The problem with your sources is a lack of actual numbers.
The Variety article claims that the "mobile app" doubled it's "mobile revenue". As of October 1st, this comes to $60,000 according to the same article. Star Trek:Discovery is spending over 8 million dollars per episode. 60K not going to cut it. The Forbes and Polygon articles are editorial pieces that also have no numbers. Just a couple of writers talking about the show.
Let's compare some more numbers. the Nielsen ratings has the Star Trek: Discovery "two part pilot" at 1.9 among adults 18-49 while the Orville is 2.8 among adults 18-49 (per Deadline's final count. The ratings were significantly delayed due to hurricane Irma: http://deadline.com/2017/09/the-orville-premiere-rating-ties-this-is-us-the-mick-1202168714/ ). Star Trek: Discovery opened to 9.6 million viewers while the Orville opened to 8.6. Since moving to Thursdays, the Orville has seen it's numbers drop to 4.1 million views per episode. We have no numbers from CBS as to how many subscribers chose to renew their accounts for All Access when their free trial expired.
So the Orville had a higher audience approval than Star Trek: Discovery (as seen from multiple sources) and had it's numbers drop by half when moved to Thursday. With a much lower audience approval, it stands to reason that when the "free trial" expires, Star Trek: Discovery will have an even larger audience drop (assuming all those new CBS All Access accounts were there for Star Trek: Discovery as CBS has suggested). This is further reinforced by the fact that CBS All Access and Showtime "premium service" combined have less than 4 million viewers following the premiere of Star Trek: Discovery. After Star Trek: Discovery's premiere, the only way for the numbers to go, is down. This trend is common in television and movies. At this point, viewers either like Star Trek: Discovery or they don't.
It is possible that once the entire season has aired, viewers will buy the DVDs or get a subscription to "binge watch" the program, which will cause a larger influx of viewers for a season 2. It is also possible that CBS will air another show that get's more viewers to subscribe, and they check out Star Trek: Discovery and become regular viewers. These won't increase Star Trek: Discovery's viewer counts now.
thing is, we don't have Discovery's viewer counts. There's the domestic CBS all-access part, but the show was financed by Netflix for offshore release, and unless the numbers look GOOD, no company run worth a damn is going to admit to less-than stellar numbers.
Best indicator is renewal, and Discovery's not been canceled, the last public word was a second-season was greenlit.
That, right there, is a better indicator than tossing statistics we don't have solid access to. it's doing well-as in well enough to be renewed for next season before this season's even finished airing.
at least, supposedly.
The second season was coming before season 1 was launched, that was the unofficial word from those running Discovery at the time so it isn't a secret. They had always intended season 1 to be a season long arc about the Klingon war and its conclusion and season 2 would be less about the serious arcing storylines and more on the general exploration of Star Trek. Season 3 is the question mark, that will tell after or during season 2 (Speculated to be out in 2019) where Discovery is going next. You should focus your efforts around or after season 2 to find out.
I read up somewhere a month ago the numbers for the first episode was 9.5 million viewers, unknown if it is demestic or worldwide (i don't remember where exactly).
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
thing is, we don't have Discovery's viewer counts. There's the domestic CBS all-access part, but the show was financed by Netflix for offshore release, and unless the numbers look GOOD, no company run worth a damn is going to admit to less-than stellar numbers.
Ah, I did not take into account the Netflix viewers. In that light, Star Trek: Discovery could have steady or even higher counts, as bored viewers decide to "surf what's new". I think my points on CBS All Access still stand (which is where the American audience will see it).
That is the last official word on "season 2" as of now. Given that Netflix paid for the entire first season, I think it highly likely that a second season will be approved.
Why CBS has not gotten the ball rolling is a mystery, since each episode takes 3-4 months to shoot and edit. It's why Fuller and Kurtzman initially wanted each season to be 10 to 12 episodes, but CBS ended up telling them to make 15 for season 1. It is also why there is a "break" in the middle of season 1 and you can expect a similar "break" in upcoming seasons. It just takes longer to make these kinds of cinematic episodes.
At this rate, it may be late 2019 before season 2 premieres.
thing is, we don't have Discovery's viewer counts. There's the domestic CBS all-access part, but the show was financed by Netflix for offshore release, and unless the numbers look GOOD, no company run worth a damn is going to admit to less-than stellar numbers.
Ah, I did not take into account the Netflix viewers. In that light, Star Trek: Discovery could have steady or even higher counts, as bored viewers decide to "surf what's new". I think my points on CBS All Access still stand (which is where the American audience will see it).
That is the last official word on "season 2" as of now. Given that Netflix paid for the entire first season, I think it highly likely that a second season will be approved.
