The thread title is the embodiment of internet negativity.
Why focus on bad things?
Why focus on bad things?
What would be a deal breaker for you in Discovery?
- Thread starter RomulanCommander
- Start date
- Status
The Klingon thing isn't that bad IMO. But this is what, 3 changes already?
I just saw it on YouTube, and already you can see lines being drawn. I had a feeling this might happen. People are going to be looking for things that seem even slightly off.
I sense elements of the old style that worries me a little, but I see glimpses of things that seem interesting.
I'm still bothered by the time period, and still worried that the creators and producers are going to use the same worn out ideas and tropes that wore out the show over time.
Skeptical, but I'm going to give it a chance. I could be totally wrong. I think it might surprise us and blow us away.
I just saw it on YouTube, and already you can see lines being drawn. I had a feeling this might happen. People are going to be looking for things that seem even slightly off.
I sense elements of the old style that worries me a little, but I see glimpses of things that seem interesting.
I'm still bothered by the time period, and still worried that the creators and producers are going to use the same worn out ideas and tropes that wore out the show over time.
Skeptical, but I'm going to give it a chance. I could be totally wrong. I think it might surprise us and blow us away.
It wasn't bad, but nothing about it really "grabbed" me. Ship was okay, liked the badges, disliked the uniforms, the blue tint of everything Starfleet seems overdone, Klingons reminded me of Klingons. Wished there would've been more stylistic nods to "The Cage" since it is supposed to take place around it.
Nothing about it dissuaded me from signing up for All-Access once the series airs.
It is a valid discussion. It seems most folks don't have real deal breakers anyway. Been a pretty civil discussion.
That's right. Its written in Revelations chapter 777TOS is the only true Trek
P.S Cannot view youtube in C.h.i.n.a
It's Kirk's reading of the Constitution of the USA.
I think that's the heart of it. If you're not all that invested, then you'll be the first to make a list of things you disliked in the trailer. As for those of us want to like it, we'll give it a shot even if we do see things we don't particularly care for.
Here's to hoping the show pleases the majority of us, because there's no way in Hades it can please everyone. Nothing ever does.
In fairness it was a talking among Trek fans basically since it happened and was even considered enough of a loop hole that a show eventually explained why there was the difference (in story line anyway) pretty much everyone knew the real reason.
This is probably similar assuming the rumor about them being ancient Klingons which allows the show to do new Klingons without over writing the previous looks.
Of course if they do show us the show's contemporary Klingons and they look more or less like the ancient ones... and my God are there a lot of Klingon actors in the casting sheet for that to be true, then what? Fans marching in the streets "THESE ARE NOT MY KLINGONS!"
OK, let's dive into a bit of apocrypha. After rummaging through my bookcase, I came upon a dossier I acquired just before ST:TMP first hit the movie screens. It would appear that the Klingons we're used to seeing on TNG and DS9 are, in fact, from the old Kahless regime.
[/IMG]
[/IMG]
So, if Admiral Nogura's dossier is to be believed, it's reasonable to consider there are multiple ethnic factions vying for control of the Klingon empire. We're just finding one we've never seen before.
Sadly, it does not show the homeworld of Qo'noS. Intelligence of the time was not terribly complete.
So, if Admiral Nogura's dossier is to be believed, it's reasonable to consider there are multiple ethnic factions vying for control of the Klingon empire. We're just finding one we've never seen before.
Sadly, it does not show the homeworld of Qo'noS. Intelligence of the time was not terribly complete.
That isn't the point. I'm talking about the topic itself. The very meaning of the thread title is about making up possible problems or things to not like. Why do people want to make up negative stuff that might or might not happen?
It may be a "valid discussion", but it just so negative.
Then make a darn 'positive' thread if you care so much. We're busy.
Imagine if the guy in the trailer turns out to be a younger Kor or Chang.
The next year or so (at least) should be interesting around here.
Imagine if the guy in the trailer turns out to be a younger Kor or Chang.
The next year or so (at least) should be interesting around here.
Last edited:
It goes to the heart of what people enjoy or do not enjoy regarding Star Trek. For some, it's the political commentary, and others the adventurous exploration and more exciting moments. For others, it is a mix of several things.
Often times, it is easier to state what you might not like about something that having to dig for the words to describe exactly "Why" they like Star Trek.
So, if the thread is so negative, why not start a positive one? Balance it all out, and the like
Looking at that map, I think it's safe to assume that it was a Klingon marketing team behind all those Mortal Kombat kommercials that were konstantly airing in the early 90's.OK, let's dive into a bit of apocrypha. After rummaging through my bookcase, I came upon a dossier I acquired just before ST:TMP first hit the movie screens. It would appear that the Klingons we're used to seeing on TNG and DS9 are, in fact, from the old Kahless regime.
[/IMG][/IMG]
So, if Admiral Nogura's dossier is to be believed, it's reasonable to consider there are multiple ethnic factions vying for control of the Klingon empire. We're just finding one we've never seen before.
Sadly, it does not show the homeworld of Qo'noS. Intelligence of the time was not terribly complete.
It goes to the heart of what people enjoy or do not enjoy regarding Star Trek. For some, it's the political commentary, and others the adventurous exploration and more exciting moments. For others, it is a mix of several things.
Often times, it is easier to state what you might not like about something that having to dig for the words to describe exactly "Why" they like Star Trek.
So, if the thread is so negative, why not start a positive one? Balance it all out, and the like
It isn't about what people like or dislike about Trek though. It is about thinking up of reasons to dislike the show before it is even aired - that is not at all the same as discussing the likes and dislikes Trek.
There is already more positive threads, but "balance" isn't the point either. What is the purpose of imagining reasons to not watch Discovery? It is a type of negativity that I didn't exist before we went online.
Hell, I'd be overjoyed if he was a young Koloth!Imagine if the guy in the trailer turns out to be a younger Kor or Chang.
The next year or so (at least) should be interesting around here.
This is part of online discussion forums, regardless of fandom or property. My wife encountered similar things when the Hobbit was being filmed.
I generally agree that negativity for the sake of it is not always informative, but, in this case, I actually find that it gives me opportunity to get to know other posters better.
Also, as a side note, this is very similar to "Likes and Dislikes of Trek" because people will highlight things that they found annoying or ruining suspension of disbelief in the process. In many ways, it's a highlight of how the other shows were not as well done as some viewers would like. Besides, there are ways to spin it in to a positive, which I like doing.
I'm not sure that you are getting my meaning or that I'm properly explaining myself.
A discussion like the "Likes and Dislikes of Trek" because people will highlight things that they found annoying or ruining suspension of disbelief in the process isn't the same because it is done "afterwards" or "during" a project when sufficient material upon which to make an opinion. Plus, "disliking" elements isn't automatically "just being negative" if those opinions are formed fair mindedly and because a person is just negative "for the sake of it".
Actually creating problems to moan about is just a negative attitude. I don't understand how you find a purpose in it (to get to know people better) because all people are doing is making up problems that exist in the first place. What else can you learn from that except "this dude is downer?".
EDIT: That last bit isn't claiming you are wrong, I'm just saying I don't see it and asking what it is.
This is pretty much the only thing that could get me to watch the show. A sincere pro-Trump production would be fascinating, the internet's reaction even moreso. I would pay to watch that.
As it is, I won't pay for CBS All Access, so I guess that's my deal breaker.
- Status
Similar threads
