Nicholas Meyer Discusses Discovery

[Rahul]

Star Trek has a brand advantage in that people who love it will tolerate a lot of disappointment for months before giving up on it. Most new shows have to perform in the first month or networks will pull the trigger.*

Yes. THIS.
I still watch DIS - because I tolerate A LOT in Star Trek. And so far it has worked out for me - I would have abandoned any other show after two seasons like ENT season 1 & 2. But I stayed, and seasons 3 & 4 turned out to actually be two of my favourite Star Trek seasons overall.

Thus I'm giving DIS the same chance as well - and to be honest, while I think it is overall worse than ENT season 1&2, I think it has a lot more interesting cast & characters, so that's a big plus.

But yeah, I probably will vent here the one or other time about the stuff I don't like....

 

[fireproof78]

It's funny that people say that. I am more likely to give up on Trek (did so with TNG, VOY and DS9) than I am something else. Discovery has kept me invested, Star Trek or not.

 

[Mudd]

It's funny that people say that. .

Not really, since it's demonstrably true. Of course it's not going to be true of every individual fan.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

Yes. THIS.
Thus I'm giving DIS the same chance as well - and to be honest, while I think it is overall worse than ENT season 1&2, I think it has a lot more interesting cast & characters, so that's a big plus.

Couldn't agree more. Here's hoping they utilize the cast & characters.

 

[fireproof78]

Not really, since it's demonstrably true. Of course it's not going to be true of every individual fan.

It's funny to me that people say that.

 

[Lord Garth]

It is true though that too many people are sticking around just because it is Star Trek. I think they should just let go, but whatever works. I kind of get sticking around to see what S2 is like to see if they like the different direction any better or to see what they did with the Enterprise. But, after that, it'll be like, "What are you still hanging around for?" Just go Cold Turkey.

 

[fireproof78]

It is true though that too many people are sticking around just because it is Star Trek.

Yes, it is true. It also amuses me to no end...I do not believe this should be controversial.

 

[cultcross]

Or, - my personal theory - the market wil consolidate around a few big players (Netflix, Disney are a given), and the rest (HBO after GoT, Amazon, CBS, WBs) are going to either unite or kick each other off the market (or a little bit of both) - and right now, each of these companies is shelling out money like gangbusters to have a small edge in the upcoming streaming war & negotiations.

This is my theory as well - I'm actually kind of annoyed that so many companies seen to think it's a good idea to set up their own streaming service for their own content, instead of selling it to existing ones. It makes the concept of streaming less attractive, and the availability of content much more expensive. I'm not going to pay for more than a maximum two services, and the more that start up, the less content I'll get for the same money. However, long term, I think most of them will end up the Betamax/HDDVD/minidisc of the streaming format and fold. So I'll just await that before totally giving up on physical media.

 

[Mudd]

It's funny to me that people say that.

It's funny to me that people try to deny it.

If it weren't for folks that won't let go regardless of quality this franchise would be tiny.

 

[fireproof78]

It's funny to me that people try to deny it.

If it weren't for folks that won't let go regardless of quality this franchise would be tiny.

That is funny. It's all a rather ridiculous situation and I must bow to the absurd on that one.

I don't deny that that's the reason many watch shows they otherwise would give up on. I'm just not one of them. Discovery is interesting to me as a show AND as Star Trek. It would still interest me even without "Star Trek." Others, quite obviously, feel differently.

 

[XCV330]

It's a balance. Fiction and movie franchises are just like McDonald's and Ruth's Chris. They have to project a certain consistency that consumers feel they can rely on, without having to risk being challenged, but over time they generally have to adapt to new tastes, new needs or they are wiped out.

McDonald's menu in the early 1950's is different than today. It probably would not do well if it still offered what it did in 1950.
DC and Marvel reboot their respective multiverses so often now it's become something of a (sad) joke.
There used to be HoJo restaurants across the united states. hundreds of them easily. They did not change their menu. You could go back in time and it know before you opened the door what would be on the menu, what it would even smell like, what the wax paper baggy holding your inadequately prepared flatware would look like. But you can't go to one now, or not easily. There is one left.

Harley Davidson has been building the same damned bikes for decades. In many ways its as much a fan maintained franchise as Star Wars or My Little Pony. People buy HD merchandise that have never thrown a leg over a bike or know how to shift. Now it's main buying demographic is moving into fixed income territory and they're frantically retooling to try to offer bikes that non harley people might want.

OTOH, sometimes nostalgia sells too. Royal Enfield is in many ways similar to Harley Davidson in that they've been building essentially the same bike for decades. The difference was that they primarily sold those bikes in India for years. Now they are pushing hard to sell in America, and the retro thing seems to work for them. Dynamite Comics does well reviving old titles that the other comics have ignored while keeping them more or less the same as they were, albeit with a lot more cheesecake. Waffle House sells the same damn menu to the same damn crowd year after year. It's not even retro with those guys, its steak and eggs.

Star Trek could have stayed static as a nostalgia act, and it would have had SOME audience. It might have even picked up interest through aquiring some unheard of talented writer, or a sudden craze for the Good Ole Days of the Future or something. And they would have relied on Fox News type advertisers hawking gold, catheters and male enhancement pills. Discovery was bold for them. They kept the franchise going, but they did retool. I'm glad they did.

