Facts, unfortunately, are often irrelevant.
David Mack is GUSHING about it...this should settle it
- Thread starter Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai
- Start date
That was The Sorrows of Empire in Glass Empires.
If you liked that, you should check out the expanded full length novel version.
Yeah, I'm in the apparent minority in strongly disliking Destiny, so perhaps that makes me a touch more cynical.
Even putting that aside, one person's opinion can only carry so much weight.
Thanks for reminding me. I'd like to know too, but I fell asleep waiting for an answer.
I think he would think you should pre order his new original novel The Midnight Front out early next year.
I know I have!
Author paid to write tie-in novel praises source material media property.
In other news...
In other news...
Last edited:
So, let me get this straight...
People who write clickbait internet articles, online fan groups and YouTube channels are seizing upon rumours and telling you this is a reboot or won't respect canon, and that's legit reason to be concerned.
But a Trek novelist, whose job requires him to study Trek canon loke a college student studies for exams, who has actually seen what's being done on DSC, unlike literally everyone telling you it's gonna be a reboot or that it's all gonna be dark, depressing, war-n-murder, and he loves it, but that's just some guy trying to promote his book?
You seem to have continually missed this point throughout the thread no matter how many times it's been told to you, but just because someone doesn't buy into the premise of your thread that David Mack's review settles the issue of the quality of the show (even Mack himself would tell you that), doesn't mean they are also buying into all the negative clickbait articles. It's not a binary "either or" situation. You can dismiss the clickbaity articles as unimportant, AND you can find the premise of your thread silly. I know not everyone has dismissed the clickbaity articles, and that's what you're upset about, but nowhere in Wormhole's post did he mention them, so you shouldn't be jumping to conclusions, which you've done a lot of in this thread.
The people involved have said the central story is about war. No one here has mentioned any clickbait articles that I know of. They're basing their opinions thus far on the trailers and what the producers and writers have said so far.
Hell of a big difference.
It's sort of like a band that releases a new album and when the band members are interviewed they say it's the best they've ever done. Of course they are going to say that, they are biased. People are going to listen to it and decide for themselves if they like it or not.
In your original post you said David Mack was "gushing" over what he saw and you then said "This should end any debate among Trek fans." That's what most of us find ridiculous. Going back to the band analogy, that's like saying "This should end any debate among music fans" just because the band was "gushing" over their latest album. Maybe not the best analogy but you should get the point. You need to accept the fact that people are going to have different opinions and move on. There's no reason for you to get frustrated because you can't convince people to agree with you.
The people involved said it's about quite a few things, war being one but certainly not the entire focus.
Basically, while nobody's talking about clickbait articles and YouTube videos in this particular thread, I don't for one second believe that they haven't informed some of the more negative posts in these boards.
It seems like some people are eagerly clinging to anything that enforces their presumption that the series will be a reboot, will be dark and overly violent, that it won't respect canon or the Trek spirit, blah, blah, blah.
But if anything positive is reported about it, that can be safely brushed off. Clearly the positive review comes from someone who has a vested interest in its success.
It's no different from YouTube trolls attacking any video that expresses excitement about the show as being a "paid CBS shill".
So... after 9 pages in the thread... has David Mack's gushing "settled it", or not? 
Actually it's more like the guy who was hired to do the artwork for a concert series poster was given a rough cut of the album to listen to to better inform his design choices.
David Mack isn't "part of the band". He isn't on staff at CBS. He had no hand in producing Discovery. His career does not hinge on the show's success.
It's settled that a lot of Trekkers would prefer to believe only negative stuff.So... after 9 pages in the thread... has David Mack's gushing "settled it", or not?
That isn't entirely true, some things he suggested were passed on and used in the show.
Does the fact that literally every new series has been met with the exact same accusations this one has not register with anyone?I beg to differ, but it would take another 9 pages to settle it.
Today we gleefully reproduce articles where Trekkies attacked TNG and laugh at their short-sightedness. Does anyone really want to be the ones being laughed at in the future?
Now, the show could turn out to be horrible. I won't lie and say that not one thing I've seen worries me. It's just that A) it's a new Trek series so I choose to be excited and B) why make broad assumptions about it before it's even aired based on the barest amount of circumstantial evidence?
Trailers do not provide context. They don't really tell you much about the plot. They often use rough footage (we know Discovery's trailers have) or footage that doesn't make it to final cut. They're meant to intrigue the viewer, not tell you anything substantive. But some people watch the trailers and decide they've seen the whole first season, and are totally qualified to judge the series based solely on a trailer that the writers of the series likely weren't even consulted on, when I think the trailers haven't even shown us anything outside the first two episodes.
Where did you see that?
While that may be true (although I would question whether they are really Trekkers), there's also a lot of us that will reserve judgment until we see it. Sure, it's nice to hear positive reviews but a review from someone no matter who it is isn't going to settle any debate for me. For example, when Star Wars: The Force Awakens came out, some of my close friends were "gushing" over it and saying how incredible it was. It "settled" nothing for me. It made me go see it sooner than I probably would have but after seeing it, I thought it sucked, mainly because the plot was nothing more than a retelling of the original movie.
I think if you approached the subject differently, people wouldn't be reacting the way they are. All you had to say was something like "David Mack was gushing over what he's seen so far, so I find that encouraging and can't wait to see it!" If you said that, this would be an entirely different (and possibly shorter) thread.
