Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by JoaquinSlowly, Jan 18, 2022.
Post of the day!
Yeah I am not trying to say young people have low standards. More that young young people have less experience so everything has a freshness to it because they haven't be worn down by seeing lots of the same twists play out over and over by countless years of watching stuff thus are less jaded.
Gotcha, but I still think it comes to personality type rather than age or experience. At 42 I don't feel jaded for example, but a moody teenager may be. Likewise there are teenagers who have their eyes wide open and older folks who expect everything to be like it was when they were young. There's so many factors to take into account that I think the most useful thing to say is "people are going to be people" and as a way of attempting to create a metric for why people do or don't like something, that's not a useful thing to say at all.
Thanks for the clarification though.
I think that's good points as well. In reality their always seems to be a million possible ways to figure why people like this and that or think this and that but human beings are pretty complex. Getting to bottom to such questions is likely impossible. Of course that doesn't stop people from always trying to get those answers. The endless curiosity of figuring out the meanings of our motivations seems to be a pretty popular human thing.
Star Trek in a nutshell.
The Human Adventure is Just Beginning!
Contrary to us being grouped and categorized and labeled ad nausieum ..
There are 7.5 billion individual humans on this mudball .. And there all different.
Let's take Math.
Let's say there was 75 million fans of star trek world wide. ( over or under estimate? No idea just an example)
Not counting the people that know of its existence .. Actually fans that watch.
That is 1 percent of the population. 1..
99% don't know, don't care or are just aware if it's existence.
I must have totally forgotten about 'strange new worlds' until mentioned here. I'll be optimistic about that one! Except what's with the prequel nonsense? Everything is a prequel now - makes no sense and it makes it boring. We've been "surprised" by young Spock, what, 200 times now? It's no longer interesting.
So it's not that ppl who want good star trek want it to go back to the old series and those old stories - many of which were terrible, too. We want something good, that's all. In fact new (non-prequel) is better than old, just needs to be good. What's good? Everyone will know it when they see it. And prequel should be a few episodes, not a few series.
BTW the fact that production can be profitable doesn't mean the product is good. Just that it's barely watchable, and better than the alternatives (which is nothing). I'm a good example - I think current star trek is quite bad but have still watched all of picard + nearly all discovery (please stop saying 'disco'? It's annoying, thanks.) Simply because it's slightly engaging and still something to watch - better than nothing to watch.
Everything is a prequel now? I take it the is meant in good fun.
Strange New Worlds will be the first prequel Star Trek has done in over two years. Don't get me wrong. I've moved on from the 23rd Century too... but I think I can stand one new series out of five being a prequel.
And if I end up not caring for Strange New Worlds I'll (wait for it, wait for it... ) just not watch it.
I dropped Lower Decks and if it was cancelled tomorrow, I wouldn't care. Though I do keep up with Prodigy, but I don't watch it the second it's released, unlike DSC and PIC. I get around to it when I feel like I'm in the mood. I have to channel that inner-child, which I don't always find easy to do, but once I do, I'm there.
No, everyone won't. People define good differently, as evidenced by this thread alone. It's not just "good enough" because there is nothing to watch. There is literally multiple shows out there to consume. So if people call it good then they just might actually find Discovery good.
What, pray tell, are Picard, Lower Decks and Prodigy prequels of? Not to mention, Discovery has permanently gone a thousand years to the future. In my book, it's stopped being a prequel for all intents and purposes.
Yes, definitely, I think Zachary Quinto was the first 100 times and Ethan Peck was the other 100. The attention spans of modern audiences are so short they were surprised every single time they appeared on the screen, sometimes within the same scene.
I saw Discovery and Picard and knew they were good. I wouldn't keep watching them if they weren't.
One's personal interests aren't representative of the entire fandom. A production has no obligation whatsoever to cater to the specific interests of any individual fan and failure to cater to them is not in any way, shape or form indicative of that production being objectively of low quality. Implying so is disrespectful to the people who watch the show because they like it, especially if paired with the assumption that most fans only watch it out of brand loyalty despite disliking it.
Wait, wait, hold on... let's be fair. Maybe he's talking about how everything's a prequel to "Calypso".
But there you have it, people are watching the current Treks, and as long as that remains the case, your prior assertions that the franchise is in imminent danger of permanent and total cancellation are completely false and unfounded. Even if we entertain your idea that it's only being watched by a desperate fanbase who feel these shows are "better than nothing" the fact they continue to watch it is a contributing factor to why it stays on the air. People don't watch shows they don't like, and if there were seriously enough people out there who hated Disco or any of the current shows with the passion you claim they should, they wouldn't be watching and the show(s) really would be cancelled.
No. Disco is an officially sanctioned abbreviation used by the show itself and is therefore an acceptable name to refer to the show as. You're not required to like it, but you also don't get to request it not be used.
It's so weird to see people show such a huge panic at the Disco.
"I get that reference."
The question I wonder is how many new fans are being made vs how many new viewers. I mean anyone who watches a show and likes is of course a fan but I was thinking more in terms of fandom which means buying into all the extra stuff. Getting the merch and writing the fan fiction and hanging out in places like Trekbbs. As opposed to people who watch it, like and then just move on and see it as nothing more than a way to pass the time for a hour.
I guess the ultimate way to put is how are the new shows coming along in terms of creating new Trekkies vs just bringing in new casual fans who might not care about Trek quite as strongly as the the more hardcore. Which I know is something harder to do these days for any show because their is so many more shows out their to compete against in terms of building new brand loyalty especially with the comic book stuff around that wasn't their in the 90's to compete with 90's Trek.
I love Disco. I'm told I used to dance to Dance Fever, which played a lot of disco. Not that I can remember, but it's what my parents said. So I was a Disco Fan before I even knew it.
Discovery was kind of lucky in one sense. Between STD ad DISCO name any other Trek or even tv show with 1 acronym much less 2 with so much comedy gold.
STD doesn’t fit the other abbreviations, it’s just an infantile joke. DSC or Disco.
Very much agreed about STD. None of the other post-TOS shows are referred to using that convention at all, making it not just a puerile attempt at a joke, but an extremely obvious one.
I tend to gravitate toward DIS, just from following the trend of ENT and VOY’s abbreviations, but I use Disco a whole lot as well, and DSC works as well, and makes as much sense anything.
Separate names with a comma.