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. The Lensman

    The Lensman Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2001
    Location:
    The Lensman
    For me it's more like being in 1979 and watching Star Trek getting radically re-imagined again. I'm less shocked with what I'm seeing for Discovery than I was in 79 and seeing the Trek world that I loved completely done away with and completely re-imagined.



    Unless this series set further in the future features Starfleet crew possessed of nanotechnology that allows them to self transport, emit phasers from their hands, communicate with the ship with no need of a physical communicator, have the ability to be a living tricorder and view all sensor information in their eyes ala' Geordi, then you can keep your "future Trek" because it will be the same tired old shit we had regurgitated ad nauseum in the 90's.

    When TNG premiered in 1987, my first thought was how utterly fucking cheap it all looked. The communicator is in their Starfleet symbol? That didn't scream "futuristic" it screamed "We don't have to build a prop". My second thought was how completely unadvanced they were in any meaningful way from the original series outside of some completely superficial changes like the uniforms, phasers and communicators. It's been years since I've read the original Star Trek Chronology, but at the end of it, it posits some potential technology in the coming century. IIRC, some of that may have been ships that change shape or something like that. (Anyone with a copy of that book, feel free to chime in). Bottom line, THAT was what the future of the future should be like. It should be extrapolating a future based on the tech available in that world.

    Look how much the real world has changed in a century of uninterrupted technological progress. Now imagine that in a time when you have access to transporters, replicators, no resource or energy limitations. No, were not going to have a future where the only differences are uniforms, phasers, communicators and the ships have letters from the middle of the alphabet after the registry numbers. But that's what too many "post VOY" fanboys want, and THAT, more than anything else is the embodiment of "worriedly go where we've all gone before"


    "but it's not Star Trek. It's just glorified fan fiction."

    So basically like everything from 1987 onward. ;)
     
    fireproof78 and Mordock like this.
  2. JirinPanthosa

    JirinPanthosa Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Location:
    JirinPanthosa
    I am optimistic but firmly neutral in my expectations.

    If it's a well written series that slides neatly into established Star Trek mythology, great. If it's a well written series with a totally reimagined dark and gritty approach analogous to NuBSG, great. If it's not well written...well, then I don't care what the hell they do with it.

    It seems like a lot of Star Trek fans don't agree with me here, but I'll take a Star Trek series that doesn't do what I want it to do but has great writing over a Star Trek series that does exactly what I want it to do mediocrely any day.
     
    BillJ likes this.
  3. Tomalak

    Tomalak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Location:
    Manchester
    It's pretty depressing that a show about going where no one has gone before has a fanbase with many wanting to only go exactly where one has indeed gone before.

    I can understand the trepidation, but I can't understand the belief - verging on hope - that it won't be as good as Trek gone by so it's almost pointless making it.

    I hope it knocks all Trek gone by out of the park, not because I don't love them, but because I hope I'm going to see something I love just as much!
     
    cultcross, JoeP, Campe98 and 2 others like this.
  4. BillJ

    BillJ History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    But it is firmly going where we've already been. Complete with Klingons, Sarek, Mudd and the Mirror Universe.
     
  5. MvRojo

    MvRojo Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2001
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Honestly, this is what everyone should do.
     
  6. doublegoodprole

    doublegoodprole Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Location:
    Maine
    I can see why they made this call. Discovery will appeal to the average viewer that only knows about Kirk and Spock, and there will be fan service galore for the hardcore people. Win win.
     
  7. Tomalak

    Tomalak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Location:
    Manchester
    Yeah, that's a fair criticism, but it depends where they take those elements.
     
  8. doublegoodprole

    doublegoodprole Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Location:
    Maine
    Well, you can't take it anywhere that violates 'canon', unless you do it anyway and ignore the criticisms.
     
  9. The Lensman

    The Lensman Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2001
    Location:
    The Lensman
    Damn straight. Last year Trek got me through one of the worst weeks I've ever had. This month, I've lost almost everything I've owned, including Star Trek stuff, comics, and mementos I've owned since I was kid. I'm looking forward to Discovery providing me with some much needed escapism. Frankly I don't give two shits about any other aspect of the show.
     
    JoeP, Tomalak and Michael like this.
  10. doublegoodprole

    doublegoodprole Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Location:
    Maine
    I'm excited for Discovery, just disappointed in the lack of willingness on the part of the execs to move forward. "Play it safe" has been the mantra of Star Trek since 1995. Kind of a bummer.

    I'd be a lot more positive if Fuller were still actively involved, too.
     
  11. doublegoodprole

    doublegoodprole Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Location:
    Maine
    And see, that is more important than anything else. We can debate and disagree, but in the end we all just want more Trek. I hope you like the show and get some joy out of it, I really do.
     
  12. Tomalak

    Tomalak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Location:
    Manchester
    Sorry you've been through a bad patch - I hope things get better. And I hope you can escape for an hour to the stars. :bolian:
     
    The Lensman likes this.
  13. MvRojo

    MvRojo Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2001
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Yet it was Fuller's idea to do the prequel.
     
  14. doublegoodprole

    doublegoodprole Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Location:
    Maine
    I know, and I strongly disagree with that decision. But he's still talented.
     
  15. Kane_Steel

    Kane_Steel Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Let's just say Trek at the height of it's popularity and relevance. That was the 90s. I'm skeptical it will get there again.
     
  16. Noname Given

    Noname Given Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Location:
    None Given
    ^^^
    Hate to say it - but all that means is you WEREN'T around in the 1970ies. There's a reason Paramount did an animated series in 1973 (ran to 1975) and they were going to do a 'Star Trek II' TV series and start a network circa 1976 (that's when plans started). If not for the popularity of Star Wars in 1977 we might have had a second TV Star Trek live action TV series sometime in 1977 - 79. But we got a film series that LEAD to TNG in 1987.

    Also, remember IF TNG had been on one of the (then Big 3, CBS, NBC, ABC) in 1987 I doubt it would have gotten a second season. Like TOS before it - TNG lived in Syndication. And TOS got big ratings IN syndication for nearly 20 years just re-running it's 3 seasons prior to TNG's premiere.

    So, yeah - sorry, but somehow believing TOS WASN'T Star Trek at the height of it's popularity and relevance just shows you DON'T really know the full history of the 'Star Trek' franchise and why it is were it is today.
     
    Nerys Myk and BillJ like this.
  17. Tomalak

    Tomalak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Location:
    Manchester
    It also doesn't need to be seventies/nineties popular. It's a completely different landscape for TV now. All Star Trek needs to be is relevant, appreciated and, frankly, on TV. It's been on hiatus too long, aside from the three films.
     
  18. JD

    JD Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    Technically, it's not on TV it's on streaming services, in most of the world.
    I have to admit, I was originally annoyed that they were going to the past again, but it looks like this will be different enough in it's approach that the time period doesn't really matter to me any more.
    I doubt that it will make the same mistakes as Voyager and Enterprise, this is new group of writers with no direct connection to Berman and Co., and they appear to be taking a very different approach. Whatever mistakes they make, and they probably will, will be different mistakes from what the old group did.
     
  19. Tomalak

    Tomalak Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Location:
    Manchester
    Obviously. It's effectively the same thing in 2017.
     
  20. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    fireproof78
    Can I like this multiple times? Please?

    Live long and prosper, @The Lensman
     
    The Lensman likes this.