Lots of shows that end up good have rough first seasons. If you were to narrow down most of the Trek franchise to just their respective first seasons, you probably wouldn't think much of them.
One of the prime complaints here is the focus on Burnham. That's a huge season one problem. You have a dozen potential characters to explore and a very limited time to do it. Additionally, you don't know for sure who the audience will actually be interested in.
Many ensemble shows start with a very narrow focus on a few characters early on only to broaden the scope once the world building and initial introductions have been completed. Give it time to breathe.
I was a bit apprehensive before I started watching as I knew it was focusing on Burnham and was not sure what it would be like (considering all the other Treks were ensemble and each had at least one ep where they were main focus) but after watching it I enjoyed it very much and was not surprised by how season 1 ended.
Initially i disliked it, just because I didn't want to see THIS kind of story again. I like my Trek idealistic In TNG it was very interesting (Borg story) because it was kind of new, DS9 did it absolutely best with the Dominion, in Enterprise it got annoying with the Delphic Expanse story arc, and here we are again in Discovery. The enemy doesn't negotiate and is hell-bent on destroying humanity and we have to do WHATEVER to survive/win.
However it's actually quite interesting and entertaining and has lots of "real Trek" moments in it, they're just harder earned than usual So yeah, it's good!
[GER - SF] Star Fleet - recruiting active captains with event participation. Our Starbase is level 134 and we use the Line App (optional) for spam, bragging, jokes, motivation and sharing tactics. German language.
My issue is that it leans more toward "fantasy" than Star Trek usually does.
Examples: Space whales, the planet that's somehow a giant subspace antenna, even the spore drive. Even, to an extent, the silly hologram stuff - you realize Sarek literally sat on her desk while he talked to her. All of this stuff is cool, but it's a little out of Star Trek's typical wheelhouse.
The thing is, every time they tried to include "realistic physics" - they butchered it horribly. The Klingon "beacon" - Someone said "a new star just showed up in the sky" - ummm, no. Light isn't instant. Discovery jumps into a star and they call it an "O-Type Star" - No, O-type stars are blue giants. It was obviously yellow-white and small. This is simple, anyone with a cell phone could have googled it as they were writing.
For the record, I have absolutely no problem with "re-imagining Star Trek" and changing up the design. As long as it's GOOD. Give me a great story that makes sense, and I'm on board.
Space whales = fantasy.
Space probe that SPEAKS whale = A-Ok.
Got it.
1986 was a different era. In 2018, magic space whales belong on old episodes of Futurama.
Have you seen The Expanse? That's what happens when you successfully integrate actual physics into science fiction.
Initially i disliked it, just because I didn't want to see THIS kind of story again. I like my Trek idealistic In TNG it was very interesting (Borg story) because it was kind of new, DS9 did it absolutely best with the Dominion, in Enterprise it got annoying with the Delphic Expanse story arc, and here we are again in Discovery. The enemy doesn't negotiate and is hell-bent on destroying humanity and we have to do WHATEVER to survive/win.
However it's actually quite interesting and entertaining and has lots of "real Trek" moments in it, they're just harder earned than usual So yeah, it's good!
Initially i disliked it, just because I didn't want to see THIS kind of story again. I like my Trek idealistic In TNG it was very interesting (Borg story) because it was kind of new, DS9 did it absolutely best with the Dominion, in Enterprise it got annoying with the Delphic Expanse story arc, and here we are again in Discovery. The enemy doesn't negotiate and is hell-bent on destroying humanity and we have to do WHATEVER to survive/win.
However it's actually quite interesting and entertaining and has lots of "real Trek" moments in it, they're just harder earned than usual So yeah, it's good!
My issue is that it leans more toward "fantasy" than Star Trek usually does.
Examples: Space whales, the planet that's somehow a giant subspace antenna, even the spore drive. Even, to an extent, the silly hologram stuff - you realize Sarek literally sat on her desk while he talked to her. All of this stuff is cool, but it's a little out of Star Trek's typical wheelhouse.
