Then where are these folks in the government?
What would be a deal breaker for you in Discovery?
- Thread starter RomulanCommander
- Start date
- Status
Then where are these folks in the government?
So, wait, "SJW" doesn't stand for "Samurai Jack Watcher"? 
That's true, but you have to have to understand, people are gunning for Discovery already.
The producers and creators might want to be careful during it's premiere, because in those first few minutes people can gauge how interesting a show is, if the crew has chemistry, if the characters are boring, the plot makes sense, the style and loom of the show--all of these can make or break a show.
Using myself as an example of typical viewer, not a super fan, but not clueless about Trek either-- after the first 20 minutes or so of watching the Enterprise, I lost interest and changed the channel.
Not saying my viewing habits represent everybody's habits, but something made people stop watching Enterprise's ratings after the premiere.
After getting almost halfway through Nemesis (Insurrection), I just couldn't watch it anymore. Still can't, lol.
Last edited:
As they were for TNG, DS9, ENT and nuTrek. Voyager is pretty much the only Trek show that hasn't been decried as a travesty before it even aired.
I honestly see more people complaining about crying fans than I see crying fans. The vast majority of people seems to be pretty relaxed and reasonable looking forward to the show. At least giving it a chance.
I think that is true here and on other well-regulated forums. I follow in some other places though, where the negativity is really out-of-control.
That happens rather a lot on the internet - see any Cracked comment section.
I don't see how that's a legitimate concern because the internet hates everything. 
Which is why the self-learning AIs learning of the Internet will want to kill humanity rather quickly.I don't see how that's a legitimate concern because the internet hates everything.
I can't blame it.
Elections are funny times.
Truth, especially since for a lot of people the premiere is where they are going to have to make their decision on whether they're going to subscribe to CBSAA and continue to watch the show.
Previous Star Trek series you could take your time (multiple episodes) to judge if you were going to invest yourself and your time in the series.
This time TPTB will only get one shot at a mass audience.
M
marlboro
Guest
1) Poor writing
2) Politics
2) Politics
I'm sure there were some people like yourself who turned it off before the pilot finished airing, but I think the key for most viewers was in what you said afterward - something made people stop watching after (not during) the premiere, which was well regarded critically at the time.
Even in 2001, after the declining ratings of DS9 and VOY and the disappointing box office of INS, a new Trek series premiere was still an event. It was always going to get a much higher rating because some people would watch for the event and have no intention of returning regardless. The drop off from the first episode to the second was not overly surprising; where the problems start coming in was the dropoff around episode 6 and especially the dropoff when it returned from the winter break at episode 12. That tells me enough people liked the pilot to stick around for a few episodes, it just didn't deliver on the promise of the pilot.
That, I think, is the challenge for DSC. The pilot needs to be good and capture our attention, no doubt. But just as crucial, if not more so, is the quality of the three or four episodes following the pilot.
In fact, in this day of streaming and binge-watching, I think even a so-so pilot can be overcome by positive word of mouth on the rest of the series.
And to be clear, STAR TREK was never meant to be a kid's show or even all that "tame." Heck, the whole point back in 1966 was to do a space-adventure series that was more adult and mature than, say, Commando Cody or Lost in Space. And let's not forget that TOS was actually pretty risque for its time.
As I like to remind people, the very first TREK pilot, "The Cage," is all about voyeuristic aliens trying to getting a virile male specimen to mate in captivity, with much discussion of secret fantasies and "Adam and Eve" and "strong female drives."
Which is not to say that any new TREK show needs to rival TRUE BLOOD or GAME OF THRONES when it comes to sex and nudity, but why shouldn't it be as "adult" by modern standards as TOS was by sixties standards?
Here's the thing: Trek does not exist in a bubble, cut off from the rest of pop culture and popular tastes. Each new show will and should reflect the TV of its time. And standards have changed since 1966, and 1987 . . . .
I mean, forget the extreme stuff on cable. Even network sitcoms are more "adult" today than they were back in the days of BEWITCHED or GET SMART. So I imagine it will be the same with DISCOVERY.
M
marlboro
Guest
I'm the exact same way.
After years of hearing what a classic The Wizard of Oz is, I finally gave it a shot the other day. Good god it was sooooo boring! After 20 minutes I had to turn it off. I mean, who wants to watch some crappy black and white movie about farmers?
I'd be interested if someone can define "adult" by modern standards versus "adult" by sixties standards.
Well, we can show belly buttons now . . .
(Without having to fight the censors, that is.)
Seriously, instead of assuming that there's nothing between "family-friendly" and GAME OF THRONES-style cable erotica, compare any modern network program to comparable shows back in the sixties. Characters can now occasionally have sex or are shown in bed together (albeit without any naughty bits showing), the language is less than squeaky-clean ("Oh, crap, you slept with your ex?"), and romantic encounters don't necessarily fade to black as quickly as they did back in the day.
In other words, don't expect DISCOVERY to be as G-rated as TNG or as explicit as TRUE BLOOD. When it comes to "adult" content, I'm expecting something comparable to what you might see on, say, RIVERDALE or iZOMBIE, where (gasp) the characters occasionally have PG-13 rated sex. (Or, if they're pushing things, maybe HOW TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER.)
Or so I'm guessing.
Last edited:
Well, the behavior of the Trek crew were never equivalent to the everyman of its day. They were all archetypes of some sort. Maybe the archetypes were constructed based on the value-systems of its time (like Kirk being a late Mad Men JFK archetype) but they did not represent how the average guy on the street behaved.
By the time you get to TNG, which debuted during the waning days of the Reagan adminsitration, this gap between the sensibilities of the crew and the general public was even wider. Picard (presumably french but with a posh English accent) is busy quoting Shakespeare in the pilot. Nobody listens to anything but classical and jazz music. No Beastie Boys for sure. They're all busy wringing their hands over one ethical dilemma after another.
So the idea is that in the future we would all become more culturally refined, drink our tea with one pinky sticking out, etc...
DS9 was sort of the anti-Trek in the sense that the crew seemed to have the most character flaws, but that's really the only exception to the rule, and for my money, while I don't expect perfection, I do not want Trek characters to be riddled with vices, especially the kinds of vices that are most common in society today.
- Status
Similar threads
