Poll How positive are you about Discovery now?

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

1) Knock it off with the personal insults at the end.

It's not an insult to say you're closed-minded. It's a description.

2) Oh, so now TNG is crap? And DIS already vastly superious? But I'm the one jumpint to conclusions to early?

That's not what I said and you know it. I said it has a vastly more diverse cast. And it does. TNG had nine characters and only three weren't humans, and of those three were a half-human, an android designed and built by a human who looked mostly human, and a Klingon raised by humans. Of the six humans, we had five white people and one black.

Discovery has a lot of cast members and at present we don't know who's a regular and who isnt, but it has a lot of Klingons, a full Vulcan and a Kelpien, as well as several background aliens. Of the humans we have two black actors, an Asian actress, two Middle Easterners, a Latino and a few whites.

This isn't to slam TNG. But you made the claim that it had a much more diverse cast, and that's just plain wrong.

3) Yeah. The trailers for TNG had a LOT more of "bursting of creative ideas, wild imaginative plots, super strange new aliens and civilizations, and a very exploratory, wide-eyed tone towards the unknown" thatn the DIS trailers. Those have been almost 100% war'n'splosions and a look at the redesigned klingons. Might be that those trailers are 100% false, and DIS will be completely different, but I based on the things that are available to us, DIS looks like it has a lot of problems.

This is one of those areas where I wonder what trailers you were watching, and I fail 100% to understand what "super-strange new aliens" were evident in TNG from TOS's initial trailers and press releases. The android who looked like a pale gold human? The woman who looked 100% human? The Klingon? Saru by himself is more interesting and "super-strange" compared to them and a quick look at other aliens in the crew shows there are even more.

4)Yeah. I have not seen it yet. Thanks for repeating what I said. That doesn't mean we know nothing about it. In fact we know a whole lot about it. But that's why I can't say I like the characters already, because I have not seen it yet

.
And yet you feel qualified to pass judgment on it. Also, I can't agree we know "a whole lot" about it. I don't think we've even seen any footage from beyond the first two episodes.

Yeah. They're great actors. Guess how many of those have already utter crap on their resume? All of them. That's what actors do. They act. In good things, and in bad things. They need that to live. And pay bills. Let's hope DIS is the former, not the latter of those things.

Where did I say that their presence alone guarantees quality? I just was surprised there were people who haven't heard of them.

I will say that all of them seem really excited to be on this show, even the ones who aren't Trek fans. That doesn't say to me that they're just paying bills.

I have literally never ever seen a post here "wanting" it to fail. What I have seen dozens of times are people looking at DIS and saying "oh crap. Not again the SAME mistakes".

What I have seen are people determined to leap to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence (and ignore anything that show their conclusions are wrong). Many seem to have come into this expecting utter crap and determined to see the crap they were looking for, whether it's there or not. Such as yourself.

You are just determined that this series is gonna be dark and depressing and all about war and explosions. This is based on two early trailers despite nearly every short video released sense then being firmly in line with Trek and every cast member and writer in interviews talking about the show's themes that go far beyond "grim and war". You can't let this "it's all grim n' gritty war" thing go, despite the fact that you haven't seen even one full episode yet.

This is why I say you're determined to hate it and want to see it fail. You leapt to the worst conclusion about it as soon as you could, and won't let anyone tell you it's not what you're sure it is, even those involved in creating it.

 

[CorporalClegg]

A couple of thoughts...

Crossroads? Well, it's important for the franchise. There are reasons to believe Discovery is already a "success" and is simply a relaunch point..ie: new project being worked on by Nick Meyer, as well as the Netflix deal which already makes it profitable (likely the sole indicator for Moonves) and has a renew option for season 2 and 3.

Those "reasons" are all faulty logic.

As pointed out in the Variety article, it will be difficult to tell just how successful the show is. There are no ratings, subscription numbers will be non-existent or vague from CBS, which leaves the CBS boss as the main determining voice of how successful it is in the long term, aside from the CBS premiere Neilsons.

CBS will know exactly how successful it is. And they're the only one who matter. But, like with any Netflix series, it's easy to infer whether a show is successful or not with using any empirical information.

