I've had time to cool, so I'll respond to your post point by point.
Once again: Trying to prove how good DIS is by saying how bad TNG is is not a good strategy.
Which is not at all what I'm doing.
Never said that. Proves to me you are actually not reading my comments, but pretty much talking to yourself, using my quotes, arguing about what your personal "wrong" fan would say.
Yeah?
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.
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.
I said "TNG was in dire result of a retooling during the first season", but I kept watching because of "the diverse crew" and the "exploratory tone". DIS has the diverse crew, too.
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.
The "super-strange new aliens" during TNG's season are the stuff like the jellyfishes in the pilot, the Binaries, of even the Traveller. Have you seen TNG?
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 fool yourself if you belive the pilot of a series is not the blueprint for the tone for the rest of the series. In this case: A war story. Not an exploration-adventure.
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.
"Circumstancial evidence" like
THE ENTIRE MARKETING CAMPAIGN up until 7 days before first airing? Okay
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.
Naw, this is based on how the writers described their own show before they backtracked after the negative reaction:
http://trekmovie.com/2017/07/23/sdc...nberry-space-mushrooms-and-a-reimagined-mudd/
"
this particular universe is a particular dark time for the Federation and for Starfleet with this war happening" (rest of the article also worth reading)
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.
But I have to admit: This last part of your text is almost amazingly stupid considering it was in direct response to this text of mine:
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.
