That move is essential to the fandom though. How else would we know Kirk was a mouth breather?
Let's talk about the elephant in the room, this series violates Roddenberry's vision big time
- Thread starter Sci-fi fan
- Start date
That move is essential to the fandom though. How else would we know Kirk was a mouth breather?
I actually think that the crux of the entire issue for some people is summed up in this one sentence, quite honestly.
And probably why I like it tbh!
I don't think the two are remotely the same. YMMV.
One big difference is that Kirk is a civilian, while Landry is a Starfleet Commander.
And, again, the idea that "every fan" objects to the show is nonsense. Most of my friends and colleagues are lifelong Trekkies and, just as you'd expect, some of us are really liking the new show, some are liking it with reservations, and some are underwhelmed. Just as has been the case with every new incarnation of Trek.
And, for what it's worth, most of the mainstream press coverage has been positive as well. (Entertainment Weekly gave it a "B+" for instance.) And, yes, we all grade the show by different criteria.
To some of us, this "elephant' is a flea . . ..
And, for what it's worth, most of the mainstream press coverage has been positive as well. (Entertainment Weekly gave it a "B+" for instance.) And, yes, we all grade the show by different criteria.
To some of us, this "elephant' is a flea . . ..
There are many MANY differences between these two shows. And all of the differences are favorable to Discovery: better acting, better writing, more interesting characters, a more interesting story, better antagonists, better direction, better cinematography, better FX, the list goes on.
Things changed when they went to film in the 80s, and elevated Trek with better everything, but that original series is a kids show compared to Discovery.
It's enjoyable for what it is, it's good for its time, but it does not compare to Discovery.
Of course not, Star Trek was unique, Discovery does every tired trope of modern TV.
Not sure if trolling or serious.
Why would I not be serious? It's a show that nobody could ever take seriously today. I enjoyed it as a kid in reruns in the early 80s, but it's not a good drama.
It's a decent sci-fi show FOR ITS TIME.
A women of colour as a lead is a tired trope? I must have missed the part where Burnam was in a Mammy of Jezebel role.
It is a show that so many people don't take seriously, that CBS plopped its one hundred-million dollar show ten years before it, and tied its advertising to it.
Even TNG, which is and always will be my favorite (I was 10 when it premiered), is, like TOS, a product of its time. I wouldn't be surprised if younger viewers today had trouble taking it seriously.
TNG looks very dated today, and objectively does not compare with today's television. Whereas Discovery can stand shoulder to shoulder with some of the best of today's tv shows.
Some may complain it is full of "tired tropes" but that ignores all the tired tropes Trek has always included. Trek wasn't innovative in every respect. It was full of lots of cliches, but conceptually was new and different.
TNG looks very dated today, and objectively does not compare with today's television. Whereas Discovery can stand shoulder to shoulder with some of the best of today's tv shows.
Some may complain it is full of "tired tropes" but that ignores all the tired tropes Trek has always included. Trek wasn't innovative in every respect. It was full of lots of cliches, but conceptually was new and different.
I watched TOS in the 2000s for the first time and loved it to the extent that it still makes me think about the various concepts that it introduced every now and then, and I still re-watch it. It has no nostalgic value to me, I was still over 20 years away from being born when it first aired. TOS is timeless. Discovery, SO FAR, has been a show about nothing with cool visual effects, if this is what it is, it'll be forgotten as soon as it is cancelled.
It is a show that so many people don't take seriously, that CBS plopped its one hundred-million dollar show ten years before it, and tied its advertising to it.
Clearly you don't understand why. It has nothing to do with younger fan's appreciation for the original series.
"Nobody" was obviously hyperbole. Everyone is different.
What are you talking about!? I just introduced TNG to someone in their 20s this year and she loved it. That's the difference between a quality show and STD.
It has to do with advertising revenue. All advertisers covet the 18-49 demographic. Most of CBS All-Access subscriptions are likely commercial plan. So CBS used the most culturally relevant outing of the franchise to sell their new show. The one everyone in that 18-49 demographic knows.
Well honestly, at the risk of going overboard on the whole thing...I agree. And here's why:
People change after 30 years. I don't mean "people in general" (although that's true too, but that's not the point to this particular rant). I literally mean individuals change. Physically we change, hell our cells are 100% replaced over and over again after 30 years. Our individual attitudes change. Our life experiences shape us into completely different people sometimes.
It's like showing up at the 25 year reunion and seeing that person who used to be painfully introverted is now lean, jacked, and confident...and you're like "how the hell did that happen?" Well...because it's not 1992 any more, slick.
And the point of all this is people are arguing about "but it's not really Star Trek." And my issue with that argument is that things can't be expected to stay the same over 30 years. Most people change tremendously in that amount of time. Business change. Societies change. Landscapes change. But we cling to this core idea of what the franchise MUST be if it's to contain the words "Star Trek" in the title. And I think that's a mistake. Nobody is going to say "but is that REALLY V'Ger23" if I show up at a reunion all muscular and ripped, with my Dodge Viper and trophy wife on my arm at the reunion. Well, of course it's "really" me (I don't have any of those things by the way- but it's fun to dream). It's just a different me than you knew 25 years ago.