Why CBS has not gotten the ball rolling is a mystery, since each episode takes 3-4 months to shoot and edit. It's why Fuller and Kurtzman initially wanted each season to be 10 to 12 episodes, but CBS ended up telling them to make 15 for season 1. It is also why there is a "break" in the middle of season 1 and you can expect a similar "break" in upcoming seasons. It just takes longer to make these kinds of cinematic episodes.
At this rate, it may be late 2019 before season 2 premieres.
Season 1 production is already finished, those running Discovery it will have plenty of time to come up with something good for season 2.
T6 Miranda Hero Ship FTW. Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Season 1 production is already finished, those running Discovery it will have plenty of time to come up with something good for season 2.
I'm not sure what you are saying here.
Season one "production" is not finished. Filming finished on Oct 12th. Post production of the final episode may go until December.
The show's creators have already said they have ideas for season two. Kurtzman said it took 3 to 4 months to make an episode. So, in one year, they would have 3 or 4 episodes finished. That means a year and a half to make a "half season". So, the sooner they get started, the sooner they will have a "half season" to air.
It is possible that CBS is waiting for the stockholder's meeting in November to announce the "greenlight" on a season 2. They are also expected to reveal viewer numbers for Star Trek: Discovery and numbers on All Access membership at the November meeting, so maybe they want to do it all at once to impress investors.
Clearly, ST-fans can't be pleased unless you give them exact copies of what they've already seen a million times.
Voyager was a poor TNG-Imitation with a premise that was destroyed by terrible storywriting. But people loved it. No big controversial discussions about that.
ENT was another Imitation of the ST-formula that simply didn't work anymore. Fanbase was slightly divided about it, but because it still followed an aging formula, people were okay with it.
Enter 2009...
That incarnation of ST was so different from previous ones that it was not Trek enough for the hardcore-fanbase.
And with DIS it's similar.
The old formula doesn't work anymore. Modern TV-audiences are used to a different kind of thing now. DIS wants to be a modern incarnation made for modern audiences. Hardcore-fans bash the hell out of it because it's too different.
Ironically, Star Trek always was about welcoming things that are different. Even if it tried to kill you, try to be nice. Make old enemies new friends.
The new Star Trek is actually new? TRIBBLE it. That's not what we want. It's no comfortable jacket I've been wearing for years or decades. Even Picard said that this kind of thinking is dangerous.
I've seen people nitpick about whatever they can find. My only personal Problem with DIS is that I find the Klingons a bit too different. I liked the passionate, laughing, drinking and expressive klingons from previous incarnations a lot more. They're too monsterfied and too unrelateable now. However, this decision was made fairly consciously and I can accept that. The Klingons are still more or less klingons as in 'largely still in-character'.
Other alien characters are done surprisingly well though. On the trailers I thought Saru was a mess, but that was because of missing context.
eh, Saru's makeup is pretty good, and if the writing was better than slashfic.net, might even accept the other redecorations.
but it isn't, which makes the changes a major irritant.
I was not talking about make-up or visuals here. More like the trailers made his race seem like a stupid concept but with the added context it made sense for him to say stuff like that.
Voyager was a poor TNG-Imitation with a premise that was destroyed by terrible storywriting. But people loved it. No big controversial discussions about that.
The initial premise was to have conflict between the maquis and Starfleet. They canned that because it was weird and the hack writers could not pull it off. People loved several characters on Star Trek: Voyager but make no mistake. There was plenty of criticism of the writing on that show. Mostly how the writers thought "science" was taught at Hogwarts.
ENT was another Imitation of the ST-formula that simply didn't work anymore. Fanbase was slightly divided about it, but because it still followed an aging formula, people were okay with it.
Star Trek:Enterprise is when they started retconning things. Also, most of the characters were not as good as the ones on Star Trek: Voyager. I did not like ENT.
And with DIS it's similar.
The old formula doesn't work anymore. Modern TV-audiences are used to a different kind of thing now. DIS wants to be a modern incarnation made for modern audiences. Hardcore-fans bash the hell out of it because it's too different.
That's cool. Star Trek: Discovery can be whatever it wan'ts and tell it's viewers "things can't be like that anymore"... while The Orville, a freaking parody, is better received. Methinks that the ye olde Trekky formula has some legs yet. Everyone is too busy trying to sell us New Coke though.
Ironically, Star Trek always was about welcoming things that are different. Even if it tried to kill you, try to be nice. Make old enemies new friends.
Using deceit, torture or cannibalism? That is how Trek is portrayed in Star Trek:Discovery. Get with the times, man. Stop referring to old busted Trek here.
