I agree creatively it's great, but I was referring to their ability and/or willingness to pay similar contract fees for a second season if DSC performs well enough but is not a ratings smash hit which is the most likely scenario given current trends.
I'm positive, but I'm tempering my expectations. The idea that this is the "flagship" show for a digital streaming service probably means that they have a lot riding on it. On the other hand, major and abrupt changes in crew coupled with seemingly haphazard changes to established canon make me concerned that they might not have production quality and fan satisfaction at the top of their list of priorities. It could be a great show or a really mediocre one. I'm not going to box it into a category before I see it. I don't, however, think that there's much chance of it being truly terrible. Even the most "meh" of Star Trek series/movies are more fun to watch than the average fare.
I think Netflix has the base to support it, and have anticipated this to happen as part of their model. The idea that Netflix would remain static would be a foolish one, at best, for their business and I would imagine they have several contingencies build in.
Would like to upgrade my vote my a notch. Time is a factor, the closer it gets the less critical I feel.
No, their licence agreement put them into profit before it aired, they didn't fund the show directly at all. Netflix have realised that their business model has a flaw - subscriptions, unlike ad revenue, are static once the market is saturated and everyone likely to sign up has done so. They've needed to become more ruthless on cost monitoring, and investing in shows which will retain subscribers without paying the premiums necessary to host fresh-out-of-theatres movies and A grade TV shows like Game of Thrones. Discovery is right up their street, so I don't see any risk in their change for this show. Comparatively cheap, loyal fanbase, and ties into existing properties to retain subscribers in the off seasons.
Originally voted Somewhat negative but hopeful but now I'm at just negative. The more information comes out, the interviews, the more it seems like Game of Thrones in space. I'll watch the pilot and if it has nothing of the Trek I want - I won't even subscribe to All Access. I've had a complete turn around in my excitement since the show was announced, I'll be shocked if it's any good.
Can you give a specific instance of "GoT in space?" Because, despite tonal changes I haven't gotten that impression. So, I feel like I'm missing something.
1.) Show driven by interpersonal character conflicts and not ideas (this has been announced multiple times by many sources) 2.) "The images that you have seen so far are one house led by T’Kumva. Today you just saw the first image of [Kol]. So even in the wardrobe it is starting to venture to the more traditional Klingons. More leather and a different set of armor. And the series itself is going to explore 24 different houses and the leaders among them. And you will find different complexities and different ideologies amongst those houses. And so what you have seen already in these images is mostly just from one house. You are going to start to explore further into the Klingons, and each of those houses has a different set of physical looks and variations as well as ideologies. L’Rell is from two houses. She is House T’Kumva and House Mokai [Editor’s note: The one canon reference to House Mo’Kai was in Voyager‘s “The Killing Game Part 1”]. You get a great kind of interesting exploration of what it is to be of two different ideologies." L’Rell is from two houses. She is House T’Kumva and House Mokai [Editor’s note: The one canon reference to House Mo’Kai was in Voyager‘s “The Killing Game Part 1”]. You get a great kind of interesting exploration of what it is to be of two different ideologies. http://trekmovie.com/2017/08/02/stl...r-trek-discovery-first-image-of-kol-revealed/ A large part of the show is about 24 Klingon houses that are trying to unite, are fighting for power, etc. Just reading the above is putting me to sleep. Thus, even if it's half the show that's about TWENTY FOUR Klingon "houses" in-fighting and humans getting involved, that's half a show that I don't want to watch. I don't even want to explore one Klingon house, let alone 24. I somehow really doubt that the other half is going to be clean exploration/idea Star Trek. But based on the above, and many other quotes about how this is all going to be about a Klingon civil war, it's really hard to misinterpret what they're saying.
I really hope this is only touched on briefly in the show itself, and expanded in the novels and comic books. On the other hand, if they make it interesting and engaging, I"ll give it a shot.
Sounds like ideas to me... Secondly, Star Trek has always approached ideas through characters and their conflict. Most classically, Spock and McCoy. I'm not saying you have to watch it-obviously, you don't. My larger point is that we lack the context to go "GoT in space" and dismiss it out of hand.
I meant sci fi ideas, various what-if scenarios, not some human drama. Every other show is about human drama, I don't want to see much of it on Trek. McCoys' and Spocks' conflicts have always been in the background of real stories. McCoy complaining about Spocks' lack of feelings wasn't ever a defining feature of Trek, nor was it particularly interesting.
Which is why when I talk to non-fans, one of the things they recall about Spock is his conflicts with McCoy? And, no, this isn't in the past. This was this week in a psychoeducation group discussing rational mind and emotion mind. Secondly, human conflict is almost always at the heart of stories. That's why writers struggled with the "Roddenberry Box" as described by Michael Pillar. Yes, you have science fiction ideas, and "what ifs" but what draws in the average viewer, is characters they can connect and relate to. And, I'm sorry, that's not a "GoT" thing. That's just a human story thing. Besides, it doesn't sound like it will be all human drama. There will also be Klingon drama.
Building a backstory for what happens on screen is an important part of a writer's job. There is no reason to suspect that minutiae about the "24 houses" will get all that much attention.
Human drama is the driving force of almost the entirety of fiction, whichever medium, and always will be. What you call "ideas", even in the stories that are more to your (presumed) liking are in the service of the drama, not a replacement for it, with rare exception. The odds of any series engaging in the storytelling you would like are remote and I'd argue Trek has rarely lived up to that standard. No one is compelled to like it but as it is the overwhelmingly preferred approach to storytelling (both for the teller and the audience), I see little chance of change--particularly if commercial viability is a factor (as it clearly is here). I used to look at sci-fi and fiction more generally as you seem to but long ago concluded it would be more practical to explore such ideas in non-fiction. YMMV
Indeed. An idea is a good start, but it isn't a story. It turns into a story by adding characters to interact with each other and go through some kind of plot centred around your idea. One of the curses of the science fiction genre is idea without plot. Trek has a number of those episodes. Trek's great episodes take an idea (such as an accident which phases someone out of time) and build a human drama on top of it (a son loses his father at a young age and becomes obsessed with his loss to the exclusion of all else, ultimately giving his whole life to his father's memory) while the characters in that drama act out a plot (gather characters back at the wormhole to tech the tech in order to retrieve the lead and reset the timeline)
Yup. If it were every possible to come to a general consensus and write-up a list of the ten best Trek episodes, (Visitor definitely being one of them) I'd bet the one thing they'd all have in common is "drama first".
Still "positive". Sure, I wish there were some things they were doing differently. But it looks to have a stellar cast and slick production values. Definitely worth seeing how it plays.