The thing is, every time they tried to include "realistic physics" - they butchered it horribly. The Klingon "beacon" - Someone said "a new star just showed up in the sky" - ummm, no. Light isn't instant. Discovery jumps into a star and they call it an "O-Type Star" - No, O-type stars are blue giants. It was obviously yellow-white and small. This is simple, anyone with a cell phone could have googled it as they were writing.
For the record, I have absolutely no problem with "re-imagining Star Trek" and changing up the design. As long as it's GOOD. Give me a great story that makes sense, and I'm on board.
Space whales = fantasy.
Space probe that SPEAKS whale = A-Ok.
Got it.
1986 was a different era. In 2018, magic space whales belong on old episodes of Futurama.
Have you seen The Expanse? That's what happens when you successfully integrate actual physics into science fiction.
I, for one, have not seen The Expanse but I would like to because I have hear many good things about it. That being said, “actual physics” and Star Trek have always had an uneasy relationship. Trek writers from day one (or at least 1987) didn’t come up with a made-up particle they didn’t like, after all.
What I ask for is as much consistency as possible in a shared universe. I can understand how that may feel constraining for writers and graphical artists when they have over 50 years of development of that universe to contend with. However, at least try to make sense...that did not happen from what I have seen in the pilot and heard about the rest of the season. I won’t beat the Space Orcs thing to death any more, so instead I will focus on pulse phasers (not figures out until the 2360s for the Defiant project) and holograms (no solid date that I am aware of but likely somewhere between 2330 and 2360). These anachronisms can’t be explained away like the uniforms and other inconsistencies.
Lots of shows that end up good have rough first seasons. If you were to narrow down most of the Trek franchise to just their respective first seasons, you probably wouldn't think much of them.
One of the prime complaints here is the focus on Burnham. That's a huge season one problem. You have a dozen potential characters to explore and a very limited time to do it. Additionally, you don't know for sure who the audience will actually be interested in.
Many ensemble shows start with a very narrow focus on a few characters early on only to broaden the scope once the world building and initial introductions have been completed. Give it time to breathe.
Could not agree more. I think many of us have very rose-tinted glasses on when "remembering" season one of TNG. Go back and watch it, I dare you! It is almost painful!
The lighting is horrible, the characters are incredibly one-dimensional (and this is my primary reason for ALWAYS rushing to the defense of Tasha Yar - yes, she was not great in season 1 but NOBODY was great in season 1, and given how most of the crew became great over time, and given how great Denise Crosby is, it stands to reason that Yar would have been great given the chance to participate in all 7 seasons), the stories were flat, and the acting was stiff (probably due in part to those season 1 uniforms!).
Well, I'm happy the OP enjoyed but STD is an abomination.
Most of the people responsible for that are already out of CBS, eventually, it will be canceled by the utterly low number of viewers and how costly it becomes to CBS and NETFLIX, and removed from the canon and Star Trek once more will be something akin to intelligent plots and well-developed characters.
And of course without RADARs in space...
A really enjoyable moment from an excellent episode, “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad” the Harry Mudd / Time Travel episode.
Disco isn't over yet, but while it isn't perfect, I already like it more than either Enterprise or Voyager (which IMO both suffered from franchise fatigue).
“You must understand that there is more than one path to the top of the mountain”
― Musashi, Japan's Greatest Swordsman and Samurai
It definitely suffers from the current requirement that everything, particularly sci-fi/fantasy, has to be overly dark and ~edgy (I blame Game of Thrones for this and for the 10-episode seasons that have become the norm), but not nearly so much as others and at least they didn’t marvel-ize it too much with a bunch of jokes and laugh breaks that undercut any possible drama.
That said,
having Saru’s Face Feelings™️ for dinner made me 🤢
One quick thing I want to point out is the fixation on Trek as ensembles. Just because TNG through ENT were ensemble series doesn't mean every Trek series must be one. I'm wholeheartedly in agreement that the lack of development of characters is a deficiency of Disco S1, but we were told up front that it was about Michael Burnham and was told from her point of view.
