^More to the point he's making an unevidenced assumption that the existing fanbase is indeed a wider pool than the hoped-for new fanbase.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Which means, as patrickngo pointed out, that by focussing on a modern(niche) audience, they run the risk of losing the wider audience of existing fans. That's not a wise strategy. Any investor (which Les Moonves is) will tell you, 'don't put all your eggs in one basket. Diversify.'
Diversifying is exactly what CBS is trying to do by bringing in a newer, younger, more modern audience who will carry interest in the IP into the future. Same reason you have JJTrek. It created a whole new fan base for the property.
Sorry, but you're confusing diversification, with diversity, or more specifically, to use patrickngo's phrase, 'cosmetic diversity'. Cosmetic diversity appeals to a narrow audience. You say 'newer, younger more modern audience', as if fandom is a baton to be passed from one generation to the next. We have people here who have been fans since they saw the original series first aired, they're still fans. Going for a 'newer, younger more modern audience', risks alienating them, especially when it does so by going against the principle of 'show, don't tell'. TOS showed a better world. Discovery is telling us that they are the better world. That's the issue which the op's article related to, and if you can't accept the reasons why some hold thst position, there's no point in saying any more to each other on this topic.
I don't like having to walk away from a conversation, but we're just getting into point-counter-point pingpong, which isn't going to go anywhere, reach any mutual understanding, so I'm going to have to tap out.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
^More to the point he's making an unevidenced assumption that the existing fanbase is indeed a wider pool than the hoped-for new fanbase.
And you are making the exact same opposite position, because it aims at your echo-chamber.
Also, there's no need for the complex comment. Lack of a proof of something, does not dismiss that which is claimed, and to claim that it does, is univerasally accepted as a fallacy. I don't need to prove to you, or anyone else, that there are more Old Star Trek fans than Young Star Trek fans, especially when the actual focus of the issue, is that by deliberately focussing on Young Modern Star Trek fans, that is excluding the Old Star Trek fans by specificslly catering to a niche, rather than broad, market.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
You really don't know how a tv show actually works. When you make a show based off an existing franchise, in order for that show to be successful enough to be re-ordered, you have to gain a wider audience beyond the existing fanbase. Paramount proved this with the three new Trek movies. Fan service shows like Continues are awesome, but they solely exist to pander to the old fanbase. They may bring in new fans, but more than likely not. Again to which you ignored with lots of words, that Star Trek showrunners have to answer to network executives, advertisers established and potential, shareholders, and streaming services. We are talking about millions of dollars, not a couple hundred thousand and not taking in millions to build an incomplete soundstage release a small scene, then pack up, show off a picture of a very incomplete bridge, then claim they were a month away from shooting all the while putting more effort into harassing people online.
Next thing you know we'll be having black or female captains forced upon us. Social politics!? Not in my Star Trek.
Janeway and Hernandez would like to have a word with you.
Sisko doesn't even know what to think.
Yes he does.
When all else fails he punches Q. He knows that Q's mixed up in this some how. If it's not him directly, then it's this guy.
He just wants us to keep on fighting. And maybe Q directed him at us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-x2a-GjJls
Good spirits and comrade ship are the only thing that can defeat it.
You really don't know how a tv show actually works. When you make a show based off an existing franchise, in order for that show to be successful enough to be re-ordered, you have to gain a wider audience beyond the existing fanbase. Paramount proved this with the three new Trek movies. Fan service shows like Continues are awesome, but they solely exist to pander to the old fanbase. They may bring in new fans, but more than likely not. Again to which you ignored with lots of words, that Star Trek showrunners have to answer to network executives, advertisers established and potential, shareholders, and streaming services. We are talking about millions of dollars, not a couple hundred thousand and not taking in millions to build an incomplete soundstage release a small scene, then pack up, show off a picture of a very incomplete bridge, then claim they were a month away from shooting all the while putting more effort into harassing people online.
That is so full of false assumptions, and given that you haven't even attempted to answer the last questions I posed you, I'm not going to waste my time countering them. Thank you for the conversation
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
^More to the point he's making an unevidenced assumption that the existing fanbase is indeed a wider pool than the hoped-for new fanbase.
And you are making the exact same opposite position, because it aims at your echo-chamber.
Also, there's no need for the complex comment. Lack of a proof of something, does not dismiss that which is claimed, and to claim that it does, is univerasally accepted as a fallacy. I don't need to prove to you, or anyone else, that there are more Old Star Trek fans than Young Star Trek fans, especially when the actual focus of the issue, is that by deliberately focussing on Young Modern Star Trek fans, that is excluding the Old Star Trek fans by specificslly catering to a niche, rather than broad, market.
