…It is a complicated thing in so many ways and I feel they were able to encapsulate it this small scene. And all of that stuff, in a very compact little piece and I was really appreciative of it.
Frakes says Lorca didn’t fit Roddenberry’s vision (nor did DS9)
As a guest on After Trek, former TNG star and director Jonathan Frakes talked about the character of Captain Lorca, now revealed to be from the Mirror Universe, and how he never really fit in:
Frakes: It violates Roddenberry’s prime directive. He continually violates what is the premise of what the original show was and what we tried to hold on to [on The Next Generation], which sort of slipped away in Deep Space [Nine]. That is one of the things that fans are reacting to. The canon of the show is so strict in terms of…and Lorca is frankly not behaving, as a Starfleet captain that we know.
After Trek also had a package featuring some of the hints all season long at Lorca was from the Mirror Universe. Check it out below.
Frakes thinks TNG should have cast a man as Riker’s love interest in “The Outcast”
Talking about the inclusion of a same-sex couple (Stamets and Culber) on Discovery, Next Generation star Jonathan Frakes said it was “about time” for Star Trek, lamenting on how it took the franchise until the 21st century to do it. He then talked about a missed opportunity for TNG back in 1992:
Sadly, we did an episode called “The Outcast” where Riker is set to a planet of androgonous people. And clearly the person who fell in love with Riker, and vice versa, should have been played by a man, but the studio didn’t have the guts to cast a man.
Star Trek: Discovery is available on CBS All Access on in the US and airs in Canada on the Space Channel. It is available on Netflix outside the USA and Canada.
Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.
Interesting statement from Frakes about casting for The Outcast.
I am glad that times have changed.
I knew he was Mirror, said it months ago.
Please refer to your screen name.
My biggest qualm about the revelation that Lorca is actually Mirror Lorca is what this means for next season. Jason Isaacs has been absolutely RIVETING all season long, and I don’t want to lose him.
I hope that either there’s a good reason for them to bring Mirror Lorca back with them, or they find that regular Lorca has been tied up in Mirror Lorca’s quarters on the Discovery or something, so we can continue to have Isaacs in the show!
Yea I’m sure Frakes would have made out with a man. Suuuuuure. Who’s falling for his PC B*. Stop making a big deal about a gay couple. If they are to be portrayed the same as a hetero couple then stop pointing it out so much and constantly making it an issue. You don’t make it a big deal then others won’t. Of course nimrods here will think two guys making out won’t gross out most of the audience. Now of course I will be called homophobic by the intolerant and dishonest but it’s the truth. I could care less about people who are gay/lesbian but I don’t want to see guys making out. You can try to force everyone to watch it but you can’t make everyone like it. Now let the heterophobia begin.
He’s said this for years — although I doubt they would have let two men kiss back then.
You say people should stop making a big deal about it, yet here you are, making a big deal about it.
You should book an appointment with counselor Troi. She can help you work through those deep inner issues.
Yeah, book an appointment with a fictional character. From another planet. In the future.
You sure told him.
Okay, Tay, book an appointment with a counsellor in your area and discuss your issues with homosexuality. Perhaps you will find some inner peace (or learn something you’ve repressed…lol)
TUP, dude I don’t have any issues with gay people. You are seriously projecting. You are taking both my words and G66’s and taking them in the absolute worst way possible and adding your own little spin on it. He didn’t say anything remotely like “stop showing it” and everything else you said. I know this is a sensitive issue but there’s no need to act like that. Come back to reality.
In the meantime, I’m open to discussion with anyone else here but you simply don’t try to meet in the middle.
@Tay – nope, Im taking G66’s words at face value. They are homophobic. You’re the one choosing to defend him. Why? Well, if you see nothing wrong with his words and are intent on defending them, the conclusion one draws is you share them. No place for bigots, pal.
Im sure there are some alt-right religious Trump forums you can go to where you wont have to be as subtle as you’re trying to be here.
Enjoy!
I am going to call your comments homophobic because that is what they are. They are small minded, extremely offensive and out of touch with reality. How can you be a fan of Star Trek, with his progressive attitudes on race, gender and (now) sexuality and yet spout such hateful comments? You could care less about gay and lesbian people? How quaint of you.
And no, I’m not being “heterophobic” against you. Though given the tripe you spouted I have every write to be. I’m the bigger person- but don’t for a second thing I will not call your backwards views out.
Go and educate yourself, you sad little man.
Like it or not G66 has a valid point. Everyone likes to preach about being accepted and blah blah blah but whenever someone offers a different point of view on the subject they are labeled homophonic.
If the writers/producers had a “it’s no big deal” attitude about this it would be much more ground breaking. But they’re constantly patting themselves on the back and making a big deal out of something that should be considered normal.
Coming from the “bigger person” you sound like a whiny child who can’t handle another person’s opinion.
Agreed. His comment was a little aggressive, but not bigoted.
They actually do show a no big deal attitude. But because you dont like it, it seems like a big deal to you.
There are two things here which you arent enlightened enough to see.
The characters. And the cast/crew.
The characters dont act like being gay is a big deal. Their co-workers dont either. Thats the refreshing thing.
This isnt the same type of story as, say, Brokeback Mountain, where people reacted negatively to gays.
As for the cast/crew, the fact they are always asked about it and its a major point of media interest simply shows that equality has a long way to go and its important to discuss.
Only the people who are bothered by equality claim “okay, okay, we’re equal, we get it. Now stop.” because the day everyone is truly equal is the day no one has to talk about it and people like you dont have to whine about it.
As it is, G66 whined about the CHARACTERS. Showing his bigotry.
There isn’t much o valid point here. Why does it bother people so much if they want to make a big deal out of it? People make a big deal about a lot of things; producers talked a lot and made a big deal about the new Star Wars movie and I didn’t hear people saying “ugh enough with this BS.”
The fact is, large swaths of the public still call gays slurs, discriminate against them, and people who don’t do so publically call gay issues “PC bull.”
It’s not bull. Inclusion and the discussion of it are important to normalizing it.
And yes, his comments bely his bigotry. If he really didn’t care about gays in Trek, then the discussion of it wouldn’t bother him.
No, he and people like him, think that plugging their fingers in their ears will make gays go away. It’s akin to saying “I don’t mind blacks I just don’t want them in schools with my kids.”
Nah, if you say that, it means you do mind them and that makes you a terrible person.
I have to play devil’s advocate here – While G66’s tone is distasteful, his base point is valid (from his point of view): he finds men kissing to be unattractive. You can’t truly call him a bigot for that statement. Now, you could rightfully argue that his statement was unnecessary in the first place…but this is the internet.
Arathorn, I think we are on the same page but if someone were to “rightfully argue” that male on male kissing scenes are unnecessary in the first place… well you know how well that would go over.