Also, fandom needs to get honest with itself about having retroactively bought into this narrative of TOS having been an ensemble series. It wasn't. It was always about Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, and eventually, Dr. McCoy. It's important that Nichelle Nichols and George Takei made visible the African-American and Asian-American communities on TV, and that Walter Koenig showed that the U.S. and Russia could, in fact, meld, and I don't mean to minimize the significance of their presence. But it is also simply untrue that they were ever intended as equals to Kirk and Spock.
As best I've worked out, that narrative emerged in the 1970's at conventions--where fans were being asked to content themselves with supporting cast actors because Shatner and Nimoy weren't coming. And I get it. A con promoter has to sell the legitimacy of the Guest of Honor, and that meant playing up the importance of supporting cast actors, and it dovetailed neatly with the "all working together" doctrine being preached at those shows. But I think in light of Disco that it's time we let go of that revisionism and start to talk about TOS's structure having been what it really was: A main cast trio with a supporting quartet. (Or quintet if you care to include Majel Barrett-Roddenberry.)
Well, I'm happy the OP enjoyed but STD is an abomination.
Most of the people responsible for that are already out of CBS, eventually, it will be canceled by the utterly low number of viewers and how costly it becomes to CBS and NETFLIX, and removed from the canon and Star Trek once more will be something akin to intelligent plots and well-developed characters.
And of course without RADARs in space...
Clearly you have not seen how many stores are sold out of Discovery season 1 on blu-ray. It is doing quite well and you should hope it does well even if you dislike the show. If trek shows do not do well then more trek shows will not be made. New trek shows that you might like. Also, it has just been one season. That is way too early to write it off. The other trek series had issues in their first season as well. Give it a second chance in the second season, you will not be disappointed.
I have only seen DSC episode 1. It bothered me in several respects (but no need to rehash what has been said before by others). I'm reading this thread with interest because I'd like a) to find a reason to someday watch all of DSC, and b) because, as pointed out by @(HGH)Apollo, I want it to have sufficient success to spawn another show (someday) that might be more compelling to me. One that is NOT behind a stupid pay wall.
If another one is ever produced (notwithstanding whatever is planned for the Picard elder-years show), I sincerely hope they stop messing around in the TOS era. Too many ways to run afoul of that lore. Between the real-life advancements in tech, and with CGI effects, there is simply no way a modern show can realistically claim to be from the same era as TOS. Let's move forward in time and see what the galaxy looks like 100 years after TNG/DS9/VOY.
Enjoyed the plot twists of season 1, but could pass on the TV-MA stuff. Looking forward to season 2. Favorite episode so far? "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad."
I had a hard time liking it right off the bat, given their treatment of Klingons, which seemed entirely unnecessary and felt like a deliberate "we're ST not ST" slap in the face.
This is exactly the problem.
They clearly tried to make a product that will be “watched by default” by Trek fans because of the branding, but will have as little as possible in common with Star Trek to not appear nerdy and appeal to casual streaming bing watchers.
This is reinforced by the over the top Starfleet branding (delta logos everywhere...), otherwise it would be impossible to tell this is supposed to be Star Trek. This is the one thing that insults me most about the post ENT Trek productions. Trek being ashamed of its legacy, of its past, of its own world it has so meticulously built for over 50 years. Whoever produces this cr@p in this ways insults the fans.
+ completely unlikable main character showed down our throats all the time (because she’s PC u know...) played by “over emote/over play every scene” (simply bad) actress
+ over the top super preachy PCness
+ the arrogant responses of main cast to negative feedback/criticism from fans
In trying to create liberal arts campus lecture in form of GoT in space they created something unrecognizable that will have a long way to appeal as Star Trek and I will always remember as STD
I had a hard time liking it right off the bat, given their treatment of Klingons, which seemed entirely unnecessary and felt like a deliberate "we're ST not ST" slap in the face.
This is exactly the problem.
They clearly tried to make a product that will be “watched by default” by Trek fans because of the branding, but will have as little as possible in common with Star Trek to not appear nerdy and appeal to casual streaming bing watchers.
