Haters of Star Trek: Discovery - wtf?

[Mudd]

DS9's scripts didn't prevent the show's ratings from declining sharply for seven years.

 

[Noname Given]

No. I am protesting the strict time limits per episode they have placed on fan productions. Come on, 30 minutes max? Are you kidding me? I view these guidelines as an effort to kill fan productions. You are free to agree or not.

It's 6 times longer than the 5 minutes imposed on Star Wars fan productions by Disney.

 

[NOVE9]

Time will tell. I'm saying cancelled after season 1

That'd be impressive since t's already made it's money back.

 

[Jedman67]

Which is why force awakens is the highest grossing movie of all time? That was the ultimate "playing it safe" coming back off very unpopular prequels and containing heavy fan service.

Must be a lot of 30 year old basement virgins. (Are we really still using that metaphor in 2017?)

They went with what works.

I wouldn't say voyager or enterprise played it safe. Voyager went to a new region of space and enterprise an unexplored era. And it wasn't "playing it safe" which killed them, it was bad scripts.

As for the TNG movies, ONE OF them played it safe, First Contact, and it's considered one of the best.

Insurrection tried a very different idea of a big screen movie and failed, and nemesis script sucked.

As I said I'm open to seeing if this works but I'm not optimistic.

I barely liked TFA and I'm a bit of a Star Wars nut. I disliked it severely because it pandered instead of trying something new. Sure it was a box office success but thats a far cry from becoming an enduring pop-culture icon like it's predecessor that spawned it.

VOY barely had the ratings to last 7 seasons in it's bread and butter market - TOS fans already had TNG, DS9 and the TOS movies and Voyager was simply not interesting enough to be more than mediocre. It had it's moments, but oftentimes it was just the same old tropes again and again and again.
Enterprise started off with a bang but suffered greatly through half it's run until S3 - which IMO was pretty mediocre with a couple of standouts - and S4 which was much better.

 

[Infern0]

I barely liked TFA and I'm a bit of a Star Wars nut. I disliked it severely because it pandered instead of trying something new. Sure it was a box office success but thats a far cry from becoming an enduring pop-culture icon like it's predecessor that spawned it.

VOY barely had the ratings to last 7 seasons in it's bread and butter market - TOS fans already had TNG, DS9 and the TOS movies and Voyager was simply not interesting enough to be more than mediocre. It had it's moments, but oftentimes it was just the same old tropes again and again and again.
Enterprise started off with a bang but suffered greatly through half it's run until S3 - which IMO was pretty mediocre with a couple of standouts - and S4 which was much better.

Yes but tv and movies are about making $$$ and by that measure TFA was a phenomenal success.

You mention enterprise, I actually think season 4 is some of the best trek out there, but it wasn't enough to keep it on air. Similarly DS9 was fantastic and certainly strayed from the formula but struggled for ratings.

You have to try and strike a balance. That's my concern here.

 

[Dukhat]

They'll be fine, as long as they don't start pandering to fans.

Unfortunately, I suspect this has already happened, when they said that the ship would look different from the one shown in the trailer promo. Their attitude should really have been, "That's the ship we're using. If you're not going to watch our show because of something trivial like the design of the ship, that's your loss."

 

[Cake]

Unfortunately, I suspect this has already happened, when they said that the ship would look different from the one shown in the trailer promo. Their attitude should really have been, "That's the ship we're using. If you're not going to watch our show because of something trivial like the design of the ship, that's your loss."

If it is something so "trivial", why not change it, if that means more viewers? I mean it is not like a tiny minority were complaining. Many found its look unappealing. And it would be stupid of the producers/writers, if they risk potential viewers over a "triviality".

Personally by the way I don't think the look of the ship is so unimportant. It is practically a character on its own and will be a lot of times on the screen. Look for example at the old Knight Rider series. The car KITT was a nice looking sleek black sports car. Can you imagine the series with a boxy, ugly family car? Do you think the series would have lasted as long with one? The optic of a series, what choices they make there, also matter for the success of a series.

 

[Dukhat]

If it is something so "trivial", why not change it, if that means more viewers? I mean it is not like a tiny minority were complaining. Many found its look unappealing. And it would be stupid of the producers/writers, if they risk potential viewers over a "triviality".

Because the audience they're trying to attract will not care about how the ship looks. I hate the nuEnterprise design from the Abrams films, and yet that didn't stop me and millions of other people from buying movie tickets.

 

[Cake]

Because the audience they're trying to attract will not care about how the ship looks.

I think non Star Trek fans will also prefer a pretty ship over an ugly one. It might be different, if the series would be about a dystopian future, but DIS won't be set in one.

 

[Mudd]

No one knows what is or isn't being done to the ship. Of course a model being used nearly a year before the premiere is a work in progress.

Star Wars has managed just fine with clunky, ugly ships. Frankly, the more this series is just what people expect from Trek the more trouble the show is in.

 

[Dukhat]

I think non Star Trek fans will also prefer a pretty ship over an ugly one.

Do you consider the Millenium Falcon to be a "pretty" ship? Because I wouldn't go that far. But it's one of the most famous and iconic science fiction spaceships ever.

No one knows what is or isn't being done to the ship.

They said they were changing the nacelles.

 

[ihno]

No, I still don't hate Discovery but I fear I might die of old age before it finally airs.

 

[Mudd]

Do you consider the Millenium Falcon to be a "pretty" ship? Because I wouldn't go that far. But it's one of the most famous and iconic science fiction spaceships ever.



They said they were changing the nacelles.

