Poll How positive are you about Discovery now?

[Ridcully]

More like an asumed opinion...

 

[BillJ]

More like an asumed opinion...

We all have our opinions. But someone running out and basically saying the show will be shit based on two disjointed minutes of a trailer, is someone wanting it to be bad and wanting to find things to confirm that bias.

 

[dahj]

Do remember that this forum isn't an accurate representation of the public.

The "public" doesn't give a shit about conspiracy theory youtube videos and panicky doom headlines because they neither watch nor read those, they don't study the length of nacelles and every which way the canon was violated, they don't have detailed opinions on the sizes of Klingon ridges, how uniforms fit in with established history of uniforms, how authentic the phasers are, and if the show is set 10 years before The Cage, or before The Man Trap, they have no idea who's writing, directing or producing this and many have never seen a single episode of Star Trek. Ever.

The public hasn't made any opinion on the show yet, because the public is sane and will wait for the show to air before deciding if they'll watch it or not.

 

[Ridcully]

+1

 

[Mudd]

Most of the folks who will be the core audience for Discovery probably only became really aware of it today, because Entertainment Weekly cover story.

And...most didn't read the story. They just saw Star Trek on the cover.

 

[ancient]

I could also describe this way:

"10 years before Kirk and Spock, board the Federation's most advanced starship, the U.S.S. Discovery, as it seeks out new life and new civilization. On the edge of Federation space, a young and unsteady Lt. Michael Burnham will be thrust into command, as she attempts to avert a war with the Klingons, while discovering just what it means to be human."

Well it's great that you don't think that's hilarious.

btw I'm gonna pitch a new series to CBS. "40 years before Picard and Data, on board the federation's most advanced ship, a young Lt. Fred Picard is thrust into command as she learns ...what it means to be French.

 

[Kevin Wolff]

as long as her accent is British, I'll tune in.

 

[Kor]

Either way, it still seems to me that the majority of the reactions I've seen to the trailers and costumes on display at Comi-Con have been mostly

Have been mostly what?

Kor

 

[Kevin Wolff]

I think we're supposed to finish the sentence. I'll start:

mostly shite

 

[fireproof78]

If, out of context, you heard about a Star Trek "story idea" about Spock's secret human sister named "Michael" and her adventures fighting Klingon mummies, what would your first reaction be?

That sounds amazing and I would watch it all day long.

 

[Albinator]

Well it's great that you don't think that's hilarious.

btw I'm gonna pitch a new series to CBS. "40 years before Picard and Data, on board the federation's most advanced ship, a young Lt. Fred Picard is thrust into command as she learns ...what it means to be French.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Maybe you should take some time to figure that out before posting any further.

 

[Mudd]

If, out of context, you heard about a Star Trek "story idea" about Spock's secret human sister named "Michael" and her adventures fighting Klingon mummies, what would your first reaction be?

I'd want to know two things immediately:

1. Is Spock's sister played by Sarah Michelle Gellar; and
2. Is Whedon producing?

 

[fireproof78]

I'd want to know two things immediately:

1. Is Spock's sister played by Sarah Michelle Gellar; and
2. Is Whedon producing?

And now I want a Klingon vampire slayer show.

My fan fiction work is really cut out for me this week.

 

[Tuskin38]

Buff/Star Trek crossover fiction go

 

[Refuge]

Somewhat negative but hopeful

I was very optimistic but with every bit of new information coming out it seems like they're making a show that is the complete opposite of what I wanted.

