Honestly, this is what everyone should do.
Poll How positive are you about Discovery now?
- Thread starter Mage
- Start date
Honestly, this is what everyone should do.
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.
Yeah, that's a fair criticism, but it depends where they take those elements.
Well, you can't take it anywhere that violates 'canon', unless you do it anyway and ignore the criticisms.
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.
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.
I'd be a lot more positive if Fuller were still actively involved, too.
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.
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.
Yet it was Fuller's idea to do the prequel.
I know, and I strongly disagree with that decision. But he's still talented.
^^^^
That means you must have watched TOS NUMEROUS times because there's a lot to say about the TNG era - but "Trek at it's best..," isn't a term I'd use. maybe Trek at it's preachiest.
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.
^^^
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.
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.
Can I like this multiple times? Please?"but it's not Star Trek. It's just glorified fan fiction."
So basically like everything from 1987 onward.
Live long and prosper, @The Lensman
It's a weird feeling to know that when I wake up tomorrow, the internet will have gone bonkers and I'll have new Star Trek to watch.
Good weird.
Good weird.
And is going to be interminable having to wait until the evening after work to see it!