And probably much else. Fuller said:

“Everybody got a glimpse of what the ship looked like as a work in progress, and so much of that has already changed because that was — that design wasn’t even finalized. It was, like, ‘What can we share with folks at Comic-Con that lets them into the process?’ And already I look at that design and go like, ‘We’ve got different nacelles. We’ve got different lines there.’ So it’s an evolution, and we’re finding that look as we get closer and closer to production.”

 

[Balok's Decoy]

They said they were changing the nacelles.

The nacelles were probably the thing I was iffy about with the design. Otherwise I quite like it. The delta shape appeals to me.

 

[Cake]

Do you consider the Millenium Falcon to be a "pretty" ship? Because I wouldn't go that far. But it's one of the most famous and iconic science fiction spaceships ever.

No, I don't find it pretty. But it is a smuggler ship and we see it during a dystopian time in the three old movies. World destroying Siths are in power. A huge galactic wide war is going on. And when we see it again in the recent movie, it is in addition to that also really old. Like I wrote in my previous comment already, the rules are a bit different, when a movie portrays a not so nice time and place. People expect some dirt and ugliness for reality sake, especially for a smuggler ship.

Star Trek shows a better future though. It is way more utopian than Star Wars was during the Millennium Falcon time. And positive futures are generally portrayed in movies and series in an optically pleasing way. Things are shiny, light, clean, beautiful. At least things of the good guys, the bad guys generally get a different treatment. And the Discovery is a Starfleet ship, not a "cheap" smuggler ship. The Federation isn't lacking resources. And we have already seen in TOS, that they can build pretty ships. Even non Star Trek fans have seen the Enterprise at one point in time somewhere on TV.

 

[Dukhat]

^But none of that is really relevant to the success or failure of a show. Whether the future is utopian or distopian, people watching that future are going to be less concerned about what a spaceship looks like and more concerned about whether the show is actually good or not or whether the characters are intriguing and the plotlines are interesting.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Sorry, that doesn't fly. If you want to be mad at someone about the restrictions, be mad at Alec Peters. Everything was fine until he fucked things up for all other fan film producers. CBS was well within their rights to impose restrictions on what others can do with CBS's own intellectual property. Heck, they could have just said that no one can make fan films anymore. But they didn't. You may think that a 30 minute max is some kind of evil plot by CBS to kill fan films, but it's not, because CBS could have killed them right then and there. But they decided that if someone is even considering doing what Peters did, that there's going to be consequences. That's life.

Seconded. And I already said this to Starhawk a while ago, but of course, he asked me if If knew that he wasn't already against Peters.

They can't afford to play it safe. The playing it safe created two spin off series that retreaded the TNG formula for multiple years. Regardless of what Star Trek fans would watch, CBS wants to reach new markets and new audiences and expand their marketshare.

Paramount showed that they can freshen it up with ST 09 and insert a little bit of rock and roll to freshen it up and be successful in drawing in a newer audience.

This 'playing it safe' is why many fans love fan shows, because it appeals to them based on their nostalgia for Star Trek. But that nostalgia can't sustain a franchise forever.

 

[fireproof78]

No, I don't find it pretty. But it is a smuggler ship and we see it during a dystopian time in the three old movies. World destroying Siths are in power. A huge galactic wide war is going on. And when we see it again in the recent movie, it is in addition to that also really old. Like I wrote in my previous comment already, the rules are a bit different, when a movie portrays a not so nice time and place. People expect some dirt and ugliness for reality sake, especially for a smuggler ship.

Star Trek shows a better future though. It is way more utopian than Star Wars was during the Millennium Falcon time. And positive futures are generally portrayed in movies and series in an optically pleasing way. Things are shiny, light, clean, beautiful. At least things of the good guys, the bad guys generally get a different treatment. And the Discovery is a Starfleet ship, not a "cheap" smuggler ship. The Federation isn't lacking resources. And we have already seen in TOS, that they can build pretty ships. Even non Star Trek fans have seen the Enterprise at one point in time somewhere on TV.

Here's an interesting thing about the time period that might inform the design. The Federation had recently fought a war with the Romulans, which means the bright and clean lines of the Constitution class may still be new to the fleet, rather than ships that were repurposed from a war effort. That might lead to a little more dirt, and harder lines, than before.

Of course they can make it pretty. Almost any space ship design can be made pretty with bright white corridors. Even the Tantive IV from Star Wars could fit that description in the interior.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

If it is something so "trivial", why not change it, if that means more viewers? I mean it is not like a tiny minority were complaining. Many found its look unappealing. And it would be stupid of the producers/writers, if they risk potential viewers over a "triviality".

Personally by the way I don't think the look of the ship is so unimportant. It is practically a character on its own and will be a lot of times on the screen. Look for example at the old Knight Rider series. The car KITT was a nice looking sleek black sports car. Can you imagine the series with a boxy, ugly family car? Do you think the series would have lasted as long with one? The optic of a series, what choices they make there, also matter for the success of a series.

If they caved in to stupid things like that that fans ask/demand then they should have fired Patrick Stewart from TNG. Some fans hated him and his age/baldness back in 1987. With that logic they should have fired Michael Keaton from Batman in 1989. Also Heath Ledger as Joker in The Dark Knight, etc.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

If they caved in to stupid things like that that fans ask/demand then they should have fired Patrick Stewart from TNG. Some fans hated him and his age/baldness back in 1987. With that logic they should have fired Michael Keaton from Batman in 1989. Also Heath Ledger as Joker in The Dark Knight, etc.

But without fan outrage, how would the creators know how to make their show?