Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Music, books, movies, TV, games, hobbies, food, and potent potables. And forum games! Pour a drink, put on your smoking jacket, light a pipe (of whatever), and settle in.
User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9403
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by Sandy » 03 Oct 2017, 00:33

I think the writers are not confident in the main character.

She's raised by Sarek (or as one reviewer hoped, a totally different, dumber and more violent Vulcan named "Serek" given how they pronounce the name). That's massively borrowed legitimacy. No main character before needed that kind of a tie-in. Hell, Sisko hated Picard.

She is also written as a Mary Sue, at least in capabilities. While people don't instantly love her like the original Mary Sue (who was in a Star Trek fanfic, after all), she has no real difficulties. She can beat a Klingon in hand to hand combat. She's more perceptive than anyone else. (Unless she needs to be mysteriously dumb for the plot.) she's smarter than the science officer. She's the bravest of the brave. She can out argue a computer. She can withstand vacuum with only a little damage. She also knows a Vulcan martial art...because that's a thing that makes sense

In the beginning of the third ep, which I watched a few minutes of via a totes legal method, she out fights a bunch of murderous convicts, despite somehow being dedicated to her punishment.

If the writers were confident in her, she'd have taken a beating, only saved at the last second by an officer. But that would be a sign of weakness, and they don't believe the character is strong enough to stand having any weakness. I'm not convinced they realize that she's in this mess because she's impulsive, bad at communication, and not capable of controlling her emotions despite that being the one thing Vulcans teach above all else.

She's badly overpowered and always right because if she isn't, despite it being 2017, this will somehow reflect on every black woman in existence, and audiences will just dismiss her because they're all waiting to have their prejudices validated. In 2017. On a Star Trek show.

Also, Westworld did that title sequence better.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17734
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by dbcooper » 03 Oct 2017, 01:18

Rebooting the show and character after the pilot double episode was probably why they produced two more than originally planned.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 14581
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by lunchstealer » 03 Oct 2017, 03:42

I don't think that the whole pilot-as-post-season-fix thing works. Michelle Yeoh was one of the first people they signed on.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"Repeated headdesk is dangerous yo." - JasonL

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20423
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by Jennifer » 03 Oct 2017, 04:53

I actually kinda like the show so far, except that more and more, I agree with Jeff's comment that this should be a sequel rather than a prequel. The technology alone is far too advanced-looking to be pre-TOS, and the attempts at building suspense would actually be effective if we-the-viewers didn't already know "This super-advanced propulsion thing you're supposedly working on isn't going to happen."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9403
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by Sandy » 03 Oct 2017, 09:55

lunchstealer wrote:
03 Oct 2017, 03:42
I don't think that the whole pilot-as-post-season-fix thing works. Michelle Yeoh was one of the first people they signed on.
I think DB's arguing they knew the pilot was shit and the character was terrible, so they produced two more after it to correct course.

However, the character's issues seem to stay on after the pilot, so I'm not convinced.

Interestingly, Yeoh's character didn't have any of the problems of Michael. Though ironically she is the black partner killed to motivate the main character, except race-swapped to a different minority.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 14581
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by lunchstealer » 03 Oct 2017, 15:46

Sandy wrote:
03 Oct 2017, 09:55
lunchstealer wrote:
03 Oct 2017, 03:42
I don't think that the whole pilot-as-post-season-fix thing works. Michelle Yeoh was one of the first people they signed on.
I think DB's arguing they knew the pilot was shit and the character was terrible, so they produced two more after it to correct course.

However, the character's issues seem to stay on after the pilot, so I'm not convinced.

Interestingly, Yeoh's character didn't have any of the problems of Michael. Though ironically she is the black partner killed to motivate the main character, except race-swapped to a different minority.
***** SPOILERS ******

It would be interesting if they'd let Yeoh's character survive, and then had massive tension between her and Captain Malfoy when their ships periodically crossed paths as she objects to Burnam's presence on any Starfleet ship. I suppose that's Saru's role. I'm glad they kept that character. He's the one with the joy of the original show, who's not all BSG angsty. Does anyone else think that the Engineering guy should be played by Alan Tudyk?

And yes, this would be a perfect sequel to the DS9/TNG timeline, where the post-Dominion-War Starfleet is a much darker place where Malfoy's weapons and propulsion experiments are aimed solely at military superiority over the likes of the Borg and the Dominion, when Burnam starts a war with some new-ish species in the Beta quadrant, or simply a Klingon Empire that's so traumatized by the Dominion War that they fall prey to a MQGA* Klingon nationalist theo-mythic messiah figure like T'Quvma who starts a war with the Federation as a means of cleansing Klingons of the decadence and degeneracy that undermined them in the Dominion War.

