ENT wasn’t good, but it did give us Commander Shran and brought back the Andorians in a big way. So for that alone I will always be appreciative
Is Discovery the most polarizing Trek property ever?
- Thread starter TheMadCloner
- Start date
Seems like every new Trek series or movie is polarizing to some degree. Based on my memory TNG and ENT were more polarizing than Discovery. The series that was least polarizing was probably VOY, or maybe the polarization just seemed tame compare to what came before (TNG, DS9) or after (ENT).
with VOY it took a long time to accept that the show is just...not that good. there was a lot of 'well, once they get to season 3...' going on, based on how DS9 and TNG needed time, but once S3 was there and was, what it was, I guess that was the tme people realized that VOY had a problem
I feel like at this point, if you're going onto any sort of genre franchise or big fanbase show, you know the basic deal. I'm always wondering if they're getting specific genre-fanbase-tailored media training before they start doing press.
I am in the process of doing this currently! I really was just burned out on Berman-model Trek at the time, I'd had enough of it and needed a break.
So true. Poor Voyager, it just can't win.
Has the production team received death threats and the original creator leaked plot details to discredit the production?
Then, I'm going to say, "No."
Then, I'm going to say, "No."
Last edited:
I re-watched all of VOY in 2008 and binged all of ENT in 2010. I still put Voyager over Enterprise.
I'll go back and re-watch VOY episodes sometimes, to this day, on Netflix. After I went through ENT, I thought to myself, "Some of this is okay, but I think I'm all set," and haven't seen it again since. It's just not for me.
Last edited:
Polarization-wise, I'd say it's near the same as the ENT era. The outrage was tangible in 2001 when ENT premiered. I remember it well. It boiled over quickly but negative sentiment simmered long after the series was canceled. At least DISCO's theme score doesn't grate on nerves like Faith of the Heart did.
The one thing I can say that's really different about Discovery is that it took a lot less time for it to "find its footing." I can't think of a single Trek series that came out of the gate that strong in its first season since TOS. It took TNG/DS9/VOY each apiece two full seasons before it would get really good at what it was doing - telling certain kinds of stories with specific characters.
The one thing I can say that's really different about Discovery is that it took a lot less time for it to "find its footing." I can't think of a single Trek series that came out of the gate that strong in its first season since TOS. It took TNG/DS9/VOY each apiece two full seasons before it would get really good at what it was doing - telling certain kinds of stories with specific characters.
It seems like each one of the various shows polarized viewers. In TNG (and obviously before internet message boards), I remember reading letters in the Star Trek magazine (or somewhere) from pissed off fans about how Picard surrendered the ship in EaF, Data was a knock off of Spock, etc... I don't remember anything in particular about DS9, but that's not to say it didn't piss off much of the TOS or TNG fanbase. VOY and ENT earned their fair share of both criticism and admiration on various internet boards.
Discovery, IMHO, doesn't seem to have divided Star Trek fans. Sure some Trek fans like it more than others, but I don't think it's polarized the Trek community like The Last Jedi did with Star Wars.
Discovery, IMHO, doesn't seem to have divided Star Trek fans. Sure some Trek fans like it more than others, but I don't think it's polarized the Trek community like The Last Jedi did with Star Wars.
Have we all forgotten the fierce Reboot Wars of 2009? Which (lens) flared up again when INTO DARKNESS came around?
Some fans are still going on about lens flares, and "Jar-Jar Abrams," and the new movies being an "abomination" and such. "That's not the 'real' STAR TREK!"
As for ENTERPRISE . . . . yeah, some fans hated the theme song, the way the Vulcans were portrayed, the "canon violations," etc. And I remember fans griping about DS9 "boldly staying in one place."
The more things change . . . .
Some fans are still going on about lens flares, and "Jar-Jar Abrams," and the new movies being an "abomination" and such. "That's not the 'real' STAR TREK!"
As for ENTERPRISE . . . . yeah, some fans hated the theme song, the way the Vulcans were portrayed, the "canon violations," etc. And I remember fans griping about DS9 "boldly staying in one place."
The more things change . . . .
You're right about that. DSC has had some noticeable creative "growing pains," but it's still had a stronger start than any other Trek spinoff series. Let's hope it can keep the momentum going, rather than gradually petering out.