But they are attempting to hit the broad market. They want the old fans by setting it cage era primeverse. They want the new ones with the jjverse look. And they want the broad market by tossing in SJW issues. The thing is, when you try to make everyone happy, you rarely make ANYONE happy...much less everyone. Basically they ran into the built by committee classic blunder instead of letting a show runner do their vision. What is funny is usually, it's fox that does this while CBS gives it's show runners more free reign. It looks like it's the other way around this time.
I'm pretty burned out on this conversation, but I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your comment, so I will touch on a couple of points.
"They want the old fans by setting it cage era primeverse." They want to appeal to the old fans by saying it is set in The Cage era primeverse. We know what The Cage era Prime Universe looked like, and this *points at trailer* this is not it.
Who's got that Fury Road Sig? "That's bait..."
"They want the broad market by tossing in SJW issues." SJW issues are SJW issues, not broad market issues
Yes, they've gone with the jjverse look (I don't have a problem with that) but that is not The Cage era primeverse, so right off the bat, it's observably not what they are trying to insist that it is.
As you says, committee classic blunder, and given that it's what they're using as the hook for CBS Streaming, while I wouldn't go so far as to say 'shooting themself in the foot', I would say 'walking through a busy, jostling crowd with a pistol cocked, safety off, pointed right at their foot with their finger on the trigger'
But as above, I'm calling it a day for my participation in this one
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
> @silverlobes#2676 said: > starswordc wrote: » > > ^More to the point he's making an unevidenced assumption that the existing fanbase is indeed a wider pool than the hoped-for new fanbase. > > > > And you are making the exact same opposite position, because it aims at your echo-chamber. > > Also, there's no need for the complex comment. Lack of a proof of something, does not dismiss that which is claimed, and to claim that it does, is univerasally accepted as a fallacy. I don't need to prove to you, or anyone else, that there are more Old Star Trek fans than Young Star Trek fans, especially when the actual focus of the issue, is that by deliberately focussing on Young Modern Star Trek fans, that is excluding the Old Star Trek fans by specificslly catering to a niche, rather than broad, market.
> @coldnapalm said: > No...no they do not. Angel did very well pulling the built in fanbase and building from there. Orville is attempting the same. Serenity did VERY well pandering to it's fanbase. So yeah no...flat out wrong here. The best shows happen when the show runners have a good vison and are allowed to do what they do and the network stands behind them. The worst ones are built by committee like you suggest to try and maximize the dollars and try to make everyone happy and in the process make nobody happy.
Excuse me. Serenity did very well as a faithful continuation of the Firefly series, yes. It also flopped at the box office: it barely made back its production budget. THAT'S the part CBS is concerned about.
Even adjusted for inflation the Kelvin Timeline movies are more successful than any previous Star Trek film (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm). And remarkably, in worldwide box office the most successful Star Trek film ever is... Into Darkness, which made a little shy of half a billion dollars. Whaddaya know, the favorite Trek film of the worldwide viewing public is also the one most hated of a very hated trilogy by the traditional fans. Now you see why you can't expect nostalgia alone to sell a series?
Visionary direction will only get you so far.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Believe me, we get it - you don't like the design aesthetic of the show.
Another complex statement.
Untrue, and you saying that, doesn't make it true.
You don't speak for the forum.
The fact you cherry-picked half a comment, deliberately ignoring where I said I'm done with the conversation, shows that you're just a troll, so from now on, I'll treat you accordingly.
I give up with this conversation, and by that, I don't mean that I'm conceding your points because I can't answer or counter them, I mean that I'm done trying to have a rational conversation with you.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
you don't broaden that horizon by focusing on today's pressure groups, or worrying that you don't have enough checkboxes ticked to be loved by the neopuritanical SJW left.
Do you have a problem with the show having a female protoganist?
Do you have a problem with te show having a TRIBBLE character?
If the answer is no, then remember this: The advertisement is not the same as the product.
The advertisement is telling us: "Hey,this is special about what we're doing, you might like this".
It doesn't mean that the show is about how a women must survive in a male-dominated world* (or how she is vastly superior to any male at anything), just as like Deep Space Nine was not about a black man in command of white people. Even though Sisko's character was decidedly make black, and this was something pointed out at the time. But was the show or the character about the difficult situation for black in society? Nope. It was about a widowed Starfleet officer thrust in a position he was not sure he even wanted, dealing with raising a child aboard a space station that turned into the possibly most interesting (and dangerous, and important) locations in the known world. It was about a man caught between the hard science and rationality he was brought up with and his role as a religious icons to some people. That he was black mattered in about 3 episodes of hundreds, and only within the context of something dealing with 20th century Earth.
