Point taken, but with respects to Discovery I believe he is. Not to detract from Mr. Mack's accomplishments but I don't think his take had much bearing on my enjoyment or lack of. I've paid my two bits for CBS all access, so we'll just sit back and see how it's received after the 24th.
David Mack is GUSHING about it...this should settle it
- Thread starter Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai
- Start date
As I said in my initial post, if he really wasn't excited about DSC, he simply wouldn't say anything. At best he would simply say "the nay-sayers haven't seen it yet so they don't know what they're talking about" but he wouldn't be praising it to Sto-vo-kor and back.
Yeah, but that would be telling a reviewer how to write his review.
Many reviewers write about plot points within their reviews. Maybe they don't all write "OMG...Rosebud was his sled"-type spoilers in their reviews, but even those minor plot points most reviews DO include could be seen by some as spoilers.
So maybe CBSAA doesn't want reviewers to mention even the relatively minor plot points that reviewers usually include until after the premiere.
It was a joke.
And that was the entire point of my laughing gif.
I said nothing of the sort. I am a big fan of David Mack's novels, trust his opinion on things based on the quality of his posts here at TrekBBS, and am confident that he wouldn't just make posts about how great the show is unless he genuinely felt that way; if he thought it sucked he would probably just remain quiet rather than play it up. That being said, I just found the idea of his opinion alone stopping debate among Trekkies amusing (and yes, I get that you were being somewhat tongue-in-cheek). Nothing stops that train.
Also, what one person finds great and enjoys does not necessarily apply to another. But don't mind me, I'm still enthusiastic and looking forward to the show. I was just being a smartass.
Last edited:
He's writing a Discovery novel and apparently working with the shows writers on story points.
"Working with" doesn't mean "working for" or "is being paid by". I work every day with people who have no connection to my company. I think several of their companies are horribly run. I don't tell them that but I also am under no obligation to praise them, and I don't do that either.
Most of that last was directed at replies in general, not you specifically.
It doesn't settle a thing, but I can certainly imagine how frustrating it is for someone who's working on this show and has a deep knowledge of it and investment in it to see the kind of clickbait alarmism that's characterized the coverage on the Internet.
I'm not just talking about the reaction to the review embargo, which is pretty reasonable based on experience. But people have been trashing this thing since before Fuller left, claiming insider knowledge because it drives traffic to their otherwise useless "Look At Me I'm A Media Critic!" websites and crappy YouTube channels.
These folks can't sing or dance or make anyone laugh, but they'd like some of that sweet, sweet advertising money and egoboo too.
I'm not just talking about the reaction to the review embargo, which is pretty reasonable based on experience. But people have been trashing this thing since before Fuller left, claiming insider knowledge because it drives traffic to their otherwise useless "Look At Me I'm A Media Critic!" websites and crappy YouTube channels.
These folks can't sing or dance or make anyone laugh, but they'd like some of that sweet, sweet advertising money and egoboo too.
He doesn't work for the show.
It's not a review embargo. It's a request that critics release their reviews after the pilot has aired.
No question that's true.
That's an embargo.
DSC's first season is actually 15 episodes long.
I can attest to that. When I asked Dave about the show in private at the Shore Leave Convention a few months back, one pro writer to another in confidence (well, as confidential as a group chat with other writers in the hotel bar can be), what he had to tell me about the quality of the show's writing was exactly what he just posted to Twitter.
Yeah, no - it's an embargo. Per Entertainment Weekly, some folks who've been around the block and know a thing or two about the process of entertainment coverage:
Anthony Rapp has confirmed that some critics are being allowed to see it in advance, but are being asked not to release their reviews until after next Sunday. While I might be a bit wrong to say it's not an "embargo" there's an implication that no one is being allowed to see it until we all have, and that's not what's happening.
What do you think happens to any reviewer that releases his review anyways because it isn't an embargo?
Did you read the last thing I said?
A review embargo, implies there are people who have viewed it.
There's simply no reason to ask people not to share information if they haven't seen it.
The only thing that will "settle it" is when we all get to see it. You can't know if you'll like something based on what someone else likes. Not really.
That said, I can't wait and also really like Mack's work.
I have a feeling that won't settle it either.
No, that is absolutely not the implication of an embargo.
There are all kiinds of embargoes on press coverage, most of which involve allowing the press advance access to an event or screening on the agreement that they will not write or talk about it until a later date.
Often the dates in question are not the release date. For example, a production will conduct tours of their sets during shooting with the understanding and agreement that the press not discuss what they've seen until a week or a month before release of the show or movie. It's all an attempt to control or at least manage the flow of information to maximize the promotional benefits of press exposure.
It does seem like now is the time to have reviewers out there gushing about the show. To drive All-Access subscriptions prior to release.