Not sure where you see it playing it safe. It's completely different from the late Berman era: series format, writing format, production format. The look is a re-imagining. Yes, you 100% incorrect on this point, but you can continue with your preconceived notions.

Because, as I keep repeating it isn't competing with old Star Trek shows. It's competing with current TV. All those things you mentioned current audiences take for granted and expect. So, instead of pushing forward, Star Trek is just catching up.

Nor has it shown anything to suggest it's actually trying to make any inroads into the general audience. And, if this show ends up with another "Well, the fans will like it" label, then the franchise is about done for. It just can't take another one of those, especially after Beyond.

 

[Rahul]

Yeah, and in a lot of the interviews the producers have repeatedly said that it won't all be dark, and grim, that there will be lighter moments, and that the show will stick to the optimistic tone we're used to with Trek.
Just because the trailers have emphasisized the darker aspect of the show, doesn't mean the show will have that same emphasis in every episode.

Out of all the war movies I have ever seen, the ones that promised an "optmistic" view have always been the most clichéd, most cringeworthy ones. War is hell. Either you do a war story, then it will be dark by nature. Or you're using war as a "background" for your fun'n'happy action movie.

The first variant doesn't work as a Trek story really well. The second version would be insulting.

 

[Rahul]

It's not an insult to say you're closed-minded. It's a description.

1) Knock it off with the personal insults. Again.

That's not what I said and you know it. I said it has a vastly more diverse cast. And it does. TNG had nine characters and only three weren't humans, and of those three were a half-human, an android designed and built by a human who looked mostly human, and a Klingon raised by humans. Of the six humans, we had five white people and one black.

Discovery has a lot of cast members and at present we don't know who's a regular and who isnt, but it has a lot of Klingons, a full Vulcan and a Kelpien, as well as several background aliens. Of the humans we have two black actors, an Asian actress, two Middle Easterners, a Latino and a few whites.

Once again: Trying to prove how good DIS is by saying how bad TNG is is not a good strategy.

This isn't to slam TNG. But you made the claim that it had a much more diverse cast, and that's just plain wrong.

Never said that. Proves to me you are actually not reading my comments, but pretty much talking to yourself, using my quotes, arguing about what your personal "wrong" fan would say.

I said "TNG was in dire result of a retooling during the first season", but I kept watching because of "the diverse crew" and the "exploratory tone". DIS has the diverse crew, too.

This is one of those areas where I wonder what trailers you were watching, and I fail 100% to understand what "super-strange new aliens" were evident in TNG from TOS's initial trailers and press releases. The android who looked like a pale gold human? The woman who looked 100% human? The Klingon? Saru by himself is more interesting and "super-strange" compared to them and a quick look at other aliens in the crew shows there are even more.

The "super-strange new aliens" during TNG's season are the stuff like the jellyfishes in the pilot, the Binaries, of even the Traveller. Have you seen TNG?

And yet you feel qualified to pass judgment on it. Also, I can't agree we know "a whole lot" about it. I don't think we've even seen any footage from beyond the first two episodes.

You fool yourself if you belive the pilot of a series is not the blueprint for the tone for the rest of the series. In this case: A war story. Not an exploration-adventure.

What I have seen are people determined to leap to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence (and ignore anything that show their conclusions are wrong). Many seem to have come into this expecting utter crap and determined to see the crap they were looking for, whether it's there or not. Such as yourself.

"Circumstancial evidence" like THE ENTIRE MARKETING CAMPAIGN up until 7 days before first airing? Okay

You are just determined that this series is gonna be dark and depressing and all about war and explosions. This is based on two early trailers despite nearly every short video released sense then being firmly in line with Trek and every cast member and writer in interviews talking about the show's themes that go far beyond "grim and war". You can't let this "it's all grim n' gritty war" thing go, despite the fact that you haven't seen even one full episode yet.

Naw, this is based on how the writers described their own show before they backtracked after the negative reaction:

http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/23/sdc...nberry-space-mushrooms-and-a-reimagined-mudd/

"this particular universe is a particular dark time for the Federation and for Starfleet with this war happening" (rest of the article also worth reading)

This is why I say you're determined to hate it and want to see it fail (\emphasize mine). You leapt to the worst conclusion about it as soon as you could, and won't let anyone tell you it's not what you're sure it is, even those involved in creating it.