This is reinforced by the over the top Starfleet branding (delta logos everywhere...), otherwise it would be impossible to tell this is supposed to be Star Trek. This is the one thing that insults me most about the post ENT Trek productions. Trek being ashamed of its legacy, of its past, of its own world it has so meticulously built for over 50 years. Whoever produces this cr@p in this ways insults the fans.
+ completely unlikable main character showed down our throats all the time (because she’s PC u know...) played by “over emote/over play every scene” (simply bad) actress
+ over the top super preachy PCness
+ the arrogant responses of main cast to negative feedback/criticism from fans
In trying to create liberal arts campus lecture in form of GoT in space they created something unrecognizable that will have a long way to appeal as Star Trek and I will always remember as STD
You are aware that ALL of the Star Treks have been pretty unabashedly PC for their respective days, right?
I had heard about the PC in Discovery, but I didn't see any over-the-top PC. They did it right. They have much that could be called PC, but no attention is ever directly paid to it being unique or different. That is the way to do it. That is how the original series treated a black communications officer and a Russian officer and an Asian officer. They simply put it in and treated it as normal. No undue attention. Nothing over-the-top or in your face. I appreciated how everything was portrayed.
One quick thing I want to point out is the fixation on Trek as ensembles. Just because TNG through ENT were ensemble series doesn't mean every Trek series must be one. I'm wholeheartedly in agreement that the lack of development of characters is a deficiency of Disco S1, but we were told up front that it was about Michael Burnham and was told from her point of view.
Also, fandom needs to get honest with itself about having retroactively bought into this narrative of TOS having been an ensemble series. It wasn't. It was always about Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, and eventually, Dr. McCoy. It's important that Nichelle Nichols and George Takei made visible the African-American and Asian-American communities on TV, and that Walter Koenig showed that the U.S. and Russia could, in fact, meld, and I don't mean to minimize the significance of their presence. But it is also simply untrue that they were ever intended as equals to Kirk and Spock.
As best I've worked out, that narrative emerged in the 1970's at conventions--where fans were being asked to content themselves with supporting cast actors because Shatner and Nimoy weren't coming. And I get it. A con promoter has to sell the legitimacy of the Guest of Honor, and that meant playing up the importance of supporting cast actors, and it dovetailed neatly with the "all working together" doctrine being preached at those shows. But I think in light of Disco that it's time we let go of that revisionism and start to talk about TOS's structure having been what it really was: A main cast trio with a supporting quartet. (Or quintet if you care to include Majel Barrett-Roddenberry.)
One quick thing I want to point out is the fixation on Trek as ensembles. Just because TNG through ENT were ensemble series doesn't mean every Trek series must be one.
I wouldn't consider any of the ST shows to be ensembles. Each had a distinct lead character (mostly the captain) and it was a toss-up who got the best treatment. There are plenty of episodes where every supporting crew got a chance to shine but Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer probably got the most screen time. Certain crew who were distinctly more interesting probably got more episodes than others. The Doctor was probably the best example of that.
I absolutely hated the show until about episode 8. The one where Ash and Burnham have to deal with a terrified Saru actually felt like Star Trek, and I enjoyed the rest of the season’s Mirror arc... only to be disappointed with the triteness of the season finale.
I understand the hate it gets. Burnham very much is a Mary Sue, almost to the point of the textbook definition and Star Trek origin of the term. The writers have, at best, played fast and loose with canon. Some of that’s understandable, but just as understandable is people being upset with it. I actually like the look of the show and the new take on old tech: the production design is probably the main thing that brings me back.
Season 2 will probably make or break the show. Looking at pictures of Millennial Spock, I’m not optimistic. But I will give it a chance and hope for the best.
Discovery is good. All this hate towards Discovery claiming it is too PC from people listening to conservative propaganda that is afraid of change and tolerance is absolutely ridiculous. What exactly were the moral messages in Discovery? Hate is bad. Xenophobia is bad. Being gay is okay. These are not groundbreaking or controversial but simply following the old Golden Rule. All Star Treks have shown that hate and intolerance is bad. Gene Rodenberry wanted to show a future that could be more and better. Many different peoples working together to accomplish more than any group could alone. Keep in mind that these conservative pundits and talking heads that tell conservatives to hate Discovery are the same people that said Teletubbies, video games, rock n' roll, rap music, long hair, tattoos, and Harry Potter were all evil as well. They take anything that is new and popular and try to convince people it is evil simply to get higher ratings and attention for themselves. Don't fall for it.
