Poll How positive are you about Discovery now?

[Mudd]

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.

 

[Vger23]

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.

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.

 

[Vger23]

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.

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.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

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.

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.

 

[Vger23]

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.

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...

Maybe what I look for in Trek is different from most fans.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

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.

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.

 

[Vger23]

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.

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.

 

[BillJ]

I'm a little beside myself at how this is being viewed as anything less than "somewhat positive" at this point.

I'm viewing it as an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. What floats Mack's boat and what floats mine could be completely different.

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.

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.

 

[BillJ]

For the folks who are saying the trailers are misleading, didn't Green compare the show to her previous show: The Walking Dead?

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

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.

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!

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

To answer the first, no, not every fan wants the franchise to continue. I have seen a number of fans who would rather keep what they have, and not ahd more on to it if it isn't like what has come before. This is why series like "Star Trek Continues" and the like keep moving forward. It isn't just nostalgia, but often times a personal level of comfort and familiarity that comes with it.

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.

 

[Vger23]

I'm viewing it as an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. What floats Mack's boat and what floats mine could be completely different.

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!

 

[Vger23]

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!

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.

 

[Vger23]

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.

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.

 

[Relayer1]

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.

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.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

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.

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.

 

[BillJ]

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

That's exactly what I don't want. A serialized show has never held my interests long term (it always feels like there is a ton of padding going on), and Deep Space Nine didn't either.

It is funny the difference between these threads and the ones on The Orville. Even those threads are light and breezy.

 

[Mudd]

It is funny the difference between these threads and the ones on The Orville. Even those threads are light and breezy.

That's because watching it makes us happy.

 

[Rahul]

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.

At first I was questioning you're reading skills. But then I noticed you deliberately left out important parts of my quotes to alter them and make them fit your (wrong) point.

That makes you not bad at reading. That makes you LYING.

The entire quote of mine, with the parts you deliberately left out, is this:

TNG had the advantage of a very interesting, diverse crew, even if it took time for me to cozy up with them, or accept the abysimal make-up for Data and see him as the unique, interesting lovable character he is. But it had one thing going for it that made me stay with it right from the very first episode: A bursting of creative ideas, wild, imaginative plots, super strange new aliens and civilisations, and a very exploratory, wide-eyed tone towards the unknown. That's two(!) major things I'm currently missing from DIS. Currently, as in I don't know the characters yet, but they look somewhat promising [\emphasize added] , but I sure as hell miss the tone and focus on exploration - something I hope DIS will finally get when it "grows it's beard".

You might have noticed: I cared for TNG because of the characters, and the wild, imaginative plots and aliens (yada, yada, repeating myself). That's 2(!) things currently missing from DIS. The second part is obvious (don't care for the war story). And I don't care for the characters of DIS, currently. Because, and that point has been made multiple times, I haven't seen DIS yet and don't know the characters yet. Or whether I will like them in the end or not. But I even aknowledged the charactes of DIS are looking promising already.

Since the rest of your post has been equally willfully seperated from reality or our previous discussion, I'm not going to put in the effort to retort to every single other inaccuracy or willfull fabrication of yours in your post.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

That's exactly what I don't want. A serialized show has never held my interests long term (it always feels like there is a ton of padding going on), and Deep Space Nine didn't either.

It is funny the difference between these threads and the ones on The Orville. Even those threads are light and breezy.

To each their own but seriously, serialization can lead to padding? Really?

No, sir. It's serialization (shows designed to be binge-watched) that leads to tight, focused storytelling.

TNG and VGR had padding, and lots of it. If I were to excise every episode of those series that literally contributed nothing to character development, story direction or the Trek mythos as a whole, I'd probably have about three seasons left (combined).