2) Knock it off with the personal insults. Again.

But I have to admit: This last part of your text is almost amazingly stupid considering it was in direct response to this text of mine:

I have literally never ever seen a post here "wanting" it to fail. What I have seen dozens of times are people looking at DIS and saying "oh crap. Not again the SAME mistakes".

Look how many people gave DC crap for "Man of Steel", "Suicide Squad" and "BvS". And everyone was like "Oh, you guys want it to fail". Just because everyone was saying they are doing the stupid thing and try to have their super dark'n'gritty murderverse-variant of a superhero story. And suddenly: Wonder Woman. They studio finally does what it should have done: A hero story. And everyone loves it. Overwhelmingly! And everyone looks stupid "who would have guessed people want to see heroics in their hero stories?"

And now we're fans telling the producers: Star Trek is about explorers! Having adventures doing the exploring stuff! But no. They want to have their super dark'n'gritty murderverse-variant of a Trek story. Again. And people wonder why there are fans complaining...

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

1) Knock it off with the personal insults. Again.



Once again: Trying to prove how good DIS is by saying how bad TNG is is not a good strategy.




Never said that. Proves to me you are actually not reading my comments, but pretty much talking to yourself, using my quotes, arguing about what your personal "wrong" fan would say.

I said "TNG was in dire result of a retooling during the first season", but I kept watching because of "the diverse crew" and the "exploratory tone". DIS has the diverse crew, too.




The "super-strange new aliens" during TNG's season are the stuff like the jellyfishes in the pilot, the Binaries, of even the Traveller. Have you seen TNG?



You fool yourself if you belive the pilot of a series is not the blueprint for the tone for the rest of the series. In this case: A war story. Not an exploration-adventure.



"Circumstancial evidence" like THE ENTIRE MARKETING CAMPAIGN up until 7 days before first airing? Okay



Naw, this is based on how the writers described their own show before they backtracked after the negative reaction:

http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/23/sdc...nberry-space-mushrooms-and-a-reimagined-mudd/

"this particular universe is a particular dark time for the Federation and for Starfleet with this war happening" (rest of the article also worth reading)



2) Knock it off with the personal insults. Again.

But I have to admit: This last part of your text is almost amazingly stupid considering it was in direct response to this text of mine:


Not critical thinking much?

Well, you don't actually want to have a conversation about this, as is clear by how you think I'm "trashing" TNG, so I have nothing more to say to you. You will see only what you want to see and I have no doubt that if Discovery turns out to be awesome and 95% of the fan base loves it, you and Kirk55555 will be joining Fred Archer and Doug Fitz making Facebook groups about hating any Star Trek you didn't grow up with that gain like maybe a thousand members, while the rest of us laugh at you.

Bye.

 

[Tuskin38]

Well, you don't actually want to have a conversation about this

I dunno, from my point of view, you're the one avoiding it.

 

[Rahul]

Well, you don't actually want to have a conversation about this, as is clear by how you think I'm "trashing" TNG, so I have nothing more to say to you. You will see only what you want to see and I have no doubt that if Discovery turns out to be awesome and 95% of the fan base loves it, you and Kirk55555 will be joining Fred Archer and Doug Fitz making Facebook groups about hating any Star Trek you didn't grow up with that gain like maybe a thousand members, while the rest of us laugh at you.

Bye.

Jesus fucking christ, that turned out way more pathetic than even I expected.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

I dunno, from my point of view, you're the one avoiding it.

I tried. He just wanted to accuse me of saying stuff I didn't say. And deny he said things he did say.

Sometimes I wonder why I thought it was a good idea to rejoin this board. The same attitude is prevalent; old Trek is all awesome, anything new automatically sucks, sight unseen.

 

[Guy Gardener]

No one, possibly an insignificant minority, is going to grow up with this Star Trek.

This Star Trek is made for people who have already grown up.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

No one, possibly an insignificant minority, is going to grow up with this Star Trek.

This is Star Trek is made for people who have already grown up.

What I'm saying is that it seems like some fans only like Star Trek that they grew up with. If newer Trek doesn't feel just like what they're used to, it sucks.