Of course, if you *were* against TRIBBLE people or protagonists in Star Trek, then I'd be very glad that you're not part of the target audience pandered to here.
*) A setting detail they apparently threw out aside from the 60s SFX TOS aesthetics: No Female Starfleet Captains! Surprise, no one is bothered that was forgotten and erased from canon in ENT, but people are worried that "The Cage" era doesn't look like 60s SFX? So we get to update the social standards of the 23rd century, but not the looks?
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
of all of that, I still can't see this SJW agenda. All I see is a bunch whiny individuals who are believing in this falsehood that their "white" power is being diminished despite the majority of the show's cast is white.
Yeah, the spam filters have gotten so bad, I've taken to doing Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C every time I post anything, just in case, because despite the little pop-up nobody ever actually reviews anything unless you specifically message the mods.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Sorry, but you're confusing diversification, with diversity, or more specifically, to use patrickngo's phrase, 'cosmetic diversity'. Cosmetic diversity appeals to a narrow audience. You say 'newer, younger more modern audience', as if fandom is a baton to be passed from one generation to the next.
Well no, I'm not the one who is confused at all. Fandom isn't a baton, it's more like a farmer planting a crop. If it doesn't grow, it dies.
Komerex, tal khesterex?
(For those who haven't read John M. Ford's The Final Reflection - first of all, shame on you. Go read it. It's an excellent book. Secondly, Ford put a lot of thought into his Klingonaase, back before the language was codified in the movies. The word "komerex", usually translated as "empire", more accurately means "the structure that grows". It has an opposite, "khesterex" - "the structure that dies".)
you see, you're presuming bigotry, that puts you 'inside' the SJW mindset. Human beings have a tendency to assume their own position is the "moderate" or "normal" position, (even when it isn't.)
That's because the stance is easily lumped together with bigots. Some (extreme) internet voices called Discovery a "white genocide in space" to the degree of even getting a TV segment commented on by George Takei. And those people use the same language and methods these days as those who simply complain about presumed exploitation whenever it's mentioned a minority is cast or takes part of a show and you might understand that some people do not understand why this is a reason to make a wave in the first place instead of simply wait for whatever it is that's coming your way. It can be beneficial to send signals of inclusion to minorities, especially in this day. That says, as you rightfully pointed out, nothing about the content of the show. But just take it like that, it won't diminish your enjoyment of the show or your dislike if it sucks. But the mere mention of a minority is so often treated as a mere marketing stunt that some people's sole existance is reduced to "pandering to someone". Why not just let something go that doesn't affect one instead of writing blogs all over the internet how Star Trek is ruined by "SJW" - these are different times. Advertising any of the former shows with the inclusion of a homosexual character wouldn't have worked as even ENT in 2002 felt the need to tip-toe around the topic.
Simply mentioning diversity doesn't make a good show, nobody is arguing with that. And I hope nobody assumes that belonging to a minority automatically makes you part of some homogenous community that share the exact same views. And yes, the contrary effect is also true, a show or movie advertised as a success of diversity (see also Wonder Woman) can very much damage the reputation of whatever they think they're supporting. But what happened here in this case doesn't affect anything, just wait and see wether the show will be good instead of raging so long about a topic not affecting anyone really is hardly distinguishable from rantings of bigots. The cited article in the OP brings forth the argument of "real" society doesn't have the procentual amount of minorities the show places in it's cast and thus that's inappropriate. This is not a valid complaint and in the best case the person saying it and those agreeing with it are simply oblivious to how this sounds and what it implies and in the worst case they're thinly veiling their "white male discontent" about how things look "today".
Do you remember "Klingongate" in STO? Cryptic did not advertise the single dialogue line that might imply homosexual Klingons in "House Pech", yet it spawned a shameful outbreak of a lot of people on this forum, including the conclusion that a certain user couldn't let their kids play the game any more if implications of homosexuality were present. And those opinions are found in the lines of people now making a wave about minorities in Discovery. If you really cannot understand what damage this might cause I'm not sure what else to say. This is the whole point.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Let's be real clear on what the problem with Enterprise was-it wasn't 'fatigue' in the audience, it was airing the show at weird times and letting it be interrupted by just about every non-crisis, 'very special episode' and reality show UPN was more interested in making. In my market, Enterprise didn't seem to h ave a regular slot, instead it was being bumped constantly. Teh second defect was the damn theme-song, which was a combination of insurance ad and beer commercial-a very long and annoying jingle, sung by a rod stewart impersonator (or maybe rod stewart, who knows, who cares? it was grating and annoying as ****.)