Mainstream opinions are changing but people’s attitudes towards something they don’t agree with has not gotten any better. One more reason people like AdAstraPerAspera shouldn’t feel so high and mighty.
@Tay – you’re right about one thing. Mainstream attitudes towards bigotry shouldn’t change. It should still be intolerable. Period.
TUP, relax. You’re misunderstanding something apparently.
Completely wrong. G66 was making the homophobic argument about “if we’re equal, then fine, stop talking about it, stop showing it, stop everything”. Dont be obtuse.
How often do people come here to complain about the “unattractive straight couple” scenes?
If G66 is personally offended or grossed out by two men sharing a rather non-explicit kiss, that IS indicative of a homophobic attitude. Why would it bother him so? Why would he need to share that bother? because the idea of same sex couples bothers him so much he needs to say so.
We dont parse words when people say watching a black man kiss a white woman is unattractive do we? So lets not make excuses for this bigotry. We can’t make people like G66 feel a better way. But we can make the point that we wont tolerate his bigotry and we can hope that the younger generation (if he has any kids) dont grow up sharing it.
Imagine arguing about same sex couples in 2018. Yikes.
If we are going to play devils advocate here, the correct question becomes would the straight male reaction to two women locking lips elicit the same response? That answer is usually no, because it plays into the straight male fantasies. Likewise with threesomes (or group $ex), as long as multiple guys aren’t getting busy with each other, it’s okay. So it is a bigoted response, particularly so in light that so many TOS episodes were built around a particular danger being resolved by (usually) the captains prowess or $exual gravitas being able to diffuse the situation.
heterophobia isn’t a real thing
I dont believe in censorship and I realise politics in the US has made it more inviting for the gross people to come out of their holes. But homophobes should be banned. Period. No place here.
Amen, TUP!
You don’t believe in censorship but a viewpoint you dislike should be banned…?
How progressive and tolerant. Especially considering how everyone is throwing the homophobe card around.
Here, you’re either excited about wanting to see a gay relationship or you’re labeled as a hateful demon. No middle ground, apparently.
@Tay – homophobia isnt a “different viewpoint”. Its bigotry.
You’re trying to be more subtle but dont be obtuse. There is a lot of ground between “excited” and “homophobe”.
How often do people come here to complain about a straight couple? never. So knock it off.
PS: Are you saying you think homophobia is okay? because i didnt say to ban different views. I said ban homophobes. You have an issue with that? What’s next, we should celebrate the differing views of the KKK?
Beautiful!
Ok, explain what has been said that’s so homophobic?
Just because you call something homophobic doesn’t mean it’s true hate speech.
Ok, let’s look at it the other way: explain what’s so wrong with people publicly celebrating their identity? Explain what’s so wrong with two men kissing? If you are going out of your way to make a point to complain about something that doesn’t affect you, and to publicly tell them to stop doing it. . . well, that’s your answer.
(and, btw, homophobia is not the same as hate speech.)
Everything in G66’s post. if you dont know what is offensive about it, you’re part of the problem.
If everything he said is offensive then you’re too sensitive, which is at least half of the problem.
@Tay – please. You havent shown the intellectual level to try to make homophobia a nuanced argument. Replace everything about two men in the OP’s post with inter-racial (or racial) and we’re not even having this discussion because it would have been deleted and you wouldnt feel bold enough to argue racism as a “differing viewpoint”.
I don’t like the idea of banning anyone, but there’s no reason to feed the trolls, either. Reasonable, enlightened conversation will marginalize those who confuse opinion with truth. It just takes time.
True, but on a forum where there IS moderation, albeit very hands off (which is good), certain things should be “red line offenses”. We’d assume racist remarks would be. Homophobic should be as well.
Not only is it offensive to all reasonable humans, its not in keeping with the spirit of Star Trek.
Eh, to be honest the only thing that kind of disturbed me in this episode was the Kelpian dinner; I understand the intent (to show just how low the Terran empire really is) but thought it a little too gratuitous.
I hate to see a woman and a man making out. It grosses me out so much. I am repulsed by the view and hate that im forced to watch something and try to make me like it.
What is worse is a hetero alien making out with a hetero human. Is there homosexual aliens? Im not sure if there is.
Nothing against straight people. I have straight friends, my parents chose to be straight. I just dont like that for 52 years they have to point it out so much! Why?
AriesAries FTW!
@Aries, I can’t speak for all straights but if that was how you really felt I wouldn’t feel angry or threatened at all… and certainly wouldn’t cry “heterophobe”.
Tolerance works both ways.
If the story calls for a gay kiss, a straight kiss or whatever, then fine. Just for the sake of it… that is daft and illogical.
@Tay: you missed the point entirely. No gay or lesbian *would* ever say that, precisely because they would have no reason to feel angry or threatened by a commonplace occurrence in the first place. Only (some) straight people are the ones who feel angry or threatened by the topic of PDAs, and feel the need to constantly say so. That’s the point.
Exactly. I’m lesbian and used to not be a fan of two men kissing. Here’s the kicker: I have gone out of my way to see so many movies that could have two men kissing because I get excited about movies/comics/TV showing gay couples. And when two men kiss: I cheer!!! every time. And now I get very very excited when Stamets and Culber kiss! It makes me so happy to see it in Licenced Official Trek my only reaction is to cheer! As for a man and a woman… well it’s a little overdone but if it’s a involving story it makes me happy. When Rose kisses the Doctor, when Gwen kisses the woman she fell for… When Jack kisses Jack…. It all makes me happy. The only time I wouldn’t be excited to see a same sex kiss is if it was Queer as folk or Bad Girls because I never stop being excited when I watch those shows.
Be like me, if men kissing isn’t something u like…. Just cheer for it happening!
Sit there clapping, focus on your favourite character like.
Then one day all that will happen when two men kiss is you will be happy and want to cheer.
That’s me. If a great story is happening and two people of the same gender kiss I do everything from cry to cheer.
Because it’s still a rare thing and thank Goodness Star Trek portays if just as normal as any other relationship.
Stamets and Culber kissing is just as normal as Tyler and Burnham kissing and Star Trek films it that way.
It makes me cheer.
@Tay hahahahaha
I don’t see anyone being called the “other F” word. I don’t see anyone calling for gay kissing to be banned from the show. And I don’t see anyone being anti gay in any way…
Someone just voiced their opinion on what they’d rather not see. Saying yuck isn’t anything to be afraid of.
If someone can please explain why that’s such a big deal then let’s hear it… The “if you don’t already know then you’re the problem” argument is ridiculous. If you can’t rationally explain it then it must not be rational.
You can’t have freedom of speech and cry foul anytime you hear something you don’t like. All this whining doesn’t do much to dispel the stereotype.
