Poll How positive are you about Discovery now?

Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Mage, Jul 26, 2017.

?

What is your view on Discovery?

  1. Very positive

    81 vote(s)
    24.1%
  2. Positive

    90 vote(s)
    26.8%
  3. Somewhat positive but hesitant

    56 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. Neutral

    24 vote(s)
    7.1%
  5. Somewhat negative but hopeful

    33 vote(s)
    9.8%
  6. Negative

    34 vote(s)
    10.1%
  7. Very negative

    18 vote(s)
    5.4%
  1. Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai

    Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2016
    That's not what he's saying. He's saying that he's hoped to enjoy things before but had to admit they were bad. Once I admit that, I stop watching (ei: Voyager). But I give things time. If I see potential, I wait to see if said potential will ever be realized. To me this series has potential, and I won't declare it bad until I've spent enough time with it to get a feel of what it is and where it's going.
     
  2. galad2003

    galad2003 Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    No but I would watch it if it was on Netflix, Amazon Prime or traditional Tv =)
     
  3. Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai

    Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2016
    I've had time to cool, so I'll respond to your post point by point.

    Which is not at all what I'm doing.

    Yeah?

    So, here, you are saying that TNG had an interesting, diverse cast and that this is one of the things missing from DSC. So, you did say it.

    You're saying that now. You didn't say it then. You said that TNG had a diverse crew and a bursting of creative ideas. I took the listing of imaginative plots, strange aliens and exploratory, wide-eyed tone to be your list of creative ideas you believe DSC doesn't have, with the diverse cast being the other, because if that list was the "two" things DSC doesn't have, it's more than two things. Of course, I disagree with you that it doesn't seem to have any of those things, but then, diff'rent strokes.

    None of these were in any of the trailers. You had to watch the show to know about them. I won't claim to have seen every trailer, but even if the "jellyfish" did show up in one of them, I doubt they were given any context so I would likely have gotten the same impression from them as I do the "object of unknown origin" in DSC's trailers. Also, while I'll grant you the Bynars as being new and interesting, the Traveler was just another alien with a lumpy forehead. Sure, the implications of what he was capable of were interesting to think about, but even if there had been a couple of scenes of him in the trailers (and he wasn't), he just would have looked like another rubber-forehead alien to me. Snoooooze.

    You haven't seen the pilot. You've seen trailers, most of them under 30 seconds in length and quite a few stressing the idea of exploring the unknown as well as being at war. Trailers are put together by the marketing department, not the producers, and these trailers would hardly be the first that gave us an impression that wasn't 100% accurate. Like I've said elsewhere in this thread, a trailer, to me, is basically to let me know the product exists, let me see a bit of what it looks like, see and hear the characters talking to each other, etc. I never take it as "well, now I've seen the trailer, so I know how the whole first season's gonna play out". Also...you seem averse to there even being one or two starship battles at all, when even TNG had them (though I'll admit, not for a while). I'm not. I've always accepted starship battles as part of Trek.

    All of the producers and cast have talked about how this series takes place during a war but isn't about the war. I'm not the only one to point this out, but you seem to be ignoring this, or deciding that can't be true.

    It hasn't been the entire marketing campaign. The first two trailers hyped the battles, sure, and a few have since then, but you seem to be focusing only on that part of the campaign, and not on the parts where characters talk to each other, saying some pretty profound things.

    I don't see this as backtracking. There's several aspects to this show and they've never, ever pretended that war wasn't part of it, but also from the beginning they've talked about how its focus is on self-discovery, learning to understand things you're not used to, stuff that Trek has always been about.

    Your words in that quote say one thing. Your every other post has said another. You do not seem to have even the slightest desire to give this show a chance. That's not meant as a personal attack, it's just an observation. You're convinced this series is going to be war-kill-death-murder from start to finish when even the trailers have not been that. I don't see you going into this with an open mind. I see you going into it looking for ways to prove yourself right so you can write the series off.
     
    Michael likes this.
  4. Vger23

    Vger23 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    Avoiding tha Covidz!!!
    I'm a little beside myself at how this is being viewed as anything less than "somewhat positive" at this point.

    What I get out of DSC is pretty much the same vibe, albeit updated for modern audiences, that DS9 portrayed. Yes, it's a little grittier than your usual Trek. Yes, it has a "war" as a background. Yes, it has a different aesthetic. It's a serialized story...it's (supposedly) more character focused, with the mission and ethics of Starfleet somewhat in question. But it's also apparent based on the little snippets we've seen thus far that there has been an effort made to reflect that core Trek "stuff" we all love.

    Given that DS9 is, particularly in retrospect, held in such high regard...I'm really positive about this series from that perspective. I suppose if DS9 was not in your wheelhouse, I could see how this could turn you off. But otherwise, it appears to have a quality cast, unbelievable production values, and a good background for drama and character development.

