I actually agree with this quite a bit, and I say that as a fan of the 2009 reboot. Unfortunately, Star Trek has been stuck in the muck on this issue for a long time now...and let me tell you why. Someone somewhere at some point in time got it into their heads that for Star Trek to make "TEH BIG MONEE" it needs to be less "sci fi geeky" and more accessible. This is really unfortunate, when you see more classic sci fi genre movies like "Arrival" and "Gravity" being relatively successful in the recent marketplace, as well as shows like "The Expanse," which does a great job combining legit sci-fi with action adventure (see also: TOS).
I’m not a Discovery fan, and I can honestly say it seems to be doing the job CBS needs it to do. You seem determined to ignore every fact there is regarding Discovery. How can it be straining CBS purse strings when Netflix picks up a large chunk of its cost through licensing? I’m still not sure what the #MeToo comment means? Other than you trying to toss every bit of shit possible, desperately trying to get something to stick.
And if anything is pressuring Picard’s budget, it would likely be the rumored $20 million dollar salary Patrick Stewart is collecting.
There is actually a great interview with... I think Rick Berman? And where he was talking about the TNG Star Trek movies, so even before Trek went truly "blockbuster", where he talked quite a lot about studio expectations. Where he said that, once you got a budget upwards of a few millions, there will always be a producer that tells you you HAVE to at least put Earth in danger, if not the survival of humankind as a whole. And I have thought about that a lot. Because in most cases, that seems true: Even movies with a pretty unique concept like "Oblivion" usually end with "saving Earth". Even Denis Villeneuve had to put the whole Earth in danger in "Arrival" at one point. I think this is kind of sad. And it applies to all movies, even (especially!) superhero movies. Like, the old Spider-Man movies, or Iron-Man, or Ant-Man - these are all movies that work on a much smaller, personal scale! And I think they work even better than most world-ending ones. Yet, despite that, the world-ending ones are the "go-to" formula.
The previous poster practically said that DIS is like current superhero movies and I am sure his thoughts included Marvel superheroes movies. After all he talked about them being in the cinemas all the time and DC is not quite so prolific. That is why I brought Marvel up. I just disagreed with him as I hardly see any similarities between them and DIS. There are of course many other movies and series which got it right before, too. TOS, Stargate SG1 and SGA and Farscape for example. They never forgot to add some humour and fun, but also had well written serious scenes and story arcs and most important really likeable, interesting, well written characters. DIS goes the dark and dreary route. Its tone is much more serious than most Marvel superhero movies. DIS really lacks humour. Tilly's awkward lines is a failed attempt by TPTB to add some lightness. Also its lighting is muted. If I have to compare it with superhero movies it is more like Man of Steel, BvS or the rare more serious Marvel movie X-Men: Dark Phoenix. Tone wise though I prefer the lighter, more colourful and fun stuff of the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies. And even people who don't like them must admit that their scripts are well thought out. Its makes sense how the plot of a movie goes from point A to B to C. They feel cohesive. They have less plotholes than DIS or weird side storylines where you wonder, why is this part of the season. Into Darkness wasn't so good, but I liked ST09 and Beyond. Mind you, they were far from perfect. Some plot holes could have been avoided for example, but they were fun and entertaining. A well written series could be so much better though, because there is much more time to explore the characters, show more of their depths than a movie ever could.
That's why I don't watch Marvel films any more. Too many of those moments. DIS, on the other hand, I can follow along with.
I mostly agree with Mike and Rich here. I'm probably even more cynical than they are. The part where they were counting the number of producers cracked me up. I'm no expert but 21 seems like a lot. Looks like they made even poor Jay suffer through some episodes. Discovery feels like it has a bunch of different ideas but never sticks to any of them. The writing staff’s sloppy attempts to patch up all the loose story threads has resulted in a mess of show. When I watch this Discovery I feel like I'm watching money burn on screen.
One of the things I like most about The Expanse is it remembers - unlike a lot of modern TV Sci-fi - that setting and premise matter a lot in speculative fiction. I've seen too many bland interchangeable nu-BSG knockoffs which skimp on the world-building and focus solely on character to such an extent that you might as well be watching a "mundane" drama show. I mean, I don't want paper-thin characters dragged along as the plot requires, but honestly I'm not interested enough in people to get drawn into a series on the basis of characterization alone.
I think that comes down to there being multiple showrunners over the last two seasons. Hopefully, things will settle down with season three and we'll get to see someone's vision from start to finish.
Prove it. Do you have reports? Spreadsheets? Data? No, not that Data. Stop watching Midnight's Edge. You'll rot your brain.
This is a general observation. In advance, I know there are exceptions. But this is what I've noticed. Not just here but everywhere and about anything. I think it's amazing how most people think the "best" stuff is from when they were young. What an amazing coincidence that someone came of age when everything happened to be the best. Except when everything was the "best" depends upon when that person was young. "The '40s were the best!" "The '50s were the best!" "The '60s were the best!" "The '70s were the best!" "The '80s were the best!" "The '90s were the best!" "The '00s were the best!" "Now is the best!" They can't all be right. I think when people are young that's when their brain most wants to pick up "This is the way things should be!" Then, as soon as they have those bearings, it sticks. And the minute it deviates from that, "It sucks!" You show them something from before their youth, they'll say, "What the Hell is this?!" If you show them something from after their youth, they'll say the same thing, "What the Hell is this?!" "It was better before!" No, you just liked it better before. "It's better now!" No, you just like what they're doing now better. I try not to discount something based on when it was made. And I don't want it to stay one certain way forever and ever and ever. In fairness, some people don't like DSC but also like plenty of other new stuff. But there's a definite sub-set who think "Everything new sucks!" So, in effect, nothing Discovery or any new Star Trek does will ever be good enough to them, because it's never going to be TOS or TNG.
Exactly. We all struggle with our biases, but there truly seems to be a concerted effort to not let things be entertaining.
I loath Discovery, but for sure you have a point here. When you're young everything is new to you. You've haven't seen the same story tropes, cliches and premises a million times before like an adult has. You don't know what's going on behind the scenes. Movies and TV can be magical when you're a kid. Music can be the same way. The movies/music/TV you consumed when you were coming of age imprints you. It was all exciting and new to you back then, but it's hard to match that high as an adult. Some of my favorite video games are still the SNES games I played when I was a kid. I still find many things that I like today, but it's hard to match the feeling I felt seeing Jurassic Park in the theater when I was 11. Or watching TNG every night with my dad or the first time I saw Star Wars. Even with my own biases in mind, I still feel confident in saying Discovery is a poorly written messy show.
I would rate that video maybe a B or B-. More Best of the Worst please, that stuff is golden. Mike and Rich are actually right about most things in the video (though not quite all), but they go about complaining about it in the wrong way. And it feels like they go over the stuff they like and praise in a span of 10 seconds or something like that. Not that I want them to make a praise video, but they're losing the middle ground too. Though to be fair, I understand they spent more than 50 minutes filming that video and discussing Star Trek, but when they were editing their video, the complaints were all the funniest and most entertaining bits, so the final product becomes complaint heavy. But in general, the complaints, especially about the stupidity of the writing, are absolutely right. Though after pointing out the stupid long list of producers, they should have elaborated on the need for a stronger guiding presence at the very top. Or at least a consistent one.