 

[Rahul]

I tried. He just wanted to accuse me of saying stuff I didn't say. And deny he said things he did say.

Sometimes I wonder why I thought it was a good idea to rejoin this board. The same attitude is prevalent; old Trek is all awesome, anything new automatically sucks, sight unseen.

Have you seen my comments trashing old Trek? You should check them out! Amazing stuff.

Also:
"accuse me of saying stuff I didn't say" = directly quoting you
"deny he said things he did say" = directly quoting myself

 

[CorporalClegg]

The problem is Discovery is looking more and more like the Star Trek I grew up - with the pretense of being "edgy" and "modern."

 

[fireproof78]

Out of all the war movies I have ever seen, the ones that promised an "optmistic" view have always been the most clichéd, most cringeworthy ones. War is hell. Either you do a war story, then it will be dark by nature. Or you're using war as a "background" for your fun'n'happy action movie.

The first variant doesn't work as a Trek story really well. The second version would be insulting.

Those really are not the only two options. I think that "Hacksaw Ridge" though brutal in its presentation strikes a balance between the dark and the optimistic. I think DSC can do so as well.

Secondly, I think that "Master and Commander" does a good job of having both war and exploration, reflecting the nature of the times, with the ocean being largely unknown. Again, DSC could strike this balance.

You fool yourself if you belive the pilot of a series is not the blueprint for the tone for the rest of the series. In this case: A war story. Not an exploration-adventure.

It depends, and isn't always the case.

No one, possibly an insignificant minority, is going to grow up with this Star Trek.

This Star Trek is made for people who have already grown up.

For good or for ill.

 

[Rahul]

The problem is Discovery is looking more and more like the Star Trek I grew up - with the pretense of being "edgy" and "modern."

The "edgiest" part of Discovery I have seen yet was the TV-MA rating

But yeah, apart from that? It wouldn't look too different from the Rick Berman/Brannan Braga late VOY/early ENT-version of DS9.

 

[Rahul]

Those really are not the only two options. I think that "Hacksaw Ridge" though brutal in its presentation strikes a balance between the dark and the optimistic. I think DSC can do so as well.

To be frank, I haven't seen "Hacksaw Ridge" yet (it's still on my list). But for me, it looks like it's aiming more for the "positive spark in a grim world"-type of tone. The one many YA-dystopias also aim for (e.g. "Hunger Games"). Not sure how fitting that for Trek is though (and arguibly the main reason why I'm worried)

Secondly, I think that "Master and Commander" does a good job of having both war and exploration, reflecting the nature of the times, with the ocean being largely unknown. Again, DSC could strike this balance.

Okay. I friggin LOVE "Master and Commander". The one Trek episode I thin it is the closest to would be "Balance of Terror". Another example of when Trek did "war story" amazingly right. It certainly has happened before. Sadly, the rule has been "one good episode" more often than not, and I was never a fan of the giant fleet battles of DS9. Which (at least IMO) DIS seems to be aiming for.

You fool yourself if you belive the pilot of a series is not the blueprint for the tone for the rest of the series. In this case: A war story. Not an exploration-adventure.

It depends, and isn't always the case.

It's at least what they're aiming for, tone wise. If it works or not, or they decide to do a major retool later on, or if it "grews the beard" on it's own later is independant of that.

For good or for ill.

Yeah. We'll see. Wait and hope for the best. The creators already said the second season won't be about the klingon war anymore. That makes me both happy and a little sad. Happy for the endless potential DIS has for it's second season. And sad, because I'm already hoping for the first season arc to get over already - of a series I haven't even watched yet.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I tried. He just wanted to accuse me of saying stuff I didn't say. And deny he said things he did say.

Sometimes I wonder why I thought it was a good idea to rejoin this board. The same attitude is prevalent; old Trek is all awesome, anything new automatically sucks, sight unseen.

Maybe you should take a short break and then when you decide to come back stop trying to speak on behalf of all the fans here, because that's getting really old, really fast.

Also, enough with the personal remarks about other posters. They haven't risen to the point of being infraction-worthy individually (yet), but taken as a pattern of behavior it's unnecessarily provocative and hostile.