The captain is not the main character
- This is a red flag as far as I'm concerned. It suggests that this show is going to be geared towards interpersonal drama and not the decision making of a captain when dealing with aliens, exploring various phenomena and planets.
Long story arcs
- I tried imagining even the best few episodes of 50 years of Star Trek and thinking whether I'd want to watch a full season of that. The answer is no. Again, this is a major red flag that this is going to be a soap opera with characters experiencing conflicts among themselves. All of it leaving less and less time for discovering and exploring. I want Star Trek to be Star Trek and not Downton Abbey. What I want is a new world of the week, a new alien race of the week, an unknown/mysterious phenomena of the week, etc. That's Star Trek. EXPLORING AND DISCOVERING STRANGE NEW WORLDS. If you want a long arc with people falling in love and hating each other, create a spin off, don't ruin the franchise with this horse manure.
War
- Star Trek has never depicted war in a way that interested me. War has always been Star Trek's weakest point and also the one that makes least sense. I enjoy war as an entertainment, have seen almost every WW1 and WW2 movie ever made, I devour documentaries about war, but I do not want to see it in Star Trek because it's boring. Evasive maneuvers, shields up, pew pew. And yet it seems that war is going to be the focal point of this Star Trek, leading me to a logical conclusion that these long arcs we've been hearing about are going to be about a war. How do I contain my excitement...
Mudd
- You have a vast array of fantastic ideas from the best Trek show and this is what you pull out of it? He's not even a sci-fi character, just an annoying criminal. How is this exciting? The Mudd episodes were the worst in TOS. The fact that Dwight is playing him is pretty cool as I'm a big fan of that character, but unless they completely revisioned him, then I'm unlikely to enjoy his "part" in STD. My hypothesis as to why the writers chose this character is because they don't have any Sci Fi ideas and having Mudd puts them in their comfortable boxes of cliche intra-human drama.
Klingon focus
- One of the least interesting alien races in Star Trek. Crude, aggressive. I get that they're iconic and people learn their language, I just wasn't ever into it. They're not a realistic species, imho. They belong in something like GOT, not Star Trek.
Dystopian/Dark
- I've always been excited about our future, the technological and scientific progress, how it changes humanity for the better, makes the world a safer place, lifts people from poverty, eliminates class divisions in terms of access to knowledge and opportunities. I try to keep up with all renowned futurists and transhumanists. I've always seen Science Fiction as a window into our future, at least to some extent, in different iterations. More than mere entertainment, but visions into what might be. TOS did a great job with this, as they actually sourced a lot of their stories from renowned futurists of the last 20 years (then). The Sci Fi trend of the last 15 years has been mostly dystopian and gritty, which is code for shitty. It's very difficult coming up with original writing showing realistic future, so writers take the lazy way out and just re-write thousand year old stories about human drama in a world that has even more drama and that means everything is dark, depressing, shitty-gritty. STD appears to be no different, they decided to take no chances and just went with the trend of the last 15 years, let's turn off the lights, keep everything in a dark-blue tone because that's what everyone else does and add a gloomy ambiance to it all. The trailers make it look like a very generic dystopian space war. If that's what it is, I wish it to die ASAP and maybe another Trek worth watching will emerge in 5 years. We live in a time of incredible discoveries being made on an almost daily basis, you can take Star Trek 500 years ahead and consult futurists such a Ray Kurzweil and Michio Kaku and create something truly remarkable and awe inspiring. Why create a stupid space war instead and not only that, but do it within the framework of Star Trek?

Yes, I've yet to see the pilot episode, but so far creators of STD have failed to release anything that elicits optimism. Although I am actually very optimistic about The Orville, so maybe I will get the show I wanted, too bad it's not called Star Trek.

Some people seem to think that the trailers are not representative of the show, because older trailers were not representative of what came later. Well, maybe that's true, if the show is going to be the opposite of everything they've been suggesting what it's going to be so far - great. I've retained some 10% optimistic hoping for this outcome. My only source of optimism right now is actually the show's title, it would be quite strange if the creators were referring to the crew discovering explosions in space, so there's got to be a few good episodes in between the war nonsense.

Well put and is reflective of my concerns too. (With an added disappointment I harbour personally and that it is set in a past timeline from known Trek).

 

[Refuge]

You don't know that. Whether the show is set in in the 23rd century or the 25th century doesn't determine it's marketability.

That is absolutely correct.. TNG, DS 9 and Voyager each ran for seven seasons apiece. Hardly the sign of missing the mark.

 

[cultcross]

I really don't know where anyone is getting 'dystopian' from. I haven't seen anything even remotely suggesting a dystopian setting.

 

[Kevin Wolff]

DS9 is unique in that it shows just how far they had to go to get around Gene's no-conflict 24th mandate. The result transformed a show that I found barely watchable into the best overall Trek series in terms of character, scope and it showed you could do long form and a war show and still be Star Trek.

My biggest fear is that DSC will be like every Trek after TOS in that will stumble and need to find it's groove over time, and won't be allowed the chance given the high stakes of today's TV market.

 

[Refuge]

You have not seen enough to make an informed opinion.

That's nonsense. The thread question is 'How positive are you about Discovery now' and if someone isn't their opinion is just as informed as anyone else's..

 

[Noname Given]

I don't particularly care for the idea of Burnham being connected to Spock. But, I need to see how it plays before condemning it or thinking it is a stroke of genius.

But, IS she connected to Spock, or just to Sarek? (IE Depending on the time/date of the incident with her parents, maybe she didn't interact with Spock, or Sarek kept them completely apart not wanting Spock to interact with a fully Human child?)

So far, we've seen nothing to indicate she's had any real interaction with Spock whatsoever. She's very tied to Sarek; but Sarek has always been secretive. Hell, he NEVER told his own wife about his failing heart condition and she only found out because he collapsed right in front of her.