Burnam can still be the first human to have gone through the Vulcan Science Academy, just not as Sarek's ward, and not originally orphaned by the Klingons but by the Dominion, Cardassians, or the Borg. Or even by the Romulans to throw in another Denise Crosby guest spot, if her Romulan character is still alive in the Prime timeline (I don't recall).

I mean, it's clearly not REALLY in the Prime timeline, because the Klingons get cloaking tech far earlier than in previous canon (TOS: Balance of Terror and ST3:TSfS), site-to-site transport is a thing much earlier than it shows up as a new thing in TNG, and clearly they're working on some crazy tech that's not in other shows. If they're not going to just explicitly put this in the Kelvin timeline or a new stand-alone timeline, then why are they fucking around with tech whose origins is clearly established later in the show?

* #MakeQo'noSGreatAgain
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"Repeated headdesk is dangerous yo." - JasonL

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9403
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by Sandy » 03 Oct 2017, 16:09

Only the Romulans had cloaking tech in TOS. And then they started using Klingon ship designs because they couldn't find the other models strategic alliance or something, sure...so it may have been after that. But yeah, cloaking tech 10 years before TOS? I mean, you can binge-watch the series on Netflix. It's not that much of an investment of your time. Just give up one weekend of perving on actresses.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 11723
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by the innominate one » 03 Oct 2017, 16:46

They should just say the ST:D universe is the same as the movie reboot universe. That allows one to handwave away any continuity discrepancies.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 14581
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by lunchstealer » 03 Oct 2017, 17:27

Sandy wrote:
03 Oct 2017, 16:09
Only the Romulans had cloaking tech in TOS. And then they started using Klingon ship designs because they couldn't find the other models strategic alliance or something, sure...so it may have been after that. But yeah, cloaking tech 10 years before TOS? I mean, you can binge-watch the series on Netflix. It's not that much of an investment of your time. Just give up one weekend of perving on actresses.
Oh for some reason I thought the implication of Balance of Terror was that they'd exchanged tech, giving the Romulans Klingon ship models and theoretically also giving Klingons cloaks.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"Repeated headdesk is dangerous yo." - JasonL

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9403
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by Sandy » 04 Oct 2017, 00:48

lunchstealer wrote:
03 Oct 2017, 17:27
Sandy wrote:
03 Oct 2017, 16:09
Only the Romulans had cloaking tech in TOS. And then they started using Klingon ship designs because they couldn't find the other models strategic alliance or something, sure...so it may have been after that. But yeah, cloaking tech 10 years before TOS? I mean, you can binge-watch the series on Netflix. It's not that much of an investment of your time. Just give up one weekend of perving on actresses.
Oh for some reason I thought the implication of Balance of Terror was that they'd exchanged tech, giving the Romulans Klingon ship models and theoretically also giving Klingons cloaks.
That's The Enterprise Incident. Apparently the first draft had the cruisers exchanged for cloaking tech, but IIRC in the final script Spock just says the Romulans are using Klingon designs. Apparently there was a union dispute with the original model designer, because we can't have nice things.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17734
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by dbcooper » 04 Oct 2017, 07:10

This is what Star Trek should look like:

Image
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20423
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by Jennifer » 06 Oct 2017, 18:31

SPOILERS FOR THE LATEST ORVILLE EPISODE AHEAD

The more I watch the Orville, the more I think it would do better if it abandoned its attempts at being a comedy and just made itself a straightforward Star Trek TNG knockoff. The latest episode actually had an interesting idea which could spawn an equally interesting sci-fi ethical debate, IMO: the gist of it is, the Orville finds a ship apparently about to be destroyed, and rescues its attractive female captain just in the nick of time. Captain Seth MacFarlane is smitten with the pretty captain (named Pria,) but First Officer MacFarlane's Ex thinks there's something slightly off about Pria, and her investigation suggests a few things about Pria that just don't add up.

The Orville then comes across a "dark matter" storm in space, and even the ship's ace pilot admits he lacks the skill to pilot the ship safely through it. Luckily, Pria does have kickass pilot skills, so she pilots the ship through the storm and they come out safely on the other side. But then -- uh-oh! -- the Orville's pilot has lost control of the helm! Something else is piloting the ship! And that something else is a piece of super-advanced technology Pria smuggled on board.