 

[fireproof78]

To be frank, I haven't seen "Hacksaw Ridge" yet (it's still on my list). But for me, it looks like it's aiming more for the "positive spark in a grim world"-type of tone. The one many YA-dystopias also aim for (e.g. "Hunger Games"). Not sure how fitting that for Trek is though (and arguibly the main reason why I'm worried)

I just have to disagree because that isn't the tone that I'm getting at all from DSC. Yes, it is set during a war period of the Federation, but we saw that across each series, including TNG. That doesn't mean its in the "grim world" setting or dystopian. It just means that the utopian view of the Federation has to survive threats from the outside.

Okay. I friggin LOVE "Master and Commander". The one Trek episode I thin it is the closest to would be "Balance of Terror". Another example of when Trek did "war story" amazingly right. It certainly has happened before. Sadly, the rule has been "one good episode" more often than not, and I was never a fan of the giant fleet battles of DS9. Which (at least IMO) DIS seems to be aiming for.

Again, I just don't see the "giant fleet battle" vibe that you are.

It's at least what they're aiming for, tone wise. If it works or not, or they decide to do a major retool later on, or if it "grews the beard" on it's own later is independant of that.

Which, is fine by me. I would rather that it have that opportunity to grow than dread the first season.

Yeah. We'll see. Wait and hope for the best. The creators already said the second season won't be about the klingon war anymore. That makes me both happy and a little sad. Happy for the endless potential DIS has for it's second season. And sad, because I'm already hoping for the first season arc to get over already - of a series I haven't even watched yet.

Well, there is at least some hope out there for you, then

Personally, I think there will be something good in each season.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

Also, enough with the personal remarks about other posters. They haven't risen to the point of being infraction-worthy individually (yet), but taken as a pattern of behavior it's unnecessarily provocative and hostile.

Perhaps I have gotten a bit hot under the collar and for that I apologize. This is the Internet, and intent isn't always clearly communicated, but I never intended to speak on behalf of anyone or launch personal attacks. I do think there are some fans, here and elsewhere, who are determined to find fault and will interpret anything they're told about DSC as negatively as they can, but I suppose that's really no skin off anyone's nose.

However, it is a pattern, and one I don't understand. Any time we get a new series, there is a loud contingent of fans who can do nothing but find fault, well before each series has aired, and I don't really understand it. Why not wait and see it before making snap judgments?

And yes, I know it seems like I'm determined to love it sight unseen, basically being just like the nay-sayers only from the other side, but I've also admitted that I could be wrong. It might very well be awful. In fact, I've been thinking about making a post about the concerns I have, because I do have some.

But on the other hand, I refuse to be the kind of Trek fan who immediately dismisses every new offering and interprets every bit of news about it in the worst light that I possibly can. And I really don't understand why anyone does.

 

[fireproof78]

However, it is a pattern, and one I don't understand. Any time we get a new series, there is a loud contingent of fans who can do nothing but find fault, well before each series has aired, and I don't really understand it. Why not wait and see it before making snap judgments?

It's just a different point of view. If it "always" happens, then there isn't likely to be a change now.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

It's just a different point of view. If it "always" happens, then there isn't likely to be a change now.

Well, there's two points of oddity here, and it doesn't make it less odd that it always seems to happen.

The first is that, well, we're fans. Shouldn't we be happy that our beloved franchise will continue? I mean, I understand that some things we know can worry us, but just like we always seem to notice the red shirts that died and never counted how many more survived, there seem to be many who can only focus on what concerns them about the show and none of them seem willing to wait and see even the first episode before they leap to a conclusion about the series as a whole.

What we've seen in the trailers seems to come mostly from the first two episodes. The two longer trailers even seem to have some shots in them that weren't finished, seeing as how newer images of those same shots look brighter and more vibrant. And not all the teasers we've seen, by any stretch, make it feel like it's just a shoot-em-up that eschews Trek's normal tone. "We embrace the unknown," says Lorca. "And the journey continues," replies Stamets and meanwhile, I want to cheer.

Second, "You must challenge your preconceptions, or they will most certainly challenge you." Sounds like a lesson we could all take to heart. Isn't Trek about, in part, embracing new things and learning from them, and not leaning on your preconceptions?