Welcoming new ideas is for those who can afford to. This is WAR! We must destroy our enemies using whatever is at our disposal. Our principles are meaningless in times of war. Hell, principles have to be the first things to abandon because they are a liability!
The new Star Trek is actually new? **** it. That's not what we want. It's no comfortable jacket I've been wearing for years or decades. Even Picard said that this kind of thinking is dangerous.
Yeah Picard was right. Diplomacy is for chumps. Best to shoot first, then take them as sex slaves.
Seriously though I guess you've misinterpreted quite a few things I've tried to say.
No offense here, but what I was trying to say through a few metaphores is simply that DIS can do whatever it wants but all the so-called hardcore-fans are going to bash it no matter what happens because it's too different from what they're comfy with.
I think that's a shame. That's why I think it's a Kobayashi Maru. It's better than people make it out to be, but also in a no-win-scenario-spot.
There are very few 'stupid concepts', only 'stupid execution'. for example, "Sensing death" really comes off as a subconscious way of counting the odds, rather than some funkee psychic powerz bullcrap.
That's actually good execution.
One of the major problems a few of us have, is those good executions are vanishingly tertiary, while the primary story writing and focus are incredible for being such BAD executions, esp. given the pedigree both of the writers, and teh actors who have to say those lines.
The stupidity of the concept would have come from the specific line given in the trailer when Saru said his species would have one purpose only, to sense the coming of death.
Out of context, this simply made no sense at all. A species with only this specific purpose would have a questionable reason to (still) exist at all. Luckily, the show delivered a context that actually makes Saru relateable, and kinda likeable.
Now, good execution is something we can agree to disagree on. I've already had numerous discussions about this with friends and other people in person, on various topics.
My favourite example in Trek about bad execution are Voyager, Enterprise and all the TNG-movies.
Voyager because of its writing. The premise and its characters were completely messed up. The premise was to have a federation ship stranded and helpless in some remote part of the galaxy that's unexplored. So far so good. Could have made for an awsome show. But the writing simply wasn't up to or didn't keep up with it. They chose the cheap route and made Voyager a bad Imitation of TNG. Even though they sometimes throw in lines about replicator-rations, or limited supplies here and there, it never *feels* like they actually are undersupplied. In fact, for being stranded, Voyager is in fairly good shape throughout the entire show. If they'd not always spell out that they want to get home, you'd forget they are far away from home.
Having to spell out things because otherwise the audience wouldn't notice is bad execution of terrible writing.
Generations had the same problem, but worse. It was a movie. A movie should deliver actual reference to what's at stake so the audience can relate to it and feel tension and drama. Instead, there was short mention of the population of one planet that would die if Soran would successully launch his doomsday-device. Do we get to see life on that planet? No. For the plot, it has absolutely no further meaning.
You get the idea.
Execution is indeed VERY important, but one of the major problems some of us have is that they're turning a blind eye to bad exection when it comes in handy to bash something that's different.
Seriously though I guess you've misinterpreted quite a few things I've tried to say.
No offense here, but what I was trying to say through a few metaphores is simply that DIS can do whatever it wants but all the so-called hardcore-fans are going to bash it no matter what happens because it's too different from what they're comfy with.
I think that's a shame. That's why I think it's a Kobayashi Maru. It's better than people make it out to be, but also in a no-win-scenario-spot.
A viewer is a 'fan' because there is something in the medium that appeals. Something that catches one's interest.
For many, it has to do with "worldbuilding". The idea that this sci-fi setting has it's own history, culture, and technology. That the show takes place in a wider universe where things happen 'offscreen'. That the events that happen 'offscreen' effect events 'onscreen'. Rather than being a random collection of poorly written short stories with little connection to each other, Star Trek is actually a collection of poorly written short stories that take place in an entire universe. A place with history and events that is intriguing and adds a level of depth to the setting, which makes the characters more enjoyable, more relate-able. It adds stakes to drama pieces. We have seen these places, know their history. It's why some fans cared when JJ blew up Romulus and Vulcan (it's actually the reason he blew them up. Cheap drama).
Inconsistencies cheapen this setting. They change it from an interesting universe to a product to be sold to whomever Ed in marketing said was the 'target audience'. When you re-write things in a fictional universe with it's own established history, it stops being something you can invest in. Whomever CBS hands the reigns to will want to 'make their mark' or be 'immortalized' or some nonsense. 'Bring Star Trek into the current year' by going backwards in time.
The only reason so many have issues with Star Trek: Discovery is because they going back in time to sell Biff Tannen a sports almenac. Stop that.