Tbh ents them song sounded like a really bad bryan adams tribute band ,and bryan adams was detestible an almost was considered a sneak attack by canada lol
Condemning a show which has not aired for features not yet seen to exist seems a bit premature. Or immature, I get those mixed up.
In any case, the trailer does appear to be pandering. So? If it's good Trek the cast and crew could be tri-gendered serial polygamists for all I care. Non-traditional Klingons? It's been done. Non-traditional sets? Also been done. Nothing new here. Box-checking by coorporate bosses? Old hat, and expected by now after a century of censorship.
What does Discovery have that's new?
I hope it's awesome. I hope it does well enough to make a second season. I hope it's good Trek.
Comments
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
I don't like having to walk away from a conversation, but we're just getting into point-counter-point pingpong, which isn't going to go anywhere, reach any mutual understanding, so I'm going to have to tap out.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Also, there's no need for the complex comment. Lack of a proof of something, does not dismiss that which is claimed, and to claim that it does, is univerasally accepted as a fallacy. I don't need to prove to you, or anyone else, that there are more Old Star Trek fans than Young Star Trek fans, especially when the actual focus of the issue, is that by deliberately focussing on Young Modern Star Trek fans, that is excluding the Old Star Trek fans by specificslly catering to a niche, rather than broad, market.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Yes he does.
When all else fails he punches Q. He knows that Q's mixed up in this some how. If it's not him directly, then it's this guy.
He just wants us to keep on fighting. And maybe Q directed him at us.
Good spirits and comrade ship are the only thing that can defeat it.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
"They want the old fans by setting it cage era primeverse." They want to appeal to the old fans by saying it is set in The Cage era primeverse. We know what The Cage era Prime Universe looked like, and this *points at trailer* this is not it.
Who's got that Fury Road Sig? "That's bait..."
"They want the broad market by tossing in SJW issues." SJW issues are SJW issues, not broad market issues
Yes, they've gone with the jjverse look (I don't have a problem with that) but that is not The Cage era primeverse, so right off the bat, it's observably not what they are trying to insist that it is.
As you says, committee classic blunder, and given that it's what they're using as the hook for CBS Streaming, while I wouldn't go so far as to say 'shooting themself in the foot', I would say 'walking through a busy, jostling crowd with a pistol cocked, safety off, pointed right at their foot with their finger on the trigger'
But as above, I'm calling it a day for my participation in this one
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
> starswordc wrote: »
>
> ^More to the point he's making an unevidenced assumption that the existing fanbase is indeed a wider pool than the hoped-for new fanbase.
>
>
>
> And you are making the exact same opposite position, because it aims at your echo-chamber.
>
> Also, there's no need for the complex comment. Lack of a proof of something, does not dismiss that which is claimed, and to claim that it does, is univerasally accepted as a fallacy. I don't need to prove to you, or anyone else, that there are more Old Star Trek fans than Young Star Trek fans, especially when the actual focus of the issue, is that by deliberately focussing on Young Modern Star Trek fans, that is excluding the Old Star Trek fans by specificslly catering to a niche, rather than broad, market.
> @coldnapalm said:
> No...no they do not. Angel did very well pulling the built in fanbase and building from there. Orville is attempting the same. Serenity did VERY well pandering to it's fanbase. So yeah no...flat out wrong here. The best shows happen when the show runners have a good vison and are allowed to do what they do and the network stands behind them. The worst ones are built by committee like you suggest to try and maximize the dollars and try to make everyone happy and in the process make nobody happy.
Excuse me. Serenity did very well as a faithful continuation of the Firefly series, yes. It also flopped at the box office: it barely made back its production budget. THAT'S the part CBS is concerned about.
Even adjusted for inflation the Kelvin Timeline movies are more successful than any previous Star Trek film (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm). And remarkably, in worldwide box office the most successful Star Trek film ever is... Into Darkness, which made a little shy of half a billion dollars. Whaddaya know, the favorite Trek film of the worldwide viewing public is also the one most hated of a very hated trilogy by the traditional fans. Now you see why you can't expect nostalgia alone to sell a series?
Visionary direction will only get you so far.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
Untrue, and you saying that, doesn't make it true.
You don't speak for the forum.
The fact you cherry-picked half a comment, deliberately ignoring where I said I'm done with the conversation, shows that you're just a troll, so from now on, I'll treat you accordingly.
I give up with this conversation, and by that, I don't mean that I'm conceding your points because I can't answer or counter them, I mean that I'm done trying to have a rational conversation with you.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Do you have a problem with te show having a TRIBBLE character?
