Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Kane_Steel, Jan 10, 2019.
I unapologetically enjoy those movies and wild and goofy fun.
As do I, I was sarcastically mocking the "Midnights Edge" and Orville fans.
You sir, deserve a medal for putting it so simply and succinctly, not to mention deadly accurately.
Other than Star Trek (which I am extremely biased about) the only show that I thought got measurably better and better with each passing season was "Burn Notice".
As TV has gotten better the past 15 or so years, producers seem to be investing a lot more in the first seasons of shows, maybe because they rehearse more, hire more accomplished actors, or spend more time polishing scripts.
But if you look back to the 90s, most long-running shows got progressively better after their debut. Seinfeld, the X-Files, The Simpsons, Law & Order, ER, you name it.
Most shows that succeeded did not start out incompetently.
I couldn't agree more.
You're right, that's why I have so much hope Discovery will join the pantheon of all-time great sci-fi.
Sam Witwicky from the Transformers movies. Loser numero uno, whose entire claim special destiny came about because he owned a pair of glasses made important by things his grandfather did, and owned a car made important by the fact that it was an alien lifeform. Cue three movies of him stuttering and whining and complaining while 30 foot tall robots tell him over and over how special he is.
(See 8:30 onward of this video:
And not all shows that had a rocky start were doomed from then on.
As my former boss would say "It's not how you start. It's how you finish."
And, as my friends in Hollywood have noted with all the craziness of BTS in productions it is amazing anything makes to air.
I also think it's a bit of hyperbole to even call the first season of Discovery "rocky." It certainly had it's flaws, but few shows don't. I can count on one hand the number of shows EVER that had a near-perfect first season.
No, people who say DSC S1 was rocky, incompetent, or in any way "bad" are people who didn't want this kind of show. But that's like me complaining season 1 of True Detective was awful because it wasn't funny.
Whether you liked the outcome is beside the point. Discovery fired its showrunner and series creator very early in production - apparently before a single scene was filmed. Not many shows survive that. Discovery wouldn't except CBS was so eager to revive the brand.
As it stands, the shows I'd count as having impeccable first seasons?
I'm not sure there's any else and i'm only counting LOST because it was perfect the first time you saw it.
But that's behind the scenes. What we saw on screen was fine.
Addendum: the fact that Discovery survived that "turmoil" and the finished product was so good, is a testament to the quality of the material. Then again, go watch "Chaos on the Bridge." Discovery is certainly not the first show, let alone Trek show, to have BTS problems.
I'd certainly include Star Trek TOS in that list.
Bingo- agree 100%
It is absolutely not "beside the point." It's the results that matter. And a LOT of people liked it. Not just a few. A lot. Including critics and the CBS brass.
I know it sux to disagree with the majority, but it doesn't change reality.
It absolutely fucking amazes me that people are still in denial of this.
I would also include TNG and DS9 on that list, a series who conducts a pattern to open a new world which its focus is on the characters and doesn't attempt to alter or diminish a former series like TOS is an impeccable 1st season success IMO. There's too much of this blatant revisionism coming from the powers who are at CBS to make Star Trek everything its not and will never be.
Rocky was the term the poster used, not bad. I would define the first season as being rocky from a production standpoint.
Production and results are two very different things.
Apocalypse Now was a "rocky production." It had nothing to do with how people received the finished product. Zero.
I'm not sure why it even matters.
Separate names with a comma.