I guess the question now is what are we even arguing about? You have fewer misgivings about the show than I do!
I think it's interesting...because the direction the series has taken definitely wouldn't have been my first choice. It may not have even been my 3rd or 4th choice... But that doesn't prevent me from being excited and enthusiastic about new Star Trek. I'm going in expecting it to be good. If it is not...I won't watch it past S1 probably...but I'll certainly be giving it every opportunity to prove me right!
The thing is, if enough people decide "It's not what I wanted so I won't watch", they'll never get the series they do want. Same with if they say "I want it to be on regular TV instead of CBS AA so I won't watch". That doesn't mean CBS will put it on regular TV. It means they'll just take it away.
Oh, trust me - YEARS from now it'll be on some U.S. cable network (SyFy, TNT, etc) - and if it bombs that will happen sooner than later as CBS will want to squeeze whatever profit the can. And again, if it's successful the above will STILL happen - it'll just be a few years longer.
You also shouldn't support something you dislike just on the very, very unlikely chance it might lead to something you do like. It almost never happens. In fact, I can't think of one time that did happen. Every time a franchise hit bottom but got better that I can think of it didn't improve because fans all watched the thing they disliked and hoped for something better.
Well, we don't know yet if we will like Discovery. I'm gonna watch, and if I don't like, I'll quit. Not immediately; like I've done with every Trek series, I'll see if I get a sense that there's potential, and that the series is gonna live up to that potential, but after a while if I don't see that happening, I'll drop out. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
The style and tone seem pretty different from that stuff, and while the designs are pretty similar they're different enough that I think it's clear this isn't just more of the same. I love serialized story telling. Don't get my wrong I still enjoy episodic stuff like the other Trek shows, and crime dramas like the NCISs (although they get pretty serialized at times), I prefer serialized stories. They're just able to get a lot deeper into the stories when they aren't limited to just one hour. Uhhh, no. That is probably the one biggest problem with serialized stories, that in order to keep the story going, they often have to pad things out and fill time with things that really don't end up mattering in the long run. For this reason I've really come to prefer the shows that either have shorter seasons, or do multiple arcs in one season. That way we get a nice, deeper serialized story, but since they don't need to stretch it out to 20+ episodes they don't need to pad things out as much. Maybe we define padding differently, because for me it's when we get episodes that don't really matter to larger story. TNG and VGR didn't really have enough of a larger story for there to be padding in them. VGR did have a bit more of an arc than TNG, but it was such a lose arc that there really was no need for padding.
Well, yeah, that makes sense. I've formed my opinion, but I'll still watch because of morbid curiosity and I'll probably watch all of it just to keep informed. But if someone watches and dislikes it, they shouldn't feel compelled to keep watching because of some false hope that if CBS makes money off Discovery it will lead to something they do like, since it basically never works like that. That's all I was trying to say.
IDK - I stuck with TNG over what I considered the mostly terrible first two seasons (each had a couple decent episodes, but nothing that made me go "Wow! Great" -- until the TNG third season episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" and the the TNG third season cliffhanger of: "Best of Both Worlds" And I stuck with it because of (up to that time) it had been 12 years since TAS was on TV when TNG premiered and 18 years since the original TOS had been cancelled, so yeah, I was hoping we'd eventually get some Star trek I considered 'good' back on the air, and it started after two years of mostly crap (IMO).
I thought TNG Season 1 and 2 had just enough good episodes to justify watching, although I saw them long after they aired (since Season 1 aired on TV when I was -3 years old and Season 2 when I was -2) but between them you still get episodes like Encounter at Farpoint, The Battle, Datalore, Q Who, etc. Plus I think it had more decent elements overall. It was also a time with less on TV to watch and channels seemed more willing to keep a show on the air. So, yeah, watching crap basically never gets you something good. TNG got good because one albatross around the neck of the show died and another left left, it was basically random chance and not support from the fans or fans desperately hoping for a better show that made TNG great.
I tend to agree. Yet I would support something I was lukewarm about if it made a difference to the long term prospects of the franchise. That is I wanted new Trek to be post Voyager and it is not. So I'm interested enough in Discovery to watch it but if it also adds to the momentum of interest in Trek in general, I can hold onto some pathetic hope it might help in a minor way to getting things going in a more forward (timeline) direction. With Discovery it's handicapped by not being readily available for mainstream 'free' TV. True reaction to it isn't going to be calculated until all the platforms to access it are considered. Some viewers are going to wait until they have it on blu ray for example. Other Trek bar the movies has been televised (first run). DVD/blu ray is like a back up. I suspect for some a bought copy will be their first option for Discovery. Star Trek seems to have a history of slow starts where fans have made a difference to its popularity and survival. I hope TPTB recognise that as they have in the past. Just not so sure the way we are as an audience is the same anymore.
No, not really. (I was 24 in 1987.) The late 1980ies early 1990ies was when the: "If the show doesn't get blockbuster rtatings, we'll pull it..fast... syndrome started on the 3 Networks in the U.S. It's why Paramount did their "First Run Syndication" setup (which started with three shows: - Star Trek: TNG (The flagship show that got the local stations to 'buy in') - Friday The 13th (The Series) - which during TNG Seasons 1 and 2, I actually enjoyed more than TNG - War of the Worlds (The Series) - and while it's first season was semi-watchable its second season was so bad Paramount cancelled it from the package and replaced it with: - The Untouchables And Paramount wasn't 100% sure that even TNG would survive past the first season - but they made a deal that IF TNG failed after the first season - the local stations could continue to are te TOS syndication package (which was still getting decent ratings in the late 1980ies; and Paramout would just add the one Season of TNG to the TOS syndication package going forward. Of course that wasn't needed; BUT it just shows Paramount was hedging it's bets just in case - and in many TV markets during the first two seasons a lot of the stations would air a TOS episode - followed by the new TNG episode - followed by another TOS episode (IE sandwiching the new TNG between two episodes of 'the old favorite' <--- So even the stations were doing all they could to keep existing Star trek fans watching back then.
I tried rewatching an episode of The Powers of Matthew Star recently. Some old TV deserves to be left in the past.
The more and more I learn about this show, the less it pleases me. But I'll be glued to my TV when it premiers, that's for sure. LOL
The crossover we don't deserve or need. "6 days, Colonel. God created the world in 6 days...of course, God wasn't surrounded by a bunch of flakes." With due respect to Maj. Frank Burns.