If the answer is no, then remember this: The advertisement is not the same as the product.
The advertisement is telling us: "Hey,this is special about what we're doing, you might like this".
It doesn't mean that the show is about how a women must survive in a male-dominated world* (or how she is vastly superior to any male at anything), just as like Deep Space Nine was not about a black man in command of white people. Even though Sisko's character was decidedly make black, and this was something pointed out at the time. But was the show or the character about the difficult situation for black in society? Nope. It was about a widowed Starfleet officer thrust in a position he was not sure he even wanted, dealing with raising a child aboard a space station that turned into the possibly most interesting (and dangerous, and important) locations in the known world. It was about a man caught between the hard science and rationality he was brought up with and his role as a religious icons to some people. That he was black mattered in about 3 episodes of hundreds, and only within the context of something dealing with 20th century Earth.
Of course, if you *were* against TRIBBLE people or protagonists in Star Trek, then I'd be very glad that you're not part of the target audience pandered to here.
*) A setting detail they apparently threw out aside from the 60s SFX TOS aesthetics: No Female Starfleet Captains! Surprise, no one is bothered that was forgotten and erased from canon in ENT, but people are worried that "The Cage" era doesn't look like 60s SFX? So we get to update the social standards of the 23rd century, but not the looks?
> ah, forum ate the response.
Yeah, the spam filters have gotten so bad, I've taken to doing Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C every time I post anything, just in case, because despite the little pop-up nobody ever actually reviews anything unless you specifically message the mods.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
(For those who haven't read John M. Ford's The Final Reflection - first of all, shame on you. Go read it. It's an excellent book. Secondly, Ford put a lot of thought into his Klingonaase, back before the language was codified in the movies. The word "komerex", usually translated as "empire", more accurately means "the structure that grows". It has an opposite, "khesterex" - "the structure that dies".)
That's because the stance is easily lumped together with bigots. Some (extreme) internet voices called Discovery a "white genocide in space" to the degree of even getting a TV segment commented on by George Takei. And those people use the same language and methods these days as those who simply complain about presumed exploitation whenever it's mentioned a minority is cast or takes part of a show and you might understand that some people do not understand why this is a reason to make a wave in the first place instead of simply wait for whatever it is that's coming your way. It can be beneficial to send signals of inclusion to minorities, especially in this day. That says, as you rightfully pointed out, nothing about the content of the show. But just take it like that, it won't diminish your enjoyment of the show or your dislike if it sucks. But the mere mention of a minority is so often treated as a mere marketing stunt that some people's sole existance is reduced to "pandering to someone". Why not just let something go that doesn't affect one instead of writing blogs all over the internet how Star Trek is ruined by "SJW" - these are different times. Advertising any of the former shows with the inclusion of a homosexual character wouldn't have worked as even ENT in 2002 felt the need to tip-toe around the topic.
Simply mentioning diversity doesn't make a good show, nobody is arguing with that. And I hope nobody assumes that belonging to a minority automatically makes you part of some homogenous community that share the exact same views. And yes, the contrary effect is also true, a show or movie advertised as a success of diversity (see also Wonder Woman) can very much damage the reputation of whatever they think they're supporting. But what happened here in this case doesn't affect anything, just wait and see wether the show will be good instead of raging so long about a topic not affecting anyone really is hardly distinguishable from rantings of bigots. The cited article in the OP brings forth the argument of "real" society doesn't have the procentual amount of minorities the show places in it's cast and thus that's inappropriate. This is not a valid complaint and in the best case the person saying it and those agreeing with it are simply oblivious to how this sounds and what it implies and in the worst case they're thinly veiling their "white male discontent" about how things look "today".
Do you remember "Klingongate" in STO? Cryptic did not advertise the single dialogue line that might imply homosexual Klingons in "House Pech", yet it spawned a shameful outbreak of a lot of people on this forum, including the conclusion that a certain user couldn't let their kids play the game any more if implications of homosexuality were present. And those opinions are found in the lines of people now making a wave about minorities in Discovery. If you really cannot understand what damage this might cause I'm not sure what else to say. This is the whole point.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Tbh ents them song sounded like a really bad bryan adams tribute band ,and bryan adams was detestible an almost was considered a sneak attack by canada lol
In any case, the trailer does appear to be pandering. So? If it's good Trek the cast and crew could be tri-gendered serial polygamists for all I care. Non-traditional Klingons? It's been done. Non-traditional sets? Also been done. Nothing new here. Box-checking by coorporate bosses? Old hat, and expected by now after a century of censorship.
What does Discovery have that's new?
I hope it's awesome. I hope it does well enough to make a second season. I hope it's good Trek.