Come to find out Pria is a time traveler from several centuries in the Orville's future, and the reason she went back in time and hijacked the Orville was to sell it to a future antiques collector. And the reason she chose the Orville in particular is because, according to her historical timeline, the Orville was destroyed in that dark-matter storm, and everyone on board died. So from Pria's perspective, not only is she not doing anything wrong, she's actually doing the Orville crew a favor: rather than die, they'll be taken into a marvelous future and get to live out their lives there. (Pria also apparently did something similar to Amelia Earhart, who is alive and well in the 29th century.)

Of course in the end, the Orville manages to escape Pria and live out their lives in their own timeline, despite Pria's protests that this is a bad thing because they are altering HER history. And Captain Seth MacFarlane basically tells her "Fuck off; you're the one who altered your history, not us."

But that does spawn an interesting ethical debate: it's a given among time-travel stories that "If you go back in time, don't do anything to alter the historical timeline." So... what are the ethics of (for lack of a better word) "kidnapping" someone at the point where they're going to die anyway, and bringing them into the future? Suppose, for instance, there were certain priceless historical artifacts which were vaporized in the Hiroshima or Nagasaki nuclear blasts -- you travel back in time to just before the bombs dropped, grab those artifacts and also the museum curators (or whoever) who were vaporized, and bring them forward to your time. Have you somehow violated that curator's rights?

Or: suppose that according to future history, you and your whole family die next week: you're vacationing in Hawaii, driving a rental car to sightsee, but little do you know a brand-new volcano will erupt into existence, and your car and everybody in it gets enveloped by lava. So where history is concerned, you're not just dead; you don't even leave any bodies for a funeral. Then some future time-traveling antiques dealer who wants that rental car comes along and snatches that car (with you in it) a few seconds before the lava would've enveloped you. You're taken to live in the 24th century (or whatever), against your will since you did not consent to being taken away from your time and everyone you know and love -- but on the other hand, had you remained in your own time you'd all be dead and separated from everyone you know and love anyway. So: did this future time-traveling antique-car dealer commit a rights violation? Did she do something harmful to you and your family?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20423
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by Jennifer » 06 Oct 2017, 18:37

So: did this future time-traveling antique-car dealer commit a rights violation? Did she do something harmful to you and your family?
Of course, this question assumes that you and your family get to live in kickass-future Earth as perfectly free people, not "you were kidnapped to be future slaves" or "future organ donors" or whatever.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Sandy
Posts: 9403
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:03
Location: In the hearts of little children, clogging their arteries.

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by Sandy » 06 Oct 2017, 20:07

I also note that episode had the fewest McFarlane-style jokes yet. I liked the last two stories, and really appreciate the Asimov callout at the end of the previous one.

It also feels like Star Trek. Optimistic and ensemble-centric. I like it.
Hindu is the cricket of religions. You can observe it for years, you can have enthusiasts try to explain it to you, and it's still baffling. - Warren

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17734
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by dbcooper » 06 Oct 2017, 20:27

The practical joke was actually pretty funny.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 11723
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by the innominate one » 08 Oct 2017, 14:52

2/3 through episode 3 of STD. It's dumb.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 11723
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by the innominate one » 08 Oct 2017, 16:45

the innominate one wrote:
08 Oct 2017, 14:52
2/3 through episode 3 of STD. It's dumb.
I watched it to the end. I was wrong. It's not dumb, it's really dumb. Really fucking dumb. The universe is held together by fungi?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 21840
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by Warren » 08 Oct 2017, 16:51

the innominate one wrote:
08 Oct 2017, 16:45
the innominate one wrote:
08 Oct 2017, 14:52
2/3 through episode 3 of STD. It's dumb.
I watched it to the end. I was wrong. It's not dumb, it's really dumb. Really fucking dumb. The universe is held together by fungi?
I've always suspected that the universe was thoroughly rotten.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 20423
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by Jennifer » 08 Oct 2017, 16:55

the innominate one wrote:
08 Oct 2017, 16:45
the innominate one wrote:
08 Oct 2017, 14:52
2/3 through episode 3 of STD. It's dumb.
I watched it to the end. I was wrong. It's not dumb, it's really dumb. Really fucking dumb. The universe is held together by fungi?
That didn't particularly bother me, in this context; where Star Trek is concerned I've already suspended my disbelief enough to accept (among other things) that it's possible and even relatively easy to travel exponentially faster than light--and there was at least one TNG episode involving a biological rather than mechanical FTL ship. So, fine -- fungus theory instead of string theory, maybe the entire universe is a single gigantic biological organism, sure, whatever. I'll buy it if it's presented well. But that further reinforces my previous stated idea that this should be a sequel, not a prequel. Because even the most casual fan of previous Trek incarnations knows this fungi-drive thing didn't happen, meaning either this experiment is gonna fail, or the guy is lying about what exactly they're trying to do.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 11723
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by the innominate one » 08 Oct 2017, 17:02

