"Paramount".
Someone is stuck in the '90's.
Desilu shut it down.
Is Discovery the most polarizing Trek property ever?
- Thread starter TheMadCloner
- Start date
Desilu shut it down.
This.
I can't relate to the need to hate-watch tv show and then spend hours online bitching about it or deriding it to engender a false sense of intellectual superiority like some people around here do. I hate the walking dead, i watched the first 3 episodes, hated them and stopped watching. I don't waste my time going to Walking dead forums telling how much i hate the first 3 episodes or how it's mass media, lowest common denominator viewing.
And before anyone says 'Well, I can watch something I hate if i want to' yes, of course you can. The question i have is why? What is missing in your life that you have to watch something you hate so you can argue with people on an internet forum to get your kicks?
In the main, though, ENT's wanking technique was better.
ENT S4 tended to use its fanwank to make connections and establish continuity (often specifically repudiating ENT's own early seasons, with the Vulcan Arc being the exemplar). DSC, by contrast, tends to use fanwank to challenge continuity (consider DSC's fairly open attack on Sarek's basic moral character in "Lethe").
That's when the fanwank has anything to do with the story at all, which is another issue. ENT S4 constantly looked for ways to turn fanwank into the foundations of genuinely interesting Star Trek stories. The Romulan Arc, the Vulcan Arc, and the Augment Arc all stood very well on their own, without prior knowledge of the Star Trek dots they connected, and yet they couldn't have been conceived without the foundations laid by prior canon. Manny Coto and friends allowed canon to guide them organically toward interesting concepts, then made those concepts into good TV. (Your mileage may vary on the "good", of course.)
By contrast, DSC is not using their fanwank in quite the same way. Even if you like DSC's stories, it seems clear that their stories are not emerging organically from examination of prior canon. The DSC writers' room is blazing its own trail, setting up its own story (which is probably a good thing)... and then, once they have their story, they look through and sprinkle in a few bits of "fannish" stuff on top. It's a garnish, not the foundation, and (worse) it doesn't always fit. "Oh, we'll put Matt Decker's name on a computer screen and give Empress Georgiou a title that links her back to Hoshi. Here's a tribble for Lorca's desk. That's fan stuff, right? Fans are into that!" And, okay, yeah, I do feel a little thrill of lizard-brain pleasure to hear Georgiou's title "Iaponis," but it's just namedropping. It doesn't value the source material as being worth mining for story and character and setting. It just uses the material, rather cynically, to try to win fan support over to whatever direction the show has already decided for itself (even when that direction blows away a lot of the prior story, character, and setting that turned us into fans in the first place). The Abrams movies did exactly the same thing, though it took me until the "magic blood" for me to realize it.
To return to the original metaphor, Enterprise's fanwank was like a Fleshlight: sure, it's still self-indulgence, but so much is invested in bringing the material to life that you begin to wonder whether it even matters anymore. Disco's fanwank feels more when your S.O. doesn't really want to be intimate with you, so she gives you a rough two-minute handy just to get it over with.
Exactly. People forget that Trek's popularity was very North American-centric even at its peak.
Box office takings outside there were negligible for most Trek films until the Kelvinverse, and TV deals were awful as Paramount preferred to milk VHS sales from hardcore fans rather than boosting the fanbase.
I remember being really upset as a kid after seeing an article on the lowest rated shows in Australia - DS9 was right down the bottom. I hardly knew anyone who watched Trek back then.
Now I know several who have started with Discovery, which is one of the most popular shows on Netflix in Australia.
I still feel like the first two Abrams films were the most polarizing Trek. Though I've avoided Trek social media pages in recent years because they are toxic. I feel the criticism of Discovery is pretty tame compared to those two movies. The polarization of those two movies was like watching a very heated political debate.
Ha, that's cold.
The bitterness towards Axanar on this board from people like you seems to be real. I wasn't around when all this happened but I've seen the coverage on YT.
My post had nothing to do with the economics of Axanar. I honestly don't care about who was profiting from what.
My point in the post about Axanar was that their approach to the TOS era was far more respectful and in line with Trek canon than STD. You could tell Robert Meyer Burnett knew his material. If an approach like that came from an officially sanctioned Trek series, I doubt there would be as heavy of a viewer and fan divide as their is with STD.
Scrolling through the Youtube comments on the 3.4M viewed Prelude to Axanar trailer, many agree with me.
The 2009 film was hardly polarizing. It was received really well by general audiences. Trek was actually cool and relevant again.