Saying ‘Yuck’ and then criticising the show for showing it IS homophobic.
If it grosses u out for wahtever reason…. Then just cheer and clap for it being shown and just look away while you are clapping.
If it makes you upset to see 2 men kiss and angry enough to criticize a show for having 2 men kiss…. That’s not only homophobic but there’s clearly other shit goin on.
Fantastic Alice,
Glad you’re excited but telling someone to cheer and clap at something they don’t want to see? You can’t be serious.
Do you go down to a sports bar and tell people to cheer when their team loses? Do you tell people planning to go to the beach to cheer when the weather turns bad? Landry is coming back in the next episode…. am I suppose to cheer for the return of a bad actress playing an awful character?
I don’t know, that seems like a very odd thing to say.
Which “stereotype” for starters? Several of us have explained why the original OP’s comments were homophobic. The person said they are grossed out by seeing men kiss, feel they’re being “forced” to watch it, assume everyone else is as uncomfortable with it as they are, and (worst of all) forcingly insisted that Star Trek should stop showing it. That’s classic homophobia and I’m not afraid to call it out in the least.
“You can’t have free speech and cry foul anytime you hear something you don’t like.” Umm, you don’t really know how free speech works, huh? Having the right to say whatever you want doesn’t mean you get to be sheltered in return from people who will challenge your opinions (and it’s telling the OP has disappeared after dropping something they knew was offensive, so whose afraid?).
Free speech is a two way street too.
Whatever. I’m done with this troll. The points have been made repeatedly. LLAP.
“Forcingly insisted that Star Trek should stop showing it”
I certainly don’t see that anywhere. I was starting to see where you were coming from but here’s yet another example of people blowing this out of proportion. You’re offended by something you imagined was said. But I’m the troll.
Ok, psycho.
@Tay – your subtle homophobia is a good effort but we see right through you. Just stop.
TUP, Have you read this? Holden just argued against something that was never said. I call him out and all you have to say “stop homophobe”??
Ugh, can you at least try to be objective? (Rhetorical)
It would be sort of ridiculous for you to feel angry or threatened when everywhere you turn you see representation of who you are as a person and no one tells you that they are disgusted.
Tolerance is “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”
and I am VERY SORRY to break it to you but you aren’t very tolerant to what you find disgusting. I could care less if you find it disgusting, but it becomes a big deal when YOU decided to make it a big deal. Not every tolerant if you ask me.
Get over it. Men will be kissing in DISCO. Time for you to gag quietly and be tolerant. It works both ways.
” I could care less about people who are gay/lesbian but I don’t want to see guys making out.”
The gentleman doth protest too much, so to speak.
Interesting insights.
As I think about this, the increasing importance of the Mirror Universe (or at least this version of the Mirror Universe) reflects (pun intended) the real-world diversification of previously sole-universal franchises. For example, the multiverse concept has been well-used in regards to various comic-book franchises (Justice League, etc.), allowing a proliferation of narratives.
What makes Star Trek particularly intriguing is that, even as early as TOS, the “multiverse” concept is actively incorporated into the original narratives. Thus, it can be argued that Star Trek is no longer a single universe (although there supposedly still is only “one” “Prime Universe), but canonically a multiversal one.
In other words, the in-universe understanding of the events we, as the audience, see is that there are at least two versions of even the main character that have been encountered. There is James T. Kirk, and then there is his mirror version — which is acknowledged by all in the “Prime Universe” to exist, or at least have existed.
It’s as if Superman knew that there was a world wherein he had died (“The Death of Superman”) and acts in full knowledge of it in the “prime Supermanverse”.
This separates Star Trek from Star Wars in an important way, and allows for some creative storytelling possibilities.
I can see that those in charge of Star Trek realize instinctively that thus there needs to be special attention to some form of narrative consistency, which speaks well for the integrity of the franchise.
I actually wish Star Trek and Trek fans would embrace the multiverse concept more. It really is firmly established with the Mirror Universe (across four different series now) and TNG episodes such as “Parallels”. Parallel universes would allow for modifications of what we consider canon, exploration of different events, and either alternate takes on familiar characters and ships or emphasis on other characters and ships that have prominence in these other realities.
Surely many will argue we can do much of this by going forward in the prime timeline, but I feel like it’s mostly a dead-end. There comes a point when the technology over-saturates everything and we get further away from the core concepts, and further away from the ‘human adventure’ that Roddenberry originally wanted, by introducing more and more members into the Federation and getting too far from what’s familiar. How is a series about a bunch of alien main characters with little to no relatable struggles and ‘magic’ technology that solves all their problems any more Star Trek than Discovery or Enterprise or anything else that’s taken us back to what some would argue are Treks roots? Is it because going forward would extrapolate linearly and ‘respect’ canon? What’s the point of that if it becomes a whole other show, like Farscape or Andromeda? That’s not to say those shows were bad or anything, but they’re what Star Trek would become if you push it too far forward.
I just think Trek should find a way to stick with the basic formula of what worked in the past, while changing it enough to explore new characters and stories, IF it’s to survive. It’d move forward by going sideways essentially… but it would keep it Star Trek in essence. It’s no different than other franchises that hit their boundaries and either reset, reinvent, or retire gracefully. If people are so blinded by canon and labels like ‘prime timeline’ that they can’t see past that, then why bother keeping Trek alive in name only? Whatever future the Star Trek franchise has, the creative forces behind it and the fans that support it are going to have to think long and hard and come to some sort of agreement about what Trek really is, what it means, and why we should keep it going.
“I just think Trek should find a way to stick with the basic formula of what worked in the past”
That basic formula stopped working when television became complex and driven by long arcs. By the Enterprise ended with a whimper, it was horrifically outdated. It just doesn’t work any more. Star Trek needed, in essence, to grow up.
Enterprise ended in a whimper because it was a terribly written show from the first episode to its last.
From the stupidity of the Vulcan’s holding the humans back for a century to the dumbness of the temporal Cold War to technology like the telepathic holographic roumlan drone ship which made the super advanced technology of voyager look like Stone Age tech in comparison.
I didn’t really mean the storytelling aspects, but rather the basic elements… Warp drive, shields and phasers, the Federation, exploration of the galaxy and humanity. But some people seem to want to see just how far this stuff gets pushed while sacrificing what the show is actually about. I understand the desire to see just how much things might change far into the future and see all the new, wonderful, shiny things there are. But it does detract from the storytelling. You’re right though, there certainly are things that don’t work anymore. Which is why I think Trek needs to rework itself within a certain framework.
Being set in the past doesn’t improve storytelling nor does having out of date tech.
Having stories with internal logic is what Star Trek needs. Not shows set in the past.
At least in the future no one can complain about messing up cannon.