The successful formula for Star Trek: "Don't retcon things. Add new stuff to the Trek Universe". Easier to do that when you don't go back in time or redefine what a "Klingon" is. For the record, I did not like Star Trek: Enterprise either.
The successful formula for Star Trek: "Don't retcon things. Add new stuff to the Trek Universe". Easier to do that when you don't go back in time or redefine what a "Klingon" is. For the record, I did not like Star Trek: Enterprise either.
No idea what you're watching, but it can't be Star Trek as Star Trek has changed things and retconned stuff since practically day one.
But ya don't change a ship design for a D7 with what looks like a Romulan Miracle Worker ship and expect everyone to go, "got it, cool!" no.
I personally think that Discovery's high budget is its greatest enemy. Star Trek has always been an expensive show to make which means it has to work that much harder to turn a profit. Discovery has raised that bar even higher, which means typical Trek-level viewership and merchandise sales aren't going to be enough to sustain this show in the long term. Regardless to how the shows staff feels about the project, it still ultimately has to make the company a profit or they won't hesitate to pull the plug.
But ya don't change a ship design for a D7 with what looks like a Romulan Miracle Worker ship and expect everyone to go, "got it, cool!" no.
They *needed* to do this. DIS is meant for all audiences and not exclusively for people that watched Star Trek before. Which is also one of the reasons why the KT-ships look so much more modern than they "should have".
I agree that the designs are *radically* different in DIS, but what's the matter? The things that we as fans remember are not taken away, they just look different in this particular show. The visuals of the show are fine.
I find it a lot more important that the tone and the writing can keep up. And from my perspective, both feels right. A modern Star Trek simply can't be made like TNG anymore. The Alien-of-the-week-formula aged terribly, Battlestar Galactica's remake was the final proof of that. Modern Sci-Fi-audiences wanted a cinematic and serialized story. That show outranked Enterprise big time, even though Enterprise was broadcast publically while BSG was not.
Even Voyager had fairly low quotes, it never came close to DS9 or TNG.
DIS is simply a modern Star Trek with decent writing and thus, it gets all the bashing by so-called "hardcore-fans" that on one hand want Star Trek back but then don't accept changes that are somewhat necessary.
And trekyards is not exactly an authority on the matter either. They're just two geeks discussing designs from sci-fi with a strong focus on ST, but they hardly deliver useful insight or facts. They only tell their audience what *they* like or dislike about this or that ship. "Too much out of the box for me" is clear evidence that he simply doesn't like the design because it's different-looking. That's not a valid point.
The original D7 doesn't even look like a very effective battlecruiser at all. It looks too fragile and not very alien. With the warp-nacelles on it, the original could even be mistaken for a starfleet-ship by a newcomer, especially if you'd add the original paintjob.
You can tell a story in a different way without changing the characters or the same setting. The setting and the characters/props are not constrained by ONE way of telling stories. There was no need to change objects and parts of the setting...
Nothing was stopping them from bringing in new objects that can easily fit in the setting without changing the stories that came before.
Nothing was stopping them from bringing in new characters that can exist in the setting without changing the stories that came before.
Nothing was stopping them from making new stories that doesn't have to change anything about the setting, the objects that exist, and the people that live in it.
I think they thought it was trying to adhere to the same aesthetic of the aliens, of the technology (ships) that it was why Voyager and ENT didn't do well. Who know what were they thinking about retconning the Klingons and their ships?
All I can figure is that TPTB have no lick of what make great storytelling.
LMFAO....oh my.....that is horrible, even the mighty D-7 has been disfigured by this TRIBBLE.
You mean, the cheap D7-model that was built with very low budget was actually made into a capable-looking warship that actually seems somewhat non-human. The original D7-design only means something to TOS-fans that actually cared about the alien ships back then. Modern non-trekkie-audiences which also happen to be a huge target-audience for DIS would not be impressed by the original D7-design, even if it'd be beefed up like in the Kelvin Timeline.
No, the original design is an iconic part of Star Trek.
It's iconic for a minority among the hardcore-fans. Star Trek has always been federation-centered and the open passion for klingon ships came with the movies... specifically the Bird of Prey, not the K'T'inga. The D7 is iconic because of the later cult-status of TOS. SOME fans like the design, including me. But I understand that it's simply not suited for a modern audience.
Imagine you have someone that has NEVER EVER seen Star Trek.
You show that person the original Enterprise and the original klingon D7 on the same spot and think away the hull-markings and insignia.
Yes, that person could tell that they look a bit different, but would be uncertain if they belong to the same fleet or faction or different ones. The romulan BoP from Balance of Terror would be in the same boat if you added that one too.
