Rewatched the second DSC trailer. It still gives me chills. It's pushing all my Trekkie buttons.
Poll How positive are you about Discovery now?
- Thread starter Mage
- Start date
This could be interesting!
I am feeling positive.
I just wish they would turn down the dark a bit. Hopefully they darkened the trailers scenes to keep us squinting and the actual episodes will be brighter.
I just wish they would turn down the dark a bit. Hopefully they darkened the trailers scenes to keep us squinting and the actual episodes will be brighter.
Isn't it obvious. To sell their new line of "LaForge's Glasses-for a superior viewing experience."
Fairly positive, which is up from cautiously optimistic several weeks ago.
Somewhat negative but hopeful
I was very optimistic but with every bit of new information coming out it seems like they're making a show that is the complete opposite of what I wanted.
The captain is not the main character
- This is a red flag as far as I'm concerned. It suggests that this show is going to be geared towards interpersonal drama and not the decision making of a captain when dealing with aliens, exploring various phenomena and planets.
Long story arcs
- I tried imagining even the best few episodes of 50 years of Star Trek and thinking whether I'd want to watch a full season of that. The answer is no. Again, this is a major red flag that this is going to be a soap opera with characters experiencing conflicts among themselves. All of it leaving less and less time for discovering and exploring. I want Star Trek to be Star Trek and not Downton Abbey. What I want is a new world of the week, a new alien race of the week, an unknown/mysterious phenomena of the week, etc. That's Star Trek. EXPLORING AND DISCOVERING STRANGE NEW WORLDS. If you want a long arc with people falling in love and hating each other, create a spin off, don't ruin the franchise with this horse manure.
War
- Star Trek has never depicted war in a way that interested me. War has always been Star Trek's weakest point and also the one that makes least sense. I enjoy war as an entertainment, have seen almost every WW1 and WW2 movie ever made, I devour documentaries about war, but I do not want to see it in Star Trek because it's boring. Evasive maneuvers, shields up, pew pew. And yet it seems that war is going to be the focal point of this Star Trek, leading me to a logical conclusion that these long arcs we've been hearing about are going to be about a war. How do I contain my excitement...
Mudd
- You have a vast array of fantastic ideas from the best Trek show and this is what you pull out of it? He's not even a sci-fi character, just an annoying criminal. How is this exciting? The Mudd episodes were the worst in TOS. The fact that Dwight is playing him is pretty cool as I'm a big fan of that character, but unless they completely revisioned him, then I'm unlikely to enjoy his "part" in STD. My hypothesis as to why the writers chose this character is because they don't have any Sci Fi ideas and having Mudd puts them in their comfortable boxes of cliche intra-human drama.
Klingon focus
- One of the least interesting alien races in Star Trek. Crude, aggressive. I get that they're iconic and people learn their language, I just wasn't ever into it. They're not a realistic species, imho. They belong in something like GOT, not Star Trek.
Dystopian/Dark
- I've always been excited about our future, the technological and scientific progress, how it changes humanity for the better, makes the world a safer place, lifts people from poverty, eliminates class divisions in terms of access to knowledge and opportunities. I try to keep up with all renowned futurists and transhumanists. I've always seen Science Fiction as a window into our future, at least to some extent, in different iterations. More than mere entertainment, but visions into what might be. TOS did a great job with this, as they actually sourced a lot of their stories from renowned futurists of the last 20 years (then). The Sci Fi trend of the last 15 years has been mostly dystopian and gritty, which is code for shitty. It's very difficult coming up with original writing showing realistic future, so writers take the lazy way out and just re-write thousand year old stories about human drama in a world that has even more drama and that means everything is dark, depressing, shitty-gritty. STD appears to be no different, they decided to take no chances and just went with the trend of the last 15 years, let's turn off the lights, keep everything in a dark-blue tone because that's what everyone else does and add a gloomy ambiance to it all. The trailers make it look like a very generic dystopian space war. If that's what it is, I wish it to die ASAP and maybe another Trek worth watching will emerge in 5 years. We live in a time of incredible discoveries being made on an almost daily basis, you can take Star Trek 500 years ahead and consult futurists such a Ray Kurzweil and Michio Kaku and create something truly remarkable and awe inspiring. Why create a stupid space war instead and not only that, but do it within the framework of Star Trek?
Yes, I've yet to see the pilot episode, but so far creators of STD have failed to release anything that elicits optimism. Although I am actually very optimistic about The Orville, so maybe I will get the show I wanted, too bad it's not called Star Trek.
Some people seem to think that the trailers are not representative of the show, because older trailers were not representative of what came later. Well, maybe that's true, if the show is going to be the opposite of everything they've been suggesting what it's going to be so far - great. I've retained some 10% optimistic hoping for this outcome. My only source of optimism right now is actually the show's title, it would be quite strange if the creators were referring to the crew discovering explosions in space, so there's got to be a few good episodes in between the war nonsense.
I was very optimistic but with every bit of new information coming out it seems like they're making a show that is the complete opposite of what I wanted.