    Again, aside from Trek fans being the equivalent of Red Sox fans prior to 2004, with the mindset of "the lower and more negative my expectations are, the less chance I have for potential heartbreak," I'm not sure I see what everyone is dreading.

    I dunno...maybe I'm just not as big a "fan" as I thought I was.
     
  5. Serveaux

    Serveaux American Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2013
    Location:
    Not Dead Yet
    Didn't care much for DS9.

    I've generally liked the versions of Star Trek that most viewers liked - TOS, TNG, the TOS-based movies, the Abramsverse movies.

    If this is a super-expensive version of a trekkies-only Star Trek series like the later sequel TV shows I'm not excited about it. Most of the rest of the TV audience gave those shows a pass as well.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2017
    BillJ and { Emilia } like this.
  6. Vger23

    Vger23 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    Avoiding tha Covidz!!!
    I completely disagree with the poster you're responding to here. TNG had a "diverse cast?"

    No. No phucking way. The entire issue with TNG was that all of the characters, except for Worf (who nobody ever listened to) and Yar (who died before S1 was even over) just sat around and generally sucked up to Picard while agreeing politely. There was hardly any diversity of thought on that show between the characters. The closest you got was Crusher occasionally getting even more sanctimonious and self-righteous than Picard and challenging him on the Prime Directive or something.

    I also completely disagree that TNG had "super-strange new aliens" as a common practice. For the most part, TNG aliens were human stand-ins with weak forehead or face prosthetics.
     
  7. Vger23

    Vger23 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    Avoiding tha Covidz!!!
    I'm not sure I get that impression at all.

    Most of the "casual" fans I know (including my wife) are excited and think this looks excellent. I was in a bar watching football on CBS this weekend and some promos came on and a lot of people in the bar were chattering about how it looked good. I mean, they weren't in awe or anything...but people were showing genuine interest.

    So I don't know about that. I think it looks quite the opposite...that it's more designed to hook the casual or first time fan in much the same way JJVerse movies were.
     
  8. Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai

    Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2016
    This is also me. For starters, DS9 remains my favorite of all Trek series to this day, in terms of story development and character arcs. I love TOS, I love TNG, and to me, DS9 is the third of that "Holy Trinity" but the one that really took things farther than they'd gone before. VGR and ENT, event though there were aspects to ENT I really enjoyed, and thought VGR started off with potential, felt more like just trying to imitate Trek than add anything new. ENT finally started doing that toward the end of its run. VGR never really did. It wanted to retread TNG.

    Maybe what I look for in Trek is different from most fans. What draws me to it is the world and the characters within it. I know its focus is on exploration, learning, open-mindedness, progress, peace-making and diplomacy, but I also don't have an issue with the fact that you can't protect peace unless you're ready to make war. They say diplomacy is the the art of saying "nice doggy" while looking for a bigger stick, and Trek has never pretended it's just saying "nice doggy". Kirk, Picard, etc. always said "we come in peace" with the implied addition "and if you don't, we'll kick your ass".

    Every series thus far has acknowledged that war might be a possibility. DS9 might have been the only one that actually had one, but that doesn't mean that Trek and war should never be uttered in the same sentence. As long as you don't lose sight of Trek's core principles and ideals, why is war or even action at all such a bad thing? Some fans see "action" in a trailer and think "well, that's it, it's all action." They see low lighting and think "well, it's all gloom and doom". They hear war and think "that's that, it's all violence."

    There are quiet moments in each trailer so far. I'd go as far as to say they're equal to the action moments. As for the lighting, recent trailers have made it clear that the earlier ones were using footage that wasn't quite finished. I like the lighting levels in more recent trailers. In fact, a lot of the initial "WTF?" reactions I had to the first trailer have been addressed by the producers or even future trailers. Some don't seem able to get past their knee-jerk reactions.
     
  9. Vger23

    Vger23 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    Avoiding tha Covidz!!!
    If the "lighting levels" on a trailer for a TV show are all I have to worry about, I'd say I'm in pretty good freaking shape.

    Like honestly, how can you give a rat's a$$ about how the sets are lit?

    I dunno...I really don't. Like you said earlier in the post I quoted...

     
  10. Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai

    Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2016
    Exactly. I'm glad you seized on diversity of thought, because in our modern times we love diversity of background or appearance but seem to demand conformity of thought.

    But even if all you demand is diversity of background and appearance, you still don't get that from TNG.

    Picard? White guy.
    Riker? White guy.
    Data? Android, designed by a human to look human, played by a white guy whose skin was made even paler.
    Worf? Okay, cool, a Klingon, played by a black actor, dedicated to Klingon culture who was...raised by humans. White humans.
    Geordi? Okay, a black human character. You get one point.
    Troi? A half-human, half-alien who looks totally human, played by an actress who, while admittedly is of Persian decent, still looks white.
    Crusher? White woman.
    Tasha? White woman.
    Wesley? White guy.