Season 2 will probably make or break the show. Looking at pictures of Millennial Spock, I’m not optimistic. But I will give it a chance and hope for the best.
ROTFL. Please, please, please, please let this be his Timelines crew card name. Please.
I signed up for the free trial of CBS all access Thanksgiving weekend. I wanted to give Discovery a chance.
In short: I liked it.
Yes, the Klingons looked odd. Yes, the tech was too high-tech. Yes, they inappropriately and needlessly inserted the F-word. But it is still worthwhile and good for watching.
I think people get caught-up with the style difference between shows. This one has an over-arching story line and a main character to follow. These are modern story structures and don't affect the Trek-ness of Discovery.
Discovery still holds the basic Trek ideals. When a character goes against the ideals, that character discovers how bad it is and how good the ideals are. That's actually the point of the season storyline.
I liked it, but still like Enterprise and DS9 better. (Though I feel it fair to say it is better than Voyager.)
They really did a good job on the part I highlighted. Several times characters referring to the laws of the Federation as the rules we live and die by and refusing to bend or compromise those rules, laws, and beliefs was a key part of what I liked. Saru even saying something like "We live and die by the law of the Federation" or words to that effect.
I got the Blu-Ray over the Thanksgiving holiday. Finished the last episode and put the first disc back in. I binged it TWICE that weekend back-to-back!!!!!!
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
Yeah, Janeway is awesome, Chakotay was cool until he traded in his Maquis credentials for archaelogoy, Paris was always interesting, Torres and Seven were well developed, and the holo doc was great until he started singing operas.
Chakotay was the only character that I found rather boring. He had almost no character arc at all, which might be the reason. But I loved all of the others, including Kes and Kim (well, Kim wasn't so interesting, objectively, but I still liked him ).
Kim seemed to get better after the episode where the Voyager split into two vessels and two crews. Maybe Kim B was better than Kim A?
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
For the record, I never said Voyager was bad. I simply said I liked Discovery better. Someone has to be at the bottom. Also, my point of the thread was not against Voyager, but for Discovery. It is far better than I has heard. I suppose it helps that I watched the whole season over 4 days. Also, to be fair, I have not seen every season of Voyager. I will finish that next and possibly re-evaluate.
And this leads to so many pointless arguments. What a person likes better than something else is totally SUBJECTIVE. There is nothing wrong with liking one series over another. But, if you say you like "A" more than "B", too many people who like "B" better than "A" think you are insulting "B".......
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
I liked Disco but did not love it. However, I feel like it will be better evaluated as an entire series vs season-by-season. It is much like DS9, which has some ups and downs within seasons but when viewed as a complete story is so much better than the other series (IMHO). TNG probably had the most "top 10" episodes, but the character arcs in DS9 were more thorough.
Voyager, and again my opinion, is the show of missed opportunities. I chose my moniker because the character of Suder best exemplifies that; how cool would it have been to have him as a Garak-esque recurring character, testing the crew and Janeway at every turn, challenging thier beliefs and the "right thing to do" when his psychosis and almost Hannibal Lecter mentality can show them other paths to achieving goals?
Anyway, digressing a bit . . . once Discovery starts answering questions about the technology and starship design (I like 1 theory, but I won't go into it here) and Klingon appearance and other seeming contradictions, and when we see the full arc of tbe story, then we can judge and compare.
"Reliant" will have an episode that mansplains the Klingons looking different in Season Onethan any other Star Trek show, including how they look in Season Two.......
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
For the record, I never said Voyager was bad. I simply said I liked Discovery better. Someone has to be at the bottom. Also, my point of the thread was not against Voyager, but for Discovery. It is far better than I has heard. I suppose it helps that I watched the whole season over 4 days. Also, to be fair, I have not seen every season of Voyager. I will finish that next and possibly re-evaluate.