The captain is not the main character
- This is a red flag as far as I'm concerned. It suggests that this show is going to be geared towards interpersonal drama and not the decision making of a captain when dealing with aliens, exploring various phenomena and planets.
Long story arcs
- I tried imagining even the best few episodes of 50 years of Star Trek and thinking whether I'd want to watch a full season of that. The answer is no. Again, this is a major red flag that this is going to be a soap opera with characters experiencing conflicts among themselves. All of it leaving less and less time for discovering and exploring. I want Star Trek to be Star Trek and not Downton Abbey. What I want is a new world of the week, a new alien race of the week, an unknown/mysterious phenomena of the week, etc. That's Star Trek. EXPLORING AND DISCOVERING STRANGE NEW WORLDS. If you want a long arc with people falling in love and hating each other, create a spin off, don't ruin the franchise with this horse manure.
War
- Star Trek has never depicted war in a way that interested me. War has always been Star Trek's weakest point and also the one that makes least sense. I enjoy war as an entertainment, have seen almost every WW1 and WW2 movie ever made, I devour documentaries about war, but I do not want to see it in Star Trek because it's boring. Evasive maneuvers, shields up, pew pew. And yet it seems that war is going to be the focal point of this Star Trek, leading me to a logical conclusion that these long arcs we've been hearing about are going to be about a war. How do I contain my excitement...
Mudd
- You have a vast array of fantastic ideas from the best Trek show and this is what you pull out of it? He's not even a sci-fi character, just an annoying criminal. How is this exciting? The Mudd episodes were the worst in TOS. The fact that Dwight is playing him is pretty cool as I'm a big fan of that character, but unless they completely revisioned him, then I'm unlikely to enjoy his "part" in STD. My hypothesis as to why the writers chose this character is because they don't have any Sci Fi ideas and having Mudd puts them in their comfortable boxes of cliche intra-human drama.
Klingon focus
- One of the least interesting alien races in Star Trek. Crude, aggressive. I get that they're iconic and people learn their language, I just wasn't ever into it. They're not a realistic species, imho. They belong in something like GOT, not Star Trek.
Dystopian/Dark
- I've always been excited about our future, the technological and scientific progress, how it changes humanity for the better, makes the world a safer place, lifts people from poverty, eliminates class divisions in terms of access to knowledge and opportunities. I try to keep up with all renowned futurists and transhumanists. I've always seen Science Fiction as a window into our future, at least to some extent, in different iterations. More than mere entertainment, but visions into what might be. TOS did a great job with this, as they actually sourced a lot of their stories from renowned futurists of the last 20 years (then). The Sci Fi trend of the last 15 years has been mostly dystopian and gritty, which is code for shitty. It's very difficult coming up with original writing showing realistic future, so writers take the lazy way out and just re-write thousand year old stories about human drama in a world that has even more drama and that means everything is dark, depressing, shitty-gritty. STD appears to be no different, they decided to take no chances and just went with the trend of the last 15 years, let's turn off the lights, keep everything in a dark-blue tone because that's what everyone else does and add a gloomy ambiance to it all. The trailers make it look like a very generic dystopian space war. If that's what it is, I wish it to die ASAP and maybe another Trek worth watching will emerge in 5 years. We live in a time of incredible discoveries being made on an almost daily basis, you can take Star Trek 500 years ahead and consult futurists such a Ray Kurzweil and Michio Kaku and create something truly remarkable and awe inspiring. Why create a stupid space war instead and not only that, but do it within the framework of Star Trek?
Yes, I've yet to see the pilot episode, but so far creators of STD have failed to release anything that elicits optimism. Although I am actually very optimistic about The Orville, so maybe I will get the show I wanted, too bad it's not called Star Trek.
Some people seem to think that the trailers are not representative of the show, because older trailers were not representative of what came later. Well, maybe that's true, if the show is going to be the opposite of everything they've been suggesting what it's going to be so far - great. I've retained some 10% optimistic hoping for this outcome. My only source of optimism right now is actually the show's title, it would be quite strange if the creators were referring to the crew discovering explosions in space, so there's got to be a few good episodes in between the war nonsense.
Right out the gate, thank you @Tesophius for such a well written viewpoint . I hope that Discovery surprises you 
Optimism, Captain.
I always find it incredibly fascinating that a show about "war" cannot be optimistic. One of the things that I always appreciated about DS9 and Star Trek VI is that it depicted people who were flawed but trying to become better.
I want the optimism of the future, but I don't want to be sterilized of all challenges. I love the idea of Mudd, not for the comedy aspect, but because he is a roguish character in a series often bereft of human criminals or people living on the fringes of the Federation and societal expectations. He's an outsider character, without being an alien.
Speaking of aliens, as much as I get annoyed with the Klingons, the multiple houses of a species and warrior ethos is as old as Star Trek itself in science fiction. I generally do not like the Klingons, as they are not a species that I like. However, Discovery's portrayal of them has got me interest because they look much more ancient, like they have this history that informed how they became what we see later. Again, Star Trek VI as a touchstone.
Dystopian/dark isn't code for "shitty" at least in my experience. And, I don't think Star Trek is going for dystopian, but I could be wrong. However, it also offer the opportunity to provide challenges to Star Trek's typical utopian idealism. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing. I emphasize that because, there were times when Star Trek's optimistic future was just assumed to be good, with no challenge to the status quo, and if it was done, then that person was clearly wrong, i.e. Dr. Severin, Eddington, the Maquis, among others.
Finally, as much as I like trailers, they are not as representative of the final product as many assume.
tl:dr Optimism
Optimism, Captain.I always find it incredibly fascinating that a show about "war" cannot be optimistic. One of the things that I always appreciated about DS9 and Star Trek VI is that it depicted people who were flawed but trying to become better.
I want the optimism of the future, but I don't want to be sterilized of all challenges. I love the idea of Mudd, not for the comedy aspect, but because he is a roguish character in a series often bereft of human criminals or people living on the fringes of the Federation and societal expectations. He's an outsider character, without being an alien.
Speaking of aliens, as much as I get annoyed with the Klingons, the multiple houses of a species and warrior ethos is as old as Star Trek itself in science fiction. I generally do not like the Klingons, as they are not a species that I like. However, Discovery's portrayal of them has got me interest because they look much more ancient, like they have this history that informed how they became what we see later. Again, Star Trek VI as a touchstone.
Dystopian/dark isn't code for "shitty" at least in my experience. And, I don't think Star Trek is going for dystopian, but I could be wrong. However, it also offer the opportunity to provide challenges to Star Trek's typical utopian idealism. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing. I emphasize that because, there were times when Star Trek's optimistic future was just assumed to be good, with no challenge to the status quo, and if it was done, then that person was clearly wrong, i.e. Dr. Severin, Eddington, the Maquis, among others.
Finally, as much as I like trailers, they are not as representative of the final product as many assume.
tl:dr Optimism
It still looks like complete garbage. Basically no congruency with established Trek. The best idea for a new series would have been one set in the prime timeline after Voyager. A future show is a clean slate with more room for change. It also would have opened up the opportunity for cameos of actors from other Trek shows. This show is a giant fail already.
And less marketability.
You don't know that. Whether the show is set in in the 23rd century or the 25th century doesn't determine it's marketability.
I do get the impression that the creators of STD are primarily trying to attract a new, young audience and expect to lose a good chunk of old time Trek followers. The only reason to set a show in TOS era would've been to emulate the ambiance and feel of the original Star Trek, clearly it doesn't.
Gross miscalculation, IMHO, since the younger audience will simply steal the episodes for free, while I would've been willing to pay more if the show was taking almost any other direction.
Gross miscalculation, IMHO, since the younger audience will simply steal the episodes for free, while I would've been willing to pay more if the show was taking almost any other direction.
I have a general feel based upon their merchandising and marketing.
So, they know something we, as outsiders, don't.
I rather like it...
Also because it seems to annoy all them old diehard "fans"...
Change is good, and nobody knows what it is about really yet!
So it looks well made and all that, and it is 2017 and times have changed, don't go and expect that it is the show from our childhood or youth, I certanly don't and why should I??
To see the same old one more time??
Nah I do not think so, bring it on, see if the story and all that is doing its thing in a good way!
Also because it seems to annoy all them old diehard "fans"...
Change is good, and nobody knows what it is about really yet!
So it looks well made and all that, and it is 2017 and times have changed, don't go and expect that it is the show from our childhood or youth, I certanly don't and why should I??
To see the same old one more time??
Nah I do not think so, bring it on, see if the story and all that is doing its thing in a good way!
This same show could be set in the 25th century (with few changes) and you probably wouldn't view it much differently. The timeframe in itself has little bearing on marketability.
I don't believe that even for a second. I'm sure you'd watch if it had good stories and interesting looks.
Who are you kidding?
Post-Voyager doesn't have to mean a continuation of Berman Trek.
Right now, I don't see a lot that separates Discovery from the post-Voyager era.
Neutral/Meh?
Loved the Teaser trailer but then Fuller dropped out/was fired
Other warning signs
1. It's a Bad Robot production run by Alexander Kutzman
2. The Prime time line is just marketing. It's actually based on the license from Paramount and it's actually a reboot.
3. The whole distopian thing isn't Star Trek.
4. It's on CBS all access not on Netflix or CW. Feels like they think we fans will buy all access to get to Star Trek (I guess they never heard of torrenting).
5. Rumors of troubled production
This video sumarizes everything.
Loved the Teaser trailer but then Fuller dropped out/was fired
Other warning signs
1. It's a Bad Robot production run by Alexander Kutzman
2. The Prime time line is just marketing. It's actually based on the license from Paramount and it's actually a reboot.
3. The whole distopian thing isn't Star Trek.
4. It's on CBS all access not on Netflix or CW. Feels like they think we fans will buy all access to get to Star Trek (I guess they never heard of torrenting).
5. Rumors of troubled production
This video sumarizes everything.