Why would moving into the future be a dead end?
The idea that technology would over-saturate everything in shows set in future might be true but the shows that are set in the past did keep on introducting crazy like super advanced technology that did not even exist in voyager like enterprise/discovery/Abrams films did.
Star Trek has ceased to be Star Trek because it is obsessed with it some kind of imagined realist version of Star Trek that never existed.
The TOS was filled with magic technology from wrap engines to transporters to actual magic beings.
It was just as magical as TNG/Voyager if not more so.
The fans have made clear what Star Trek really is, what it means and that’s TOS and TNG.
The creative forces just will not give fans that.
@Isabella1990 — the problem with the future is that they introduced technologies that made some things easier, which took away some of the drama. The further into the future they go, the more technology solves various problems which were obstacles in the past. This was evident the further they went in TNG, as they had to invent technobabble explanations for why technology they had didn’t work, or why it worked in one situation and not another similar one. TOS had this too — “The Enemy Within” and the fact they never explained why they didn’t just send a shuttle craft down to rescue the landing party. That said, I personally feel the sweet spot in Trek for storytelling is somewhere between TUC and TNG.
The taking away of the drama was because voyager was a badly written show not because of the technology.
The later stuff like enterprise/Abrams and discovery have more magical technology that kill drama more than anything in even voyager from magic blood to beaming across the galaxy to distances not seeming to exist anymore in space. You get from point A to point B pretty quickly.
The main obstacles in Star Trek have been never technological, they find a strange new race or a known race there is a social/political problem and it is solved or they come across a space anomaly or a monster and they kill it.
That basic formula still works.
Yes I don’t get the ‘well technology will be too advanced’ argument when all the prequels are now making technology more advanced than the shows that took place farther in the future. The KT films have technology way more advance than anything TNG did as you mentioned. Right now we are watching a show whose ship can *literally* transport itself anywhere in the universe and now any universe if they can just figure out the right coordinates. We’re watching walking holograms for communication. This stuff is as advanced as we ever seen in Star Trek regardless of the actual century it takes place in.
This idea that technology will be more or less advance has nothing to do with the time period, simply the writers. I say this over and over again. If they want to create holodecks in the 23rd century there is literally nothing to stop them since they already showed a prototype of it on Discovery. At the same time you don’t want to make ships that can teleport themselves to other galaxies in the 25th century, then simply don’t have ships that can teleport themselves in the 25th century. Its whatever the writers want to do and present the universe. As Discovery has proved its going to be as advanced as they want to make it regardless. This argument is so silly.
Your right.
The problem with Star Trek is not the technology it”s that they ran of creativity for new new things so they keep on recycling old ideas instead.
While insisting the problem with the future is the technology despite making shows and films with technology light years ahead of voyager.
It’s a dead-end because the types of stories told would become radically different if we go too far into the future, and then Star Trek becomes a different thing altogether. It’s likely, given what’s already canonical, that if we went far enough we’d have a series about time-travel, with ships like the USS Relativity, or time-portals like Daniels alluded to. Then we’d be going backwards anyway, and the focus of the stories would change. I could see other kinds of series being set in later time periods in the same ‘Trek universe’, but they wouldn’t be Star Trek.
Of course, we’ll disagree about what Trek is about because it does mean something different depending on who you ask. Even stating that Trek is TOS and TNG isn’t saying much because those are two different shows in a lot of ways. I don’t think we’ll ever get a consensus though, so discussing all of this maybe be pointless. In the end, we’ll likely get more of whatever comes along under the name ‘Star Trek’ and we’ll like some of it, and hate some of it, and debate it all. Star Trek is literally TOS and everything after is just a twisted iteration. Maybe we’re all just beating a dead horse and expecting it to start running.
The basic idea behind both tng and tos was the same idea just done in a different way.
A starship exploring the unknown and sometimes heading back to federation space to do missions there.
None of the later shows have followed that basic idea.
No one is talking about going 1,000 years in the future, simply post Voyager. There are tons of novels, games and comic books that do post Voyager stories now. It doesn’t sound like the stories have changed. They sound like the same stories we always gotten.
I’ll say it again, it depends on the writers. Discovery is a 23rd century ship already doing things ships in the 24th century couldn’t do, so what’s the difference? And how do you know Discovery can’t time travel? We just learned it can now hop universes so anything is possible at this point. Its really what the writers want to do end of the day.
I know there are quite a lot of people that want to go post-Voyager… And I get it. I’m partially arguing for my own personal preference. I like how TOS made it seem like they were hurtling through the black strapped to an antimatter bomb, just to see what’s out there. There were literally episodes like that! And there was more of a sense of danger and consequence, and adventure. The whole frontier aspect was appealing. I also feel like the time period was good. Not so far ahead as to not be relatable, but far enough to allow for the possibility of new materials and technologies that could get us out there.
But then things changed in TNG onward. It became about politics, and it became less dangerous and more predictable in a lot of ways. A warp core breach became a gimmick or a trope to show there was danger, but never gave us the sense that using such things as a matter-antimatter reactor was a consistent danger. I think back to Enterprise.. one thing I think they got right was the sense of danger at even using a warp drive. Hoshi freaking out as they went faster and the deck plates vibrated. That stuff is good, and gives us the notion that space exploration is risky. It plays into the rest of the concepts of exploring humanity. But again, TNG made everything safe and predictable (for the most part). Took the element of risk out, and made the ship a luxury liner with families aboard. And whenever a writer took a risk and threw a real wrench into things, they took the easy safe boring way out and used the deflector or the transporter, and technology saved the day. I think there’s a lot of irony when they introduced the Borg. An adversary that represented taking technology too far and losing one’s sense of self. But what did they do with them? They treated them like any other villain they encountered. And if we’re going with Voyagers “Endgame”, they used a time travel gimmick and actually used even better tech to out-class the Borg to defeat them.
Basically, I just want to go back to that sense of risk and the inherent rewards that come with it. And the exploration of both space and humanity. If someone writes a story that’s post-Voyager but returns to this, then I’d be all for it.
But there is still so much risk and rewards in Star Trek’s future.
Just as there was risk and reward in tng, look at what happened to the stargazer or countless other ships and members of Star fleet that died.
How many colonies where destroyed in tng? A least a handful maybe a dozen episodes about colony attacks.
Tng was not a magic super safe era.
As for technology solving problems they did the exact same thing in tos.
There so much to explore post voyager practically the entire gamma quadrant is unexplored. For that matter nearly the whole galaxy is still unexplored, in season 2 of tng they say they had explored 11 percent of the galaxy if that doubled by the end of voyager. There is still 80 percent of the galaxy unexplored.
There are more interesting possibilities in the future than constantly having shows being stuck in the past using magic to solve their problems.
OK I got your point but ONCE again,and I’m going to keep saying this, people seem to mistake the ‘era’ for the ‘writing’. JUST because the writers on the TNG shows made too much technobabble doesn’t mean new people would do the same thing. This is the entire problem, people seem to act like you have to have one style because it was done for multiple seasons on one show. If ANYTHING Discovery proves that notion completely wrong since nothing like it feel like the style of TOS. Why? Because that show was 50 years ago in a different era and no one on the Discovery staff wrote for it. TNG was another time and era. Things change.I don’t get why people simply can’t get just because you had one type of style done for an era means it has to be written that way again. It doesn’t. Clearly Discovery isn’t redoing TOS in any real substantial way other than in name only and that’s a pretty lose notion in itself. And whats odd is people seem to apply this ONLY to TNG (and I guess by extension Voyager) but then oddly leave out DS9 which IIRC took place in the exact same era. That show didn’t play it ‘safe’. It didn’t rely on transporters every episode to get it out of danger. It didn’t reset itself every episode. And they certainly didn’t live on a ‘luxury liner’. They lived on a junky space station that felt harsh and rugged. Partly because they had very different writers and sense of place. And to be more fair it was also due to very different mandates that was set by Roddenberry for TNG and then by UPN for Voyager. DS9 could take risks BECAUSE it was allowed to. Those others weren’t so much. But this once again proves the ‘era’ had nothing to do with it, its just the writers and what mandates they set for themselves. The 24th century wasn’t any less dangerous than the 23rd century, more so in fact, they simply wrote it differently because it was a different time presented in a different way. Which is EXACTLY why TOS and the KT films takes place in the same time with the same characters and yet the two hardly feel like each other. Which goes to my other point below. “Not so far ahead as to not be relatable, but far enough to allow for the possibility of new materials and technologies that could get us out there.” This right here cracks me up. We have had TWO recent productions that takes place directly in this period: The KT films and now Discovery. Neither one REMOTELY feels like some frontier-era show showing ships trying to make their way out into the galaxy like TOS did. The KT films now have TRANSPORTERS that can transport you across the galaxy in seconds. The freaking transporters. Nothing in the 24th century ever remotely suggested technology like this. And even the ship itself seems to be WAY faster than anything in the shows because we saw the Enterprise get to Vulcan in minutes from Earth. It got to and from the Klingon neutral zone to Earth in also a minute in STID. I know for Star Trek speed is basically whatever the plot calls for but this is pretty ridiculous lol. The other shows might go from a day to hours but not minutes. And then of course Discovery comes along and you now have a ship that can simply transport itself anywhere it wants. Its taking what the KT films did with their transporter device and turning it up by 10 by now having an entire ship beam itself vast light years wherever it wants. And I think this what people have to understand: TOS is NEVER coming back in the way people want it to. Both Discovery and the KT films proves that. I don’t see Captain Lorca (or whoever) calling down to engineering asking the chief engineer (whoever that is) for more power to get out of a jam. Discovery is involved in a WAR. How many times have you seen that ship arrive at a starbase for repairs? How many times have you seen it damaged? Has it ever BEEN damaged? What resources is anyone giving up for ‘the war effort’? You see anyone suffering in any way? Who on that crew is worried about the ship’s engines failing? Or not making it to a destination? Where do you ever feel a sense anything is too far/dangerous/risky for this ship? Literally nowhere. Its basically Voyager all over again. There is no fear of the ‘frontier’ when you have the most advanced ship in the fleet that hasn’t had a single failure in the months its been fighting while having… Read more »
Because discovery is “visually and explictly dark and gritty”. And that magically makes everything better. 😜
One of the very best and beloved TNG episodes deals with the idea of opening one’s mind to multiple possibilites of existence: ‘All Good Things…’
Time travel and universe crossing are always enjoyable stories. Where they have to be careful is in diluting the main narrative.
When the time travel or the universe hop is to serve the main universe story, then great.
I believe one of the failings of the JJ films is that it eliminated the drama because it told us nothing matters and no one is real. If Kirk dies, its okay because he’s not OUR Kirk. And if Spock dies, well, its ok because there are infinite number of universes where he lives so it doesnt matter.
If TVH had said “well, you cant change the future, you can only create a new future” it would mean they never did save humanity. Earth was still destroyed. They just went back in time and created a new universe. That doesnt feel as good does it?
Well, what I would suggest is setting things in parallel universes, but then not calling attention to it. We just accept it’s another universe, which frees it from canon to a certain degree (which is what was intended with ST09) but then we stop making comparisons to the ‘prime universe’. The Abrams movies would have probably been more successful with the established fan base if they had come up with entirely original characters and a new direction, but focusing on established characters just drew comparisons.
I also think we shouldn’t cling to a ‘prime universe’ like it’s the only one that matters. It’s a parallel future AND past from ours anyway. The Eugenics Wars never happened in the 90’s (or at all), so we’ve been following another timeline no matter what. But I do understand wanting a sense of continuity and the structure that one universe provides. The multiverse can be a daunting concept to fully realize. But then I’m not suggesting universe hopping all the time like ‘Sliders’ or other similar shows. Just, reset things. Maybe try to follow our timeline, and re-extrapolate.
I thought the time gimmick of 2009 was a great idea. But rather than it being a “new” universe, they should have been clear that it was the same universe but a new past. Sort of like if Kirk and Co. had stayed in San Fran in 1987.
Once they accepted that they could do anything they wanted but also wanted to trade on everything we already knew, it was game over.
I agree with this Ashley. I think the only issue with the Abrams films is that they decided to use establish characters that drew a lot of comparisons. Being in another universe made no difference. If they called it a reboot, which frankly all it is but just a fancy in-universe way to explain it, all it would be is just considered another universe anyway.
I don’t get how Trek fans compartmentalize the most absurd things sometimes. As you just said Star Trek is clearly an alternative timeline from our own. Maybe at ONE point it was suppose to be the same universe but unfortunately as our time catches up with Star Trek’s fictional future its proving to not be the same universe unless I miss the part in the 90s where super men took over 2/3rds of the world that created another world war.
And frankly Discovery is proving the ‘prime universe’ is a misnomer since they have changed almost everything in it that looked similar to the old one. I don’t understand why they just can’t call it a reboot and be done with it? It doesn’t look anything like the prime universe I know but for some reason some people can accept that because its simply called that, just ignore the part where everything about it looks nothing like the old one. But then oddly enough reject the KT films because its a ‘different’ universe although it looks and act just like the prime one. And Discovery clearly shares more with that one than it does TOS since those were made in the same time frame.
I think a lot of it has to do with who has the rights to what, and also appeasing the base in some ways. I’m sure they would have considered it a reboot if they thought they could get away with it. But they surely see a lot of fan reactions… I’m sure they have some similar reactions themselves. They want to try to keep things consistent with the massive catalog of canon, so they have to twist things around in certain ways, and bend over backwards to try to reassure people ‘this is still the prime timeline, don’t freak out’ and make it seem like it works in some weird way. All while trying to make creative and stylistic changes. It’s an impossible task trying to appease all the fans and also try to make something new, but that’s what they’re attempting and that’s what we’re getting. I think either the fans need to cut them some slack or they just need to ignore the canon fanatics and try to be more original.
There have been parallel universes since TOS. The makers of the KT films burrowed the idea from TNG’s parallels that already showed universes with hundreds of thousands of similar universes where all the characters live and thrive. You always say this but you seem to ignore thats been canon for literally decades now. The only thing the KT films did was show one of those universes. I don’t get why this is so different than everything else shown, including currently the MU the Dicovery is now in. We now have a character from that universe who showed up in the prime universe and passed in that universe because his doppelganger was born there. What’s the difference? He’s not ‘our’ Lorca, right? And yet, people are actually disappointed he may be killed off since he comes from a different universe.
Its Star Trek, every crazy possibility is already out there. I always say if a person dies, what stops someone from just time travelling the day before they died to save them? Nothing. Thats the universe Star Trek occupies. Everything is literally already possible. There is NOTHING that can’t be undone already in Trek.
My theory on the origin of the mirror universe: Kirk and Spock failed in their mission to stop McCoy from saving Edith Keeler, which led to the Axis powers winning WWII. It’s all Joan Collins’ fault!
Wow, that’s a good idea!
That I could live with. Easily.
That would actually have to be an alteration of the Prime Universe. Mirror Universe Kirk is already, well, Mirror universe Kirk. Mirror Edith would likely have been a warmonger in her own right.
It implies that there was no Mirror Universe perse. That it was an identical universe until Edith lived and then it became the dark Mirror.
That idea has been speculated before. But Im not sure it works. Shouldnt they all be speaking German? lol
According to Flox, the mirror universe extends at least to the era of Shakespeare. So… Nope.
To me, the mirror universe is not a split from the PU, like the kelvin universe is. It is simply a completely different Universe that has always existed in parallel to the primer universe.
ahem… I meant Phlox… which sounds like Flox, but is spelled Phlox lol
I love Jonathan Frakes, but flat out reject the assertion that DS9 was a departure from what people are terming “Roddenberry’s vision” for Trek. And I don’t think Lorca is a huge departure either. There are a lot of one-off characters similar in varying regards to Lorca that have appeared in Trek lore (including TOS, and including in Starfleet), it’s just that usually we don’t get the luxury of spending an entire season with them to really learn what makes them tick.
DS9 was in no way “Roddenberry’s vision” for Trek. It was a fundamental break with Roddenberry’s vision of Star Trek which was part of the reason it has never been popular.
Lots of people liked “Roddenberry’ vision’ the stuff after he died like DS9/Voyager/Enterprise not so much.
DS9 is popular.
DS9 is a good show and popular among a small audience.
There is a reason why there is limited to no merchandise produced for the show whereas both tos and tng still get merchandise.
And why it was not remastered in HD and why it had to get a crowd funded documentary rather than one produced by CBS.
If it was popular it would have merchandise/ been remastered.
Not even a single episode of DS9 was on Netflix’s top 10 list of watched episodes.
Deep space nine was a good show but like most science fiction shows, it had a small but passionate audience.
Nothing wrong with that.
DS9 was different than gene’s vision. THANK GOD!
Yeah thank God.
If they had stayed on the TNG path rather than changing it who knows how unpopular Star Trek would have become.
Scarasm 😌
It would have been another lousy Voyager which led to a lousy Enterprise which was cancelled and Trek shelved for years.
DS9 was great because it was different.
DS9 was not great because it was different. It was just a good generic scfi show.
Voyager was not like TNG, it had far more in common with DS9 with its “shades of grey morality” and outright “amorality”.
Ds9 was a good show but it had to use a lot of “inspirations” like Babylon 5 and world war 2 for ideas and story lines to keep it going.
Voyager was very similar to TNG in its vanilla writing. And I loved TNG. But Voyager was them trying to make TNG more like DS9 and failing in both regards.
Enterprise repeated the problem. They were creatively bankrupt. The creative people all ended up on DS9 or left Voyager early. Voyager, like Enterprise, never lived up to its premise because it never played upon its premise.
Voyager did not have vanilla writing, it just had boring/bad writing.
DS9 is very good but it’s hardly any more creatively bankrupt than voyager or even enterprise.
At least voyager and enterprise tired to create new aliens, even if a lot of them were one dimensional.
DS9 had to not only endless reuse the same aliens, they even struggle to create new characters hence endless reuse of Dukat the magic man of a thousand jobs or wyunne 98 or there only being like one general in the entire Kligon fleet.
You clearly saw a different show.
DS9 was absolutely great. It single handedly rescued the Ferengi, Bajorans, and even Carsassians from being the “random creature of the week” and turned them into a fully fledged cultures with backstories, and growth during the series.
Also, Nog and Rom’s story arc is possibly the best of any character in the whole ST universe. Rather than fully formed, perm pressed cookie cutter characters, we saw people actively working to improve themselves. To be better than they were. DS9 was Star Trek at its best. The more DSC takes inspiration from DS9, the better for us all. The path that Michael Burnham is taking is not dissimilar to the redemption path taken by a lot of DS9 characters.
Also, I love how people complain about “shades of grey morality” and outright “amorality”. As if TOS or TNG were any different. They are just seeing the series with biased nostalgic eyes.
TOS showed us an officer turn arrogant and hostile toward the rest of the crew, declaring that he has become godlike. What was Spock’s suggestion to deal with the situation? KILL HIIM before he becomes too powerful. And what did Kirk ended up doing? Yep, he killed him.
TOS showed us “evil” Kirk, in a drunken state, attempting to sexually assault Yeoman Rand.
TOS showed us Harry Mudd as a human trafficker.
TOS gave us a Federation scientist and his plan to kill key officers and substitute them with robots so he could become its overlord.
TOS gave us another Federation scientist, Dr. Tristan Adams and his device to gain total control of people’s minds.
TOS gave us a Federation Governor whose solution to a food crisis was to execute half its citizens.
TOS gave us a Starfleet officer that, because he was given a reprimand and sent to the bottom of the promotion list, decided to kill his Captain.
TOS gave us a Starfleet first officer stealing a Starship to help his buddy exCaptain.
TOS gave us a Starfleet crew deciding to annihilate an entire species with “light”.
TOS gave us a Captain whose solution to Edith Keeler is to let her die, rather than simply preventing her from becoming involved in politics, or perhaps taking her with them to the 23rd century. Nah… just let her die.
TOS gave us a Captain that involved the Federation in a Vietnam style proxy war.
TOS gave us Captain that crowned himself “Master of the Universe”, in an episode that was withdrawn by the BBC in the UK because of ‘sadistic plot elements’ during the initial run.
Just to name a few. No amorality there at all right?? LOL
The comparison was between voyager and tng not voyager and tos. Of course Kirk was amoral, you could probably make the case in a lot of episodes his actions were down right evil.
The comparison was between voyager and tng’s Mr Virtue Picard.
You are talking about about characterisation in DS9 not creativity. DS9 had to rely on a lot of previously created aliens and world war 2 for its story and plot. They also constantly reused the same characters endlessly. None of that is actually creative.
It was a very good show. But it struggled to get anything new to Star Trek creatively. A whole new quadrant to play with and they best they could come with up with were the dominion and guys who liked to drink wine and play super realistic games.
LOL all this arguing about what show was great and what show sucked. This entire exchange proves Star Trek fans are as fickle as ever and why there will never be a consensus on what makes a ‘good’ Trek show.
But I agree with this, this idea DS9 was ‘not Star Trek’ is ridiculous when as you pointed out had people doing dark and crazy tings on TOS. DS9 wasn’t Star Trek because it was involved in a war? Thats what so many fans say but yet somehow missed the fact Trek’s entire existence is based on wars and violence. From made up nuclear wars on Earth to going out fighting others like the Romulans, Cardassians and obviously Klingons, which the current show is now doing kind of proves this is a big part of Star Trek, like it or not.
But yeah DS9 was so ‘dark’ but let’s ignore the TOS model that suggested one guy killed half a planet or TNG that suggested a billion people will be killed in a few decades on Earth. Star Trek IS dark and in fact proving to be a much darker history than anything we have on the real Earth. The only issue thats being discussed is that they managed not to wipe themselves in extinction and now exploring the galaxy peacefully. But even then you can’t ignore the fact they still fight countless aliens and find themselves in space wars literally the entire time since they been out in space.
That’s what Star Trek has ALWAYS been. DS9 just drew a very harsh light to it that Trekkies seem to want to ignore or deny….but then oddly is upset because no one has made a show or movie about the Romulan war yet lol. Comes off hypocritical.
There is consensus on what makes a “good” trek show being popular, selling merchandise etc.
DS9 was not Star Trek not because there was a war but because it was based around a space station rather than a space ship, rather than exploring new things it was about developing old concepts deeper.
Nothing to do with war nor amorality.
It’s like going to see a Marx brothers film but being given a film about the three stooges instead.
Both are comedies and are about brothers but are not the same thing.
It never ceases to amaze me how close-minded some fans can be. You don’t prefer a particular series of Trek? Fine. Why do you feel the need to crap over somebody else’s preference? Are you so insecure that you need to drag everybody else down to your level? One of the central tenets of Star Trek is IDIC. I’m sure “real” fans adhere to that and don’t feel the need to insult fellow fans’ sensibilities. You don’t like anything by TOS and TNG? Fine. That’s your prerogative. I’m not going to waste my time trying to argue or persuade a so-called fan that doesn’t even adhere to the IDIC philosophy.
Enjoy TOS and TNG on Netflix.
I disagree. Frakes is completely right, IMHO. It took me a long time to warm to DS9 precisely because of that.
It was a departure. At its core it was Star Trek but read interviews with virtually anyone associated with the show and they’ll say that it did depart from Roddenberry’s vision and it was by design. DS9 was about the struggle to ensure that such a vision persisted (that vision being the Federation) and, in the end, they manage to do just that but rules were broken and morality skewed to ensure that the Federation was saved.
And Lorca was also a departure and now we know why. A Starfleet captain killing his own crew to prevent capture by the enemy? Nope.
Fair points and I appreciate the thoughtful responses.
I guess it’s a matter of interpretation, and perhaps I should be more clear. Whether we like to admit it or not, most TOS stories were rooted in some kind of conflict. The style of TOS storytelling was obviously different than DS9, and it’s hard to do an apples/oranges comparison across the decades and TV landscapes, but, the fundamental underlying elements of DS9 still reflected the Roddenberry vision of a future of equality, cooperation, and pursuit of scientific exploration were still all there — it’s just that the context was different because it was just set against the backdrop of a fight to preserve that way of life for most of the series. To me, the stories of the character of individuals, the moral questions at play, and exploration and cooperation were still part of the underlying current of that series and, frankly, is part of what drew me to DS9.
On Lorca, the universe that Roddenberry created for us included characters like Garth of Izar, Khan, and others who were antagonists with, to say the least, dubious motives and actions. From what we’ve seen so far in DISCO, Lorca falls into that category. But we can’t gloss over things and pretend that the original Roddenberry universe didn’t include bad guys — and even bad guys who wore Starfleet uniforms. So, again, for me, while Lorca himself is atypical of what we expect from someone wearing that uniform, his behaviour and his (MU-driven) motivations aren’t atypical of the universe that was created 50 years ago.
Most TOS were rooted in some kind of conflict, the same type of conflict that existed in ds9 a backdrop of a fight to preserver their way of life against the Kligon empire, but there’s is a reason that in no episode of it did Kirk destroy a Kligon vessel.
Not even in errand of mercy where the Kligon federation war broke out (that change in the remastered version is stupid) because the solution to problems was never war and death (except for some reason the Romulans).
The same idea was in tng the federation finding solutions to conflicts with the Cardissians (chain of command) and romulans (birthright) without involving death and war.
A peaceful solution was always found to avoid war.
Unlike ds9 where there was a way of stoping the war from happening in the first place but they never used it.
WTF are you even talking about?? This idea that Kirk, or the TOS, or even the TNG characters were somehow “perfect” and “always peaceful” is pure BS.
Look at errand of Mercy peace was achieved with no death, as was the Arena to name another one were peace was achieved with no killing or day of the dove etc.
Nearly all conflicts in TOS was resolved without killing other space faring aliens bar the romulans.
I never said they were perfect or always peaceful. I merely pointout that in the vast majority of episodes were there was a chance of war or high conflict a peaceful solution was almost always found.
Bar one or two exceptions like the Borg in TNG and Romulans in TOS.
It clearly isn’t “the vast majority of episodes”, at least not in TOS.
Those were the best episodes for sure, which is why they are usually remembered more and with warmer feelings. But they were not the vast majority.
Aside from the Romulans what other space faring race did Kirk destroy in TOS?
The Cardassians had a previous war with the Federation. Did you forget about that?
The Federation had an infamous war with the Romulans as well.
Discovery is literally showing a war between the Klingons and Federation right now.
I mean you are talking about groups they ALREADY had wars with lol. Yeah they avoided war in THOSE instances but you completely ignore the parts of the years and some instances decades where war had already happened with all the groups you named.
So because DS9 showed a war later its somehow not Star Trek? But yeah, ignore the Federation has been in perpetual war since its existence with one group or another.
This is the weird hair splitting Trek fans argue about. The Trek universe is one of war, CONSTANT war based on its history.
Of course there were wars in Star Trek. I never said there was not.
I merely pointed out in neither tos nor tng was a deadly war ever actually shown to be occurring during the time period of the show.
Within both TNG and TOS when there was the possibility of war a peaceful solution was found instead of the war.
The original post was about how DS9 did not follow Roddenberry’s version and in the shows he was involved in neither TOS nor TNG had a war on screen but DS9 did. That’s the difference.
Yes, but you keep saying they avoided conflict as if the Federation itself was one big living peace dove. Thats NEVER been the case. Yes they showed a war in DS9. They also showed a season long conflict with the Xindi in Enterprise. There is now currently a war on Discovery.
And TOS and TNG didn’t show wars but so what? The point being it was Roddenberry and others who made it clear they were part of a universe that had constant wars to the point there were various neutral zones throughout the galaxy to avoid more war. Thats what the universe was. Hell the Federation was set up DUE to war. So because DS9 showed one its suddenly not Star Trek?
No I said that in tos and tng they avoided war.
I never said at any point there was never war in Star Trek.
The war was one of many reasons why DS9 was not Star Trek.
Both tos and tng was about a space ship exploring the unknown and doing some missions in federation space. That was the core idea of both shows made by Roddenberry.
Deep space nine was not about that. Hence it was not Roddenberry’s idea for what a Star Trek show should be.
I never criticised DS9 for its war nor its shades of grey morality. I merely said it was not Star Trek i.e. a ship exploring the unknown.
It was a a good science fiction with limited creativity hence its endless reuse of the same characters over and over again. The same was true for its use of alien races and plots. If world war 2 never happened boy DS9 would have been in trouble for story ideas.
The shows you mentioned like enterprise and discovery were made after Roddenberry died and are very different to the two star treks he made.
Does the asymmetry in the After Trek host’s beard bother anyone else?
It’s not just you.
My only quibble is that the Lorca reveal feels too drawn out. It’s a good plot point, but it’s like the ending of ‘Lost,’ somehow not enough to equal all the brain sweat we’ve given it. Rewatches also take on a different feel. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with him going forward.
Dont look at it through the lens of how much thought WE (hardcore fans) gave it. We’re not the norm.
*laugh* You’re SO right! I was talking with a friend the other day, and replied to something she said with a parallel from Star Trek, and she said, “Everything in the world is really about Star Trek for you, isn’t it?” *facepalm* Yeah, we’re weird. :-)
One only need to come here right after an epsiode vs social media. Here you have people say “it sucked, it was soooo obvious”. On social media people say “OMG avoid the internet if you havent seen Discovery yet! HUGE Surprise!! I was shocked!”
For me it was kind of the opposite. All the signs pointed to there being something fishy about Lorca but I tried to rationalize it as him just being a complicated character carrying some pretty heavy baggage but hoping that ultimately he would turn out to be one of the good guys. That’s a testament to Isaacs’ performance on the show. From that perspective, the reveal was actually a little bit of a disappointment to me because, in the end, he turned out to be what he appeared to be.
This is how I felt. And it means A) Isaacs probably won’t be back, B) this season will not hold up to repeated viewings (and may struggle in the long run to stand toe to toe with the best of Trek), and C) season two has its work cut out for it.
I’m hoping we’ll get Prime Lorca in Season 2, which would enable us to have Jason Isaacs’ fantastic acting AND a Starfleet captain who actually upholds Starfleet values.
I’m open to that, but worry a PU Lorca wouldn’t be as interesting. Plus, I’ve been thinking that part of the plan all along was that Isaacs never wanted to commit long term to a TV show (not as a slight to Trek but just wanting to be able to do other projects).
Any relation to Gary Nardino?
They de-gendered “emperor”. It’s comforting to know the Terran Empire of the 23rd century is so inclusive :)
I would think that was done to keep the mystery that the Emperor was Georgiou. Had they say “empress” people would’ve put 2 and 2 together faster.
Hoshi Sato called herself “Empress”.
Yeah. As soon as I saw the agonizer scar, I knew he was MU. I just wonder what happened to Prime Lorca.
Its pretty cool to know Hoshi and Georgiou are related in a way even if its not official canon (yet).
I’m loving the MU stuff. Waaaaaaay more than the Klingon story line. I’m so happy they moved away from that. I can’t imagine if they tried to pull a DS9/Dominion story and drag it out for years. Its just not really compelling to me. But the MU story line I’m loving. I really love the fact Lorca is from another universe, it just turns the show on its head. I will admit for some of the naysayers it is probably feeling too much like twists for twists sake but that is what happens in most serialized stories. YOu have to keep the story big and interesting and while I thought the Voq/Tyler thing was a complete waste and unnecessary I think the total opposite of Lorca’s twist. For one thing we know what the villain wants in this instance and he’s actually accomplishing it. And its not a guy in a different body with memories of someone else, can speak another language fluently and all that ridiculousness. Its a guy who faked his way in another universe to the point he basically stole a ship to bring him back to his and now we get to see all that play out.
And I’m excited Landry is back. I thought the original one was an MU version too but it looks like not the case.
I never understood why they preferred that the character of The Outcast be played by a man, when evidently it works only with an actress. If not, it was just “Ah, Riker fell in love with a guy.” It was much more complex than that, it was an ambiguous way of showing something that happens in society. That is science fiction.
in the 90s the studio had no balls
I’m glad I don’t have the balls it takes to purposefully make a bad decision.
Likely, it would not have gone over well at the time. Someone has to think about paying the bills and keeping people employed while everyone is playing armchair civil rights activist.
“I’m not homophobic, it’s just everyone else that is!” Oh buddy, you don’t really like other people, huh?
Any particular reason why this episode of After Trek is NOT on Netflix international yet? As of the posting of this it’s still not on Netflix Japan…. only up to episode 10, last week’s episode….
Same problem here (Europe). After Trek has been acting strangely for me on Netflix since coming back from the break. It’s gone from my list of shows that I watch so I have to search for it. Plus, when I found the show it didn’t show any new episodes, only the old one from last year. I had to rewatch the last old episode and at the end it suddenly jumped to a new episode. Same thing happened a week later. This week, still no show on Wednesday.
Has the discussion been locked down?
Look to the writers of Discovery to use SPARTACUS ( favorite show before GAME OF THRONES ) and historic Rome for inspiration.