 

[DaveyNY]

Even IHOP, DENNY'S & CRACKER BARREL (all going on 50 years of operation) have adjusted through the years, while keeping the same familiar foods and their particular ambiance.
So it can be done.

 

[johnjm22]

Yes. THIS.
I still watch DIS - because I tolerate A LOT in Star Trek. And so far it has worked out for me - I would have abandoned any other show after two seasons like ENT season 1 & 2. But I stayed, and seasons 3 & 4 turned out to actually be two of my favourite Star Trek seasons overall.

Thus I'm giving DIS the same chance as well - and to be honest, while I think it is overall worse than ENT season 1&2, I think it has a lot more interesting cast & characters, so that's a big plus.

But yeah, I probably will vent here the one or other time about the stuff I don't like....

This sums up my feelings pretty well also.

I loathed season one of Discovery. Absolutely hated it. But I will stick around until the end and keep giving it chances because it's Star Trek.

Sitting through the first 2.5 seasons of DS9 was pretty painful but it eventually paid off.

Sometimes I think the writing staff and producers need time to figure out what works and what doesn't for the characters they've created.

 

[Greg Cox]

Sometimes I think the writing staff and producers need time to figure out what works and what doesn't for the characters they've created.

Yep. You can need time discover who the breakout characters are, which actors play well off each other, what isn't clicking with the audience, etc.

Who knew that the EMH was going to be one of the best characters of VOYAGER, or that the Kazon were going to be a dud? I remember reading the bible for VOY long before it aired and nothing in that document indicated that "Doc Zimmerman" (as he was called) was going to steal every scene he was in.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

Who knew that the EMH was going to be one of the best characters of VOYAGER, or that the Kazon were going to be a dud?

Your point is of course entirely sensible and valid, but these two specific examples are... iffy? Who knew that a charismatic character actor (with a list of supporting yet memorable bit parts as long as his hair wasn't) would be one of the standouts? Me, I knew, and everyone I knew back then knew that as long as they gave him even half-decent lines, he'd pop. And the Kazon, even before the show started, had the air of Not-Quite-Klingon which needn't have been so flat in execution, but the suspicion was there from their first still image.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Your point is of course entirely sensible and valid, but these two specific examples are... iffy? Who knew that a charismatic character actor (with a list of supporting yet memorable bit parts as long as his hair wasn't) would be one of the standouts?

That sounds like confirmation bias. By that logic, Geneviève Bujold should have succeeded as Janeway with flying colors.

 

[Vger23]

This sums up my feelings pretty well also.

I loathed season one of Discovery. Absolutely hated it. But I will stick around until the end and keep giving it chances because it's Star Trek.

Sitting through the first 2.5 seasons of DS9 was pretty painful but it eventually paid off.

Sometimes I think the writing staff and producers need time to figure out what works and what doesn't for the characters they've created.

Now imagine if the fanbase was more patient and forgiving of this time needed, as opposed to being relentless and insufferable in their criticism of every imperfection right out of the gate.

 

[Greg Cox]

Your point is of course entirely sensible and valid, but these two specific examples are... iffy? Who knew that a charismatic character actor (with a list of supporting yet memorable bit parts as long as his hair wasn't) would be one of the standouts? Me, I knew, and everyone I knew back then knew that as long as they gave him even half-decent lines, he'd pop. And the Kazon, even before the show started, had the air of Not-Quite-Klingon which needn't have been so flat in execution, but the suspicion was there from their first still image.

I'll cop to being less familiar with Picardo back then. Not even sure I realized that he was the long-haired werewolf from THE HOWLING, which I saw at least three times in the theater. Just saying the description in the bible didn't scream breakout character. I remember wishing, once the show finally aired, that I had given the EMH more to do in my novel outline, which was written and approved before the show debuted.

Can't remember what I thought of the Kazon ahead of time. They weren't in my book so I wasn't paying close attention to any news about them.

 

[johnjm22]

Now imagine if the fanbase was more patient and forgiving of this time needed, as opposed to being relentless and insufferable in their criticism of every imperfection right out of the gate.

I think the criticism the show is getting is well deserved.

 

[Rahul]

Yep. You can need time discover who the breakout characters are, which actors play well off each other, what isn't clicking with the audience, etc.

Who knew that the EMH was going to be one of the best characters of VOYAGER, or that the Kazon were going to be a dud? I remember reading the bible for VOY long before it aired and nothing in that document indicated that "Doc Zimmerman" (as he was called) was going to steal every scene he was in.

Oh yes, totally agreed! You don't really know the strengths or weaknesses until you can see them. All you can do is give your best, and try to not do anything awful.

But even then, the results can be surprising:
One of my favourite examples are actually the Ferengi on TNG. In my opinion, they were really well set up in the first handfull of episodes! They were referenced in the pilot and every other episode as this shadow-y antagonist. Just a single small line of dialogue here, a mentioning there, Picard having a history with them. It's only when we were actually seeing them the first time, they COMPLETELY fell apart as a serious villain!

And you know what? It turned out for the best! THe writers fastly dropped them, and focused on other stuff. And when they were creating ther new villain, they actually did too well, and they created the Borg! An enemy so powerfull, they barely could ever bring them back. Resulting in one of the rarest, most imaginative and best things imaginable: A whole sci-fi show without a single major villain!