I'm not a canon fascist, but I do believe that it matters whether the people making this show care beyond 'eh, fans will watch this anyway because Star Trek'. So details can be important, but they can be irrelevant, too, depending on the context.
What would be a deal breaker for you in Discovery?
- Thread starter RomulanCommander
- Start date
- Status
The problem the production team is up against is not canon but competition. TOS was a far more serious take for 60s sci-fi than had been done before. However, one need only look at the end of TNG's run, VOY and DS9's runs, to see that competition in the genre market made for a decline in viewership. Other shows were different, more risky, more dynamic, and very character driven.
So, Star Trek is not going to succeed in a contemporary marketplace because "Star Trek" nor should it, and nor does it deserve it. The reimagining of the technology is a natural outcome of the progression of filmmaking and society. Even GR understood this.
Oh, I completely agree. I just don't like the 'it's fiction so who cares' hand-wave that sometimes pops up when people complain about things not looking the way they want it to. I just want the show to be good, really, and I like the Kelvin aesthetic a lot. I have no interest in a modern show looking like something made 50 years ago on a budget of three dollars and a banana.
Well, the budget was better than that.
Also, we no longer need fear the banana.
Also, we no longer need fear the banana.
The best news anyone can hope for these days. XD
It's not just that there's other series as compettion, but also that they've helped change the TV landscape, and what audiences expect. I'm excited to see what influences series such as Firefly, BSG, and others broadcast since ENT have had on Discovery.
I don't see why the Federation never seemed to send any evacuation vessels to Natasha Yar's nightmare home Turkana IV.
1. Too much politics. (By which I mean references to real-world politics. I'm hoping it's not too heavy in the politics of the Federation either, but that's not a deal-breaker, just a possible contribution to 2.)
2. Not fun. There are just too many shows now. Because it's Trek, and I'm in Canada so can watch it without subscribing to that silly All-Access thing, I'll certainly give it a chance. But if it isn't enjoyable to watch... well, there are so many shows and movies to watch, books to read, games to play... I've heard rumors of an 'outside' that might be worth investigating at some point... if it doesn't work for me, there are other options.
2. Not fun. There are just too many shows now. Because it's Trek, and I'm in Canada so can watch it without subscribing to that silly All-Access thing, I'll certainly give it a chance. But if it isn't enjoyable to watch... well, there are so many shows and movies to watch, books to read, games to play... I've heard rumors of an 'outside' that might be worth investigating at some point... if it doesn't work for me, there are other options.
I can't stand season one of TNG. Even back then I thought it was a preachy soap box filled with characters who were a bunch of insufferable elitists.Some of the episodes in the first season of TNG were just absolutely gawd awful, and I remember not even watching some of them all the way through, even though at the time it was brand new Star Trek. I still haven't to this day, and I'm not aware of any drug or hallucinogen that could help. But all the series had horrible clunkers and I'll bet DSC has a few before it's done. Us Star Trek fans are a notably picky lot.
Good Star Trek can do social commentary without hitting you on the head and offer both sides of a viewpoint. A good example of this is DS9 "Duet.
I also agree with others here who want the more adult and less cookie cutter shows. Walking Dead proved that you can have a successful show with an ever changing cast. Star Trek is set in space where danger awaits around every corner. Plus it's military and in that environment people are always getting promoted and transferring. It's only natural to have that in Discovery. I think we can all think of a few cases in past Trek casts where a change or two might have been warranted.
Last edited:
Deal breakers would be:
1) Badly written scripts.
2) No new ideas, just rehashes of old plot points.
3) All explosions, no substance.
1) Badly written scripts.
2) No new ideas, just rehashes of old plot points.
3) All explosions, no substance.
Last edited:
Soap boxing, too. Man, do I hate soap boxing.
Bite me, James Cameron.
Bite me, James Cameron.
- Klingons that do not resemble Klingons
- Bad acting/directing
- Uniforms inconsistent with the era
- Technology inconsistent with the era
Can I ask a genuine question? How much of acting can be demonstrated in the trailer?
Quite enough.
How? The edit, especially audio, is terrible, and choppy. Context is nearly nil, and there is no guarantee that those are the final takes.
But, this guy looks legit:
In all seriousness, I like the fact that the Klingons in the trailer are clearly involved in a ritual of some kind. It will be interesting to see that unpacked.
The cancellation of Star Trek was hard on the Klingon economy.
I'm not a fan of the Klingon look because I think the prosthetics are overdone. But they do still have the forehead ridges so it's not like they're unrecognizable. Their look has been changed before so meh.
Also: Who cares if the stories and characters are good.
It's a fucking trailer. Give 'em a break.
Why? Uniform styles can change pretty much over night. TWOK uniforms didn't look anything like the TMP uniforms. All it takes is for some Starfleet head honcho to go "We need new uniforms. Let's go for a new corporate design. I love disco dancing so let's add glimmer stuff."
I don't want to see a 1960s vision of the future in a 2017 show. When our current tech looks more modern than the shit in TOS that breaks my suspension of disbelief.
- Status
Similar threads