Also, in what universe is it Michael's fault that starfleet is at war? The Klingons were looking for a fight, shit was on no matter what.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17734
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by dbcooper » 08 Oct 2017, 17:09

the innominate one wrote:
08 Oct 2017, 17:02
Also, in what universe is it Michael's fault that starfleet is at war? The Klingons were looking for a fight, shit was on no matter what.
She did kill T'kuvma instead of taking him prisoner. And the mutiny did fuck up any chance of a different approach at that stage.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
dbcooper
Posts: 17734
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:40

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by dbcooper » 08 Oct 2017, 17:11

Jennifer wrote:
08 Oct 2017, 16:55
the innominate one wrote:
08 Oct 2017, 16:45
the innominate one wrote:
08 Oct 2017, 14:52
2/3 through episode 3 of STD. It's dumb.
I watched it to the end. I was wrong. It's not dumb, it's really dumb. Really fucking dumb. The universe is held together by fungi?
That didn't particularly bother me, in this context; where Star Trek is concerned I've already suspended my disbelief enough to accept (among other things) that it's possible and even relatively easy to travel exponentially faster than light--and there was at least one TNG episode involving a biological rather than mechanical FTL ship. So, fine -- fungus theory instead of string theory, maybe the entire universe is a single gigantic biological organism, sure, whatever. I'll buy it if it's presented well. But that further reinforces my previous stated idea that this should be a sequel, not a prequel. Because even the most casual fan of previous Trek incarnations knows this fungi-drive thing didn't happen, meaning either this experiment is gonna fail, or the guy is lying about what exactly they're trying to do.
That's the key. Also, totally agree that it should be a sequel. They are trying to create an Iconian Gateway or the slip-stream drive from Voyager.
Slip inside a sleeping bag.

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 11723
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by the innominate one » 08 Oct 2017, 18:04

I'd be good with a sequel to mainstream continuity or a prequel to the movie reboot continuity. The latter might be more plausible to work in a sister to Spock.

Iconian gateway/slipstream: I never saw those episodes.
dbcooper wrote:
08 Oct 2017, 17:09
the innominate one wrote:
08 Oct 2017, 17:02
Also, in what universe is it Michael's fault that starfleet is at war? The Klingons were looking for a fight, shit was on no matter what.
She did kill T'kuvma instead of taking him prisoner. And the mutiny did fuck up any chance of a different approach at that stage.
I guess my take is that the Klingons were massing for an attack, war was inevitable unless the federation had definitively repulsed them in a first strike scenario, so the mutiny was the morally correct thing to do. I have no complaints that others would shun her for mutiny, that's a fact (though had she been successful in repelling the Klingons, I expect she would have relinquished command to the captain and submitted herself for disciplinary action, like Spock when he "killed" Kirk in Amok Time).
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 14581
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by lunchstealer » 08 Oct 2017, 18:25

The mutiny was over before it could do anything, wasn't it? From the Klingons' perspective the Shinzhou was just sitting there doing nothing for the entire 90 seconds that the mutiny lasted. They were jamming Federation transmissions all the way until the rest of the fleet showed up.
"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"Repeated headdesk is dangerous yo." - JasonL

User avatar
the innominate one
Posts: 11723
Joined: 17 May 2011, 16:17
Location: hypertime continuum

Re: Bryan Fuller is not the Star Trek showrunner

Post by the innominate one » 08 Oct 2017, 18:30

lunchstealer wrote:
08 Oct 2017, 18:25
The mutiny was over before it could do anything, wasn't it? From the Klingons' perspective the Shinzhou was just sitting there doing nothing for the entire 90 seconds that the mutiny lasted. They were jamming Federation transmissions all the way until the rest of the fleet showed up.
I thought so too, but there's no way I'm going to watch it again to make certain.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -E Benn

"No shit, Sherlock." -JsubD

"now is the time to go fuck yourself until you die." -dhex

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest