Marketability is not the same as "missing the mark." Just a head's up
Same here.
Poll How positive are you about Discovery now?
- Thread starter Mage
- Start date
It is an informed opinion, for me. I know what I like and dislike. Nothing could save this show, for me, after those bulbous monstrosities they're calling klingons got revealed. The rest of the stuff, like the nutjob writer, Spock's secret sister, bad set designs, etc, is just the crap icing on the garbage cake. But, again, that's just me. I have enough info to form my own opinion, I'm not trying to tell other people what they should thing, I just state what I think.
Maybe it won't last long and you won't have to worry about it
Maybe it won't last long and you won't have to worry about it
I really hope it gets cancelled after one season. But, if Enterprise can get four seasons (especially since its first two were pretty bad), Discovery will probably be the kind of garbage that sticks around for at least a second season. Still, hopefully I'm wrong and it goes away fairly quickly.
I don't like that either, but if it was a series of stand alone episodes about exploration, I could live with it. The fact that they're creating a mess out of Spock's family is also something I abhor and it only reinforces my fear that this is going to be a lot of drama that has nothing to do with exploring and discovering.
I was going to read this thread, but then I realized I'd read all the lame, fearful, pre-judging "fan" dislike elsewhere. I can't remember when though...can someone help me out?
1979 pre TMP
1982 pre TWOK (news of Spock's death)
1987 pre TNG
2000 pre (and during) ENT
2002 pre and post NEM
2009 pre and post JJTrek I
2013 pre and post STID
Seriously...it's literally the same fearful attitudes, same "us vs. them real fans" arguments, same "not canon" crying, same "too much action / too dark/ not enough "Gene's Vision" lamenting.
Shit, I figured that you'd all be better-practiced and more original at finding things to be negative about by this point. At this point it's practically laughable.
1979 pre TMP
1982 pre TWOK (news of Spock's death)
1987 pre TNG
2000 pre (and during) ENT
2002 pre and post NEM
2009 pre and post JJTrek I
2013 pre and post STID
Seriously...it's literally the same fearful attitudes, same "us vs. them real fans" arguments, same "not canon" crying, same "too much action / too dark/ not enough "Gene's Vision" lamenting.
Shit, I figured that you'd all be better-practiced and more original at finding things to be negative about by this point. At this point it's practically laughable.
More than 80% of Trek is a lot of drama that has nothing to do with exploring and discovering. No joke. Go episode by episode, movie by movie.
"Guy tries to kill his step-father because his dead dad told him to.
Also, he's probably schtupping his mom."
May your suffering be short.
"Captain's Log-we are the only ship in the quadrant, and have received a distress call that happens to house our science officer's long lost relative. Due to this, I am defying orders from Starfleet Command and diverting to investigate."
Quick-name the episode
^^^May your suffering be short.
"Captain's Log-we are the only ship in the quadrant, and have received a distress call that happens to house our science officer's long lost relative. Due to this, I am defying orders from Starfleet Command and diverting to investigate."
Quick-name the episode
Trick question as that's the base plot of most of the TOS era feature films.
It's going for that reflected glory from a beloved existing character but there IS a danger the personal family saga aspect is going to be a drag. A little getting to know them is fine, but I like the adventure aspect of Star Trek.
So, having family connections in Star Trek is going to ruin the show?
I mean, we have George Kirk from Operation Annihilate, Sarek from Journey to Babel as well as across two films, Admiral Paris reconciling with Tom across multiple episodes of VOY, Picard's family showing up in an episode and a movie, and Picard being so respected by Sarek that he leans on him for his logical support.
Star Trek has done it before and it can do it again.
Why does it matter how long it goes for if you don't like it? Just don't watch it.
I hope it gets at least 4 seasons.
But I'll be happy with 2. As long as the show runners know far enough in advance that it is going to end, and that it doesn't end on the big cliff hanger.
I don't think it will 'ruin' anything but I just prefer it not be too heavy going or be the focus. I like the space travel, the exploration, the fresh adventure. Escapism, really. (And of course it remains to be seen).
I am still cautiously optimistic, but there are certain positive aspects to the show that I am feeling somewhat enthusiastic about:
Kurtzman's involvement. He has a long track record in the industry, including the riproaring NuTrek movies.
Returning the setting to the 23rd century, the only Trek era that I care about.
The prospect of complex characters and situations depicted with raw and gritty storytelling. This is real humanity, not the sanctimonious automatons of TNG.
Serialized storytelling, allowing for more extensive world-building and involved story arcs.
The huge budget, which will undoubtedly help make this show a visually dazzling spectacle.
Kor
Kurtzman's involvement. He has a long track record in the industry, including the riproaring NuTrek movies.
Returning the setting to the 23rd century, the only Trek era that I care about.
The prospect of complex characters and situations depicted with raw and gritty storytelling. This is real humanity, not the sanctimonious automatons of TNG.
Serialized storytelling, allowing for more extensive world-building and involved story arcs.
The huge budget, which will undoubtedly help make this show a visually dazzling spectacle.
Kor
I used to have a spreadsheet somewhere where I listed percentages of exploration of an idea/phenomenon/species/planet vs boring episodes and it's always been at least 50%
Yes, close to half can be quite boring, as in anything with Klingons, for instance. I guess that's why STD chose them as a focus for the new series, genius!
If you count the episodes that start out as exploring but quickly become something else, you might (MIGHT) get 50%.
Most Star Treks are:
- Diplomatic missions/ situations
- Intrigue / Espionage
- Outright conflict
- Rescue Missions / Colony Support
- Holodeck Hyjinx
I also don't count the bogus 24th century "B-Stories" that went on in the background of the primary story.
With DS9 having nearly entire multiple seasons devoted to war and conflict, and ENT having at least one (and fair parts of another), I call BS on 50% being about exploring. TOS was probably the best about it, and it probably didn't even get to 50%.
I like the exploration stuff too, but I'm not binary/ absolute about it. Star Trek is a lot of different things. It's never ever been one thing.
And this is not necessarily a bad thing. Reading your comment, I thought of the acclaimed HBO show, "The Sopranos". The Sopranos was a "mob" show, except it was missing a lot of the things that had previously defined that genre, such as the eternal mob vs cops battle, shoot outs, "capers", etc. The Sopranos tamped down those tried and true elements and created a mob show about the personal lives of the mobsters and their families, along with the occasional "whacking", and even less occasional brush with authorities.
The Sopranos has been called one of the best one hour dramas, ever. In addition to being universally critically acclaimed, the show was immensely popular. Yes, I know, 'the Sopranos isn't Star Trek'. But they are both dramas. My point is that, just because a show, even a franchise show like DSC, may veer away from some commonly expected elements from it's respective genre (or franchise), doesn't mean necessarily that the show has to suck. The Sopranos stands as an extremely successful example.