    Diverse.
     
  11. Vger23

    Vger23 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    Avoiding tha Covidz!!!
    Star Trek has never been particularly good showing true cultural or thought diversity. They're good (it varies series to series, to your point above) at looking diverse...but rarely do they actually show humans with different cultural values and different behaviors.

    Star Trek has over-used the "alien" characters (Spock, Worf, Odo, etc) to do that dirty work.
     
  12. BillJ

    BillJ History's Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Confederate States of America: Trump Edition
    I'm viewing it as an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. What floats Mack's boat and what floats mine could be completely different.

    It is what it feels like. Each Star Trek pilot introduced its own pieces to the franchise. TNG gave us Q, DS9 gave us the Prophets, VOY gave us the Caretaker and the Delta Quadrant, ENT gave us the Suliban and Temporal Cold War. For good or ill, they were introducing new dynamics.

    What we've seen up to this point, just makes the show feel like a cover of Star Trek's greatest hits. Klingon war (complete with the House of Kor), Sarek, Mudd and now the Mirror Universe. But without the fun and charm of Trek.
     
    Mad Jack Wolfe and Serveaux like this.
  13. BillJ

    BillJ History's Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Confederate States of America: Trump Edition
    For the folks who are saying the trailers are misleading, didn't Green compare the show to her previous show: The Walking Dead?
     
  14. Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai

    Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2016
    Thankfully this series looks like it actually will feature humans who have different though processes.

    Burnham: You target its neck and cut off its head!
    Georgiou: Starfleet doesn't fire first!
    Burnham: WE HAVE TO!

    You're never gonna see that on TNG!
     
  15. Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai

    Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2016
    Meant to respond to this earlier:

    I can understand this viewpoint. For a while I even shared it. After ENT was over I thought the franchise was and quite frankly, I was okay with that. At the time I even wrote a blog post about allowing Trek to die and moving on.

    But a majority of the nay-sayers I have encountered don't seem to be saying they don't want anymore new Trek at all (though a couple have), they're saying that while they do want new Trek, they just don't want this one, and rejecting it sight unseen.

    I don't buy that it was the trailers that turned them all against it. As soon as this series was announced there were people dumping on it, ready to call it utter crap before it even had a name! You name it, whatever we knew about it meant it was definitely going to be bad.

    I still think a majority of nay-sayers are simply seeing what they're determined to see, not what's the actual case. In fact, multiple responses to this post show nay-sayers picking and choosing what promotional material to believe and what to discard.
     
  16. Vger23

    Vger23 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    Avoiding tha Covidz!!!
    Oh absolutely...there are 100's of different takes on what is "good" and what is "not good" within fandom.

    Hey, I'm the guy who loved Star Trek V and thinks S3 of TOS is fantastic. I get it!
     
    King Daniel Beyond and BillJ like this.
  17. Vger23

    Vger23 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    Avoiding tha Covidz!!!
    Yes, I actually forgot to type a sentence that was my whole point...which is that hopefully DSC can portray this diversity amongst characters in a more realistic and meaningful way than has been done in the past.
     
  18. Vger23

    Vger23 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    Location:
    Avoiding tha Covidz!!!
    I think a lot of this is also driven by Trek's history and it's "historical relationship" with the networks and any "authority" figures in the entertainment industry.

    Trek, going all the way back to Gene, has always had an "Us vs. The Big Bad Man" mentality when it comes to networks and studio executives. That's hurt any Star Trek where it's perceived that the network or studio is "messing with" our precious franchise.

    Going all the way back to 1966...the studios are greedy, stupid idiots who don't understand and want to kill Star Trek. Only The Fans truly understand...

    I think that attitude almost always fuels hatred underneath it all...it's like it's part of the Trek Fan's DNA.
     
  19. Relayer1

    Relayer1 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2011
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    Although I'm old enough to have been a Trek fan since before Next Gen, I'm first and foremost a Niner. Despite loving TOS and TNG, and liking at least some of Voyager and Enterprise, I'm somewhat over the Boldly Going 'planet of the week' thing. We've had an awful lot.

    It's the more serialised, more political DS9 that I'm hoping to see something of in Discovery.
     
  20. Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai

    Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2016
    Me, too. Like, I literally could have typed this post without changing a word.

    I think I really noticed the "of the week" thing by the time we got to VGR. Each episode was one of three plots: "alien of the week" plot, "negative space wedgie of the week" plot or "yay, we found a way home! oops, no we didn't" plot. Repetitive to the max. And yet some Trek fans seem to want more of that? I don't get it.