And I suppose it's to the credit of ENT that it did eventually improve (something VOY never really managed), thanks to a new writing staff, and finally found its footing in its fourth (and final) season. I'd given up on ENT and was initially incredulous when friends told me S4 was actually good, but when I finally watched it, I mostly enjoyed it.
No, I chose 1987 because with the advent of TNG, the writers and artists - many of whom were Trek fans - began an ongoing effort to weave everything including TOS into a much more consistent and tighter continuity than ever before. It was in the first season of TNG, for example, that a calendar year was given for an episode, and all of the specific dates of the Trek chronology were worked backward and forward from it.
TOS was much looser and deliberately vague about dates.
The specific statement that many fans used to object to the portrayal of relations with the Klingons in Enterprise was derived from a fourth year TNG episode. And so forth.
I believe that the first onscreen reference to Kirk's ship as a "Constitution class vessel" is in the second episode of TNG, canonizing what had been an accepted bit of supporting more (tell me that the first reference was in TAS and I'll believe you - I'm not that familiar with that show).
So, TOS established the Trek universe but TNG defined or standardized - to a greater or lesser degree - the detailed continuity that fans would increasingly fuss over and dispute for decades to come.
Last edited:
Right...that's why we have so many threads discussing its merits and whether or not actors are "good" and so on.
Not even close. I guess you weren't around in Star Trek fandom when TNG premiered? Yes, I know the TNG faithful like to believe that show was LOVED from day one - but no, that wasn't the case AT ALL (and Critics were not kind during the first season either.)
TNG was HIGHLY polarizing - more than TAS had been, more than ST:TMP had been and honestly, during its first season it was FAR MORE polarizing because it routinely retconned so much of TOS out of the gate that TOS fans were NOT happy. "GR's gone senile...wtf?"
TNG was way more polarizing to Trek fandom at the time then ST: D is comparatively today.
STD is the lowest rated of the Star Trek shows on RT Audience (55%) and IMDB.
It is divisive, but it also easily the most drastic reinvention of Trek ever done;
- the heroes are the Black female lead, the chubby girl, the Gay guy and the asexual Alien. Not the traditional hero archetypes.
- The villain is the Captain.
- Course language, gore and frontal nudity included.
- heavy redesign of TOS elements to look VERY ahead of previous shows, despite taking place before TOS
- boldly aims to contradict the aesthetics of The Cage era
- maintains a dark and gritty grim tone in every episode.
- uses serialized storytelling completely
- drastic redesign and reinvention of the Klingons
- replaces traditional warp drive with spore jumping technology
- starts off as a war series with minimal focus on exploration and diplomacy
etc.
This show certainly took chances. Did they pay off? We'll see...
It is divisive, but it also easily the most drastic reinvention of Trek ever done;
- the heroes are the Black female lead, the chubby girl, the Gay guy and the asexual Alien. Not the traditional hero archetypes.
- The villain is the Captain.
- Course language, gore and frontal nudity included.
- heavy redesign of TOS elements to look VERY ahead of previous shows, despite taking place before TOS
- boldly aims to contradict the aesthetics of The Cage era
- maintains a dark and gritty grim tone in every episode.
- uses serialized storytelling completely
- drastic redesign and reinvention of the Klingons
- replaces traditional warp drive with spore jumping technology
- starts off as a war series with minimal focus on exploration and diplomacy
etc.
This show certainly took chances. Did they pay off? We'll see...
Perhaps if more shows and movies of the past had diverse leads like this, maybe today people would describe such individuals with a bit more tact.
And that's a good thing.
I think it’s really difficult to look at a product that has a 75% or so approval rating as polarizing. I don’t at all begrudge people that don’t like a tv show for whatever reason. I’ve disliked several tv shows that were considered “good” or popular. But I also fully accepted that I was in the minority when doing that. From all of the fan rating devices that are out there it appears that if you don’t like DSC you are in a pretty clear minority.
No.
That would be because this is a Star Trek board.
If only ten people in the world still gave a fuck about Trek, five of them would find one another and fight about it.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Also, the same goes for pizza so this really isn't unique to Star Trek.
Similar threads