Paramount waiting 4 years and then releasing the divisive STID is what killed all the goodwill that the 2009 reboot did.
For shame.
Youtube comments.
No less valid than any of the posts on this tiny isolated board.
At least on YT, you are getting more of a general audience reaction.
Maybe in it's current fan film form, but it got strong positive support for it's approach nevertheless. My point was that the producers behind it knew their Trek, and it was an easy fit into the TOS era, unlike STD.
The 2009 film is still the best modernized version of the TOS era, done in a way that the general audience would love. Obviously done with a budget that makes it all work.
Shame Paramount ruined that franchise.
It's damaged goods and guy behind it is a con man. Pass.
Well I don't have a bias against the IP/financial situation behind the scenes.
I'm looking at it with fresh eyes, just when it comes to the series approach and whether those behind it 'get' the material. The same way Kevin Feige 'gets' the Marvel superheroes. IMO Feige is still the ideal when it comes to producing successful material true to the source, while being a strong fan of the source material.
I don't think the Axanar group does.
There has been dissent from, mostly, TOS diehards at almost every stage.
1. Wrath of Kahn.
You killed Spock!
2. Search For Spock.
You destroyed the Enterprise!
3. TNG.
They hated it. Too touchy feely. And to be fair, the first season wasn't very good. It wasn't true Trek.
4. DS9.
Not on a ship. Too dark. Too much political intrigue. No exploration. Serialization. All that violates Gene's vision.
5. Voyager.
A woman captain!
6. Enterprise.
Violates Gene's vision. Not cannon. Things look more modern than TOS. Continuity error!!
7. Abrams films.
Not cannon. Continuity error (big one in Kahn & with Kirk's background, to be fair). Not really Trek just using the name & characters to make $$.
8. Discovery.
A mutineer! Blood! Naughty words! Not real Trek! Not PU! Not cannon. Things look too modern. Gays! Gays getting killed! Things look different! Continuity error!
SSDD.
1. Wrath of Kahn.
You killed Spock!
2. Search For Spock.
You destroyed the Enterprise!
3. TNG.
They hated it. Too touchy feely. And to be fair, the first season wasn't very good. It wasn't true Trek.
4. DS9.
Not on a ship. Too dark. Too much political intrigue. No exploration. Serialization. All that violates Gene's vision.
5. Voyager.
A woman captain!
6. Enterprise.
Violates Gene's vision. Not cannon. Things look more modern than TOS. Continuity error!!
7. Abrams films.
Not cannon. Continuity error (big one in Kahn & with Kirk's background, to be fair). Not really Trek just using the name & characters to make $$.
8. Discovery.
A mutineer! Blood! Naughty words! Not real Trek! Not PU! Not cannon. Things look too modern. Gays! Gays getting killed! Things look different! Continuity error!
SSDD.
‘The general audience’ on YT would never even see Axanar. Let alone comment on it.
It’s viewers would either be people that are already searching for fanfilms, or those who have enough of a fandom-cantered search history to trigger the recommendation algorithm.
So possibly even more niche than this board. At least theoretically, here someone could stumble across Axanar whilst having no vaguely related interest in it at all.
Their ‘approach’ to the property was so respectful, that they stole it, exploited (then slandered) the people that had previously worked on it, and used ‘slagging significant portions of it’ as an advertising campaign.
Besides. Axanar lifted a bunch of elements from the Abrams reboots, and had enough (shallow) similarities to DIS that they tried to claim plagerism. So if Axanar is the model of what modern Trek should be, then apparently the reboots are at least hitting some marks.
Last edited:
Regardless their mindset produced a better vision that fit with TOS, than Gretchen J. Berg and Aaron Harberts' with their mushroom drive, mutant klingon tits, and all the other questionable elements of STD.
It's easy to copy someone else's work. That's not "vision" it's tracing.
There's only like 20 or 30 reg posters on this board... it's far less than niche. It's basically irrelevant.
YT isn't the best metric, but it's a better one that this tiny little corner.
That has nothing to do with their vision of a series set in the TOS era, which is what I was specifically praising as more true to the source than what we got with STD.
How many (verified) individual users commented on the Axanar video again? Not just positive comments, but overall?
And out of curiosity, what percentage of Youtube’s total user population are they? Christ, what percentage of the videos viewers were they?
The story, setting, narrative theme, and visuals have nothing to do with the ‘vision?’
So what...you’re saying DIS soundtrack should take a cue from Axanar? Make it even more of a bland soundscape? I know that is the post-TNG way, but...
Last edited:
Similar threads