And this leads to so many pointless arguments. What a person likes better than something else is totally SUBJECTIVE. There is nothing wrong with liking one series over another. But, if you say you like "A" more than "B", too many people who like "B" better than "A" think you are insulting "B".......
After all, it's not that they said "A" was a garbage scow, what they actually said was "A" should be towed away AS garbage.
Well, I'm happy the OP enjoyed but STD is an abomination.
Most of the people responsible for that are already out of CBS, eventually, it will be canceled by the utterly low number of viewers and how costly it becomes to CBS and NETFLIX, and removed from the canon and Star Trek once more will be something akin to intelligent plots and well-developed characters.
And of course without RADARs in space...
Clearly you have not seen how many stores are sold out of Discovery season 1 on blu-ray. It is doing quite well and you should hope it does well even if you dislike the show. If trek shows do not do well then more trek shows will not be made. New trek shows that you might like. Also, it has just been one season. That is way too early to write it off. The other trek series had issues in their first season as well. Give it a second chance in the second season, you will not be disappointed.
CBS has several titles trademarked/copyrighted, including "Reliant" and "Ceti Alpha V" that appear to be future Trek shows......
"The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself."
Comments
One of the prime complaints here is the focus on Burnham. That's a huge season one problem. You have a dozen potential characters to explore and a very limited time to do it. Additionally, you don't know for sure who the audience will actually be interested in.
Many ensemble shows start with a very narrow focus on a few characters early on only to broaden the scope once the world building and initial introductions have been completed. Give it time to breathe.
Roll on season 2
However it's actually quite interesting and entertaining and has lots of "real Trek" moments in it, they're just harder earned than usual
1986 was a different era. In 2018, magic space whales belong on old episodes of Futurama.
Have you seen The Expanse? That's what happens when you successfully integrate actual physics into science fiction.
Forget inspiring, I've always wondered why Saru doesn't have the "survivalist" trait!
He and Cornwell should definitely have that trait!
Also the "delicious" trait.
I, for one, have not seen The Expanse but I would like to because I have hear many good things about it. That being said, “actual physics” and Star Trek have always had an uneasy relationship. Trek writers from day one (or at least 1987) didn’t come up with a made-up particle they didn’t like, after all.
What I ask for is as much consistency as possible in a shared universe. I can understand how that may feel constraining for writers and graphical artists when they have over 50 years of development of that universe to contend with. However, at least try to make sense...that did not happen from what I have seen in the pilot and heard about the rest of the season. I won’t beat the Space Orcs thing to death any more, so instead I will focus on pulse phasers (not figures out until the 2360s for the Defiant project) and holograms (no solid date that I am aware of but likely somewhere between 2330 and 2360). These anachronisms can’t be explained away like the uniforms and other inconsistencies.
Could not agree more. I think many of us have very rose-tinted glasses on when "remembering" season one of TNG. Go back and watch it, I dare you! It is almost painful!
The lighting is horrible, the characters are incredibly one-dimensional (and this is my primary reason for ALWAYS rushing to the defense of Tasha Yar - yes, she was not great in season 1 but NOBODY was great in season 1, and given how most of the crew became great over time, and given how great Denise Crosby is, it stands to reason that Yar would have been great given the chance to participate in all 7 seasons), the stories were flat, and the acting was stiff (probably due in part to those season 1 uniforms!).
A really enjoyable moment from an excellent episode, “Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad” the Harry Mudd / Time Travel episode.
Disco isn't over yet, but while it isn't perfect, I already like it more than either Enterprise or Voyager (which IMO both suffered from franchise fatigue).
― Musashi, Japan's Greatest Swordsman and Samurai
That said,
Also, fandom needs to get honest with itself about having retroactively bought into this narrative of TOS having been an ensemble series. It wasn't. It was always about Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, and eventually, Dr. McCoy. It's important that Nichelle Nichols and George Takei made visible the African-American and Asian-American communities on TV, and that Walter Koenig showed that the U.S. and Russia could, in fact, meld, and I don't mean to minimize the significance of their presence. But it is also simply untrue that they were ever intended as equals to Kirk and Spock.
As best I've worked out, that narrative emerged in the 1970's at conventions--where fans were being asked to content themselves with supporting cast actors because Shatner and Nimoy weren't coming. And I get it. A con promoter has to sell the legitimacy of the Guest of Honor, and that meant playing up the importance of supporting cast actors, and it dovetailed neatly with the "all working together" doctrine being preached at those shows. But I think in light of Disco that it's time we let go of that revisionism and start to talk about TOS's structure having been what it really was: A main cast trio with a supporting quartet. (Or quintet if you care to include Majel Barrett-Roddenberry.)
Clearly you have not seen how many stores are sold out of Discovery season 1 on blu-ray. It is doing quite well and you should hope it does well even if you dislike the show. If trek shows do not do well then more trek shows will not be made. New trek shows that you might like. Also, it has just been one season. That is way too early to write it off. The other trek series had issues in their first season as well. Give it a second chance in the second season, you will not be disappointed.
If another one is ever produced (notwithstanding whatever is planned for the Picard elder-years show), I sincerely hope they stop messing around in the TOS era. Too many ways to run afoul of that lore. Between the real-life advancements in tech, and with CGI effects, there is simply no way a modern show can realistically claim to be from the same era as TOS. Let's move forward in time and see what the galaxy looks like 100 years after TNG/DS9/VOY.
This is exactly the problem.
They clearly tried to make a product that will be “watched by default” by Trek fans because of the branding, but will have as little as possible in common with Star Trek to not appear nerdy and appeal to casual streaming bing watchers.
This is reinforced by the over the top Starfleet branding (delta logos everywhere...), otherwise it would be impossible to tell this is supposed to be Star Trek. This is the one thing that insults me most about the post ENT Trek productions. Trek being ashamed of its legacy, of its past, of its own world it has so meticulously built for over 50 years. Whoever produces this cr@p in this ways insults the fans.
+ completely unlikable main character showed down our throats all the time (because she’s PC u know...) played by “over emote/over play every scene” (simply bad) actress
+ over the top super preachy PCness
+ the arrogant responses of main cast to negative feedback/criticism from fans
In trying to create liberal arts campus lecture in form of GoT in space they created something unrecognizable that will have a long way to appeal as Star Trek and I will always remember as STD
You are aware that ALL of the Star Treks have been pretty unabashedly PC for their respective days, right?
Learning from DB. What happened to Scotty😉🖖
I understand the hate it gets. Burnham very much is a Mary Sue, almost to the point of the textbook definition and Star Trek origin of the term. The writers have, at best, played fast and loose with canon. Some of that’s understandable, but just as understandable is people being upset with it. I actually like the look of the show and the new take on old tech: the production design is probably the main thing that brings me back.
Season 2 will probably make or break the show. Looking at pictures of Millennial Spock, I’m not optimistic. But I will give it a chance and hope for the best.
ROTFL. Please, please, please, please let this be his Timelines crew card name. Please.
They really did a good job on the part I highlighted. Several times characters referring to the laws of the Federation as the rules we live and die by and refusing to bend or compromise those rules, laws, and beliefs was a key part of what I liked. Saru even saying something like "We live and die by the law of the Federation" or words to that effect.
I got the Blu-Ray over the Thanksgiving holiday. Finished the last episode and put the first disc back in. I binged it TWICE that weekend back-to-back!!!!!!
Kim seemed to get better after the episode where the Voyager split into two vessels and two crews. Maybe Kim B was better than Kim A?
And this leads to so many pointless arguments. What a person likes better than something else is totally SUBJECTIVE. There is nothing wrong with liking one series over another. But, if you say you like "A" more than "B", too many people who like "B" better than "A" think you are insulting "B".......
"Reliant" will have an episode that mansplains the Klingons looking different in Season Onethan any other Star Trek show, including how they look in Season Two.......
After all, it's not that they said "A" was a garbage scow, what they actually said was "A" should be towed away AS garbage.
CBS has several titles trademarked/copyrighted, including "Reliant" and "Ceti Alpha V" that appear to be future Trek shows......