All three ships are grey.
All three ships have some sort of dual engine-pod-system, two of them are mostly rounded with only the D7 having more edges but still like a spherical front with a half-rounded plate on it.
All three of them have some sort of "tower" somewhat in the middle of the rounded structure-parts.
The only clear indication of faction on the iconic TOS-ships are hull-markings and insignia.
It would be a very ineffective visual language for today's standards.
You're sitting here acting like the Discovery is some new design. It isn't. It was created by Ralph McQuarrie in the mid-1970s.
Of course the conceptual design was not new. What I'm referring to as 'new' though is, that this concept made it to the screen as the lead-ship and namesake of the show. That's new and bold, as aside from two study-models that were put in backgrounds (Earth spacedock and space-junkyard) that concept was never used.
Some of the pictures you posted are impressive and I know what you're aiming at and I get your point, however no matter how much we are going to discuss this, it won't change anything. CBS is not a democracy and neither Trek-fans nor Sci-Fi/casual audiences were voting on how the new incarnation of Trek will look like. And there is no "as it should"... DIS is its own thing. For now it plays in a largely unreferenced timeframe of the prime-timeline, so the lore should be fine.
Personally I like the visuals and have no problem with canonical designs looking radically different. Good for me, because CBS ain't going to change that. The train is rolling with or without fan-approval.
Here is MadoiFish's version of D-7 style ship that illustrates PERFECTLY what I'm trying to get across here (and probably butchering. )
It's an awsome design. Yes. It's perfectly klingon the way we're used to. Yes. It'd perfectly fit into that timeframe, yes. Will CBS change their current designs now because of awsome fanart? No. DIS's first season is already wrapped.
With all that backlash from the fans I truly hope the general audience receives it well enough so CBS can justify a second season.
Darn it, I wish I had found this before I made that long post above.
I knew he made this version of a Klingon Battlecruiser for the Pre-TOS era, but I kept using bad key-words.
Here is MadoiFish's version of D-7 style ship that illustrates PERFECTLY what I'm trying to get across here (and probably butchering. )
Comments
Since I am a horrible human being, prone to jealousy, my immediate thoughts were "She gave the devs cookies, didn't she?".
The second season was coming before season 1 was launched, that was the unofficial word from those running Discovery at the time so it isn't a secret. They had always intended season 1 to be a season long arc about the Klingon war and its conclusion and season 2 would be less about the serious arcing storylines and more on the general exploration of Star Trek. Season 3 is the question mark, that will tell after or during season 2 (Speculated to be out in 2019) where Discovery is going next. You should focus your efforts around or after season 2 to find out.
I read up somewhere a month ago the numbers for the first episode was 9.5 million viewers, unknown if it is demestic or worldwide (i don't remember where exactly).
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Star Trek: Discovery has not yet been approved for a second season.
Alex Kurtzman had an interview in late September in which he discussed the possibility: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/star-trek-discovery-boss-gets-candid-big-delays-season-2-1042520
That is the last official word on "season 2" as of now. Given that Netflix paid for the entire first season, I think it highly likely that a second season will be approved.
Why CBS has not gotten the ball rolling is a mystery, since each episode takes 3-4 months to shoot and edit. It's why Fuller and Kurtzman initially wanted each season to be 10 to 12 episodes, but CBS ended up telling them to make 15 for season 1. It is also why there is a "break" in the middle of season 1 and you can expect a similar "break" in upcoming seasons. It just takes longer to make these kinds of cinematic episodes.
At this rate, it may be late 2019 before season 2 premieres.
Season 1 production is already finished, those running Discovery it will have plenty of time to come up with something good for season 2.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Season one "production" is not finished. Filming finished on Oct 12th. Post production of the final episode may go until December.
The show's creators have already said they have ideas for season two. Kurtzman said it took 3 to 4 months to make an episode. So, in one year, they would have 3 or 4 episodes finished. That means a year and a half to make a "half season". So, the sooner they get started, the sooner they will have a "half season" to air.
It is possible that CBS is waiting for the stockholder's meeting in November to announce the "greenlight" on a season 2. They are also expected to reveal viewer numbers for Star Trek: Discovery and numbers on All Access membership at the November meeting, so maybe they want to do it all at once to impress investors.
Voyager was a poor TNG-Imitation with a premise that was destroyed by terrible storywriting. But people loved it. No big controversial discussions about that.
ENT was another Imitation of the ST-formula that simply didn't work anymore. Fanbase was slightly divided about it, but because it still followed an aging formula, people were okay with it.
Enter 2009...
That incarnation of ST was so different from previous ones that it was not Trek enough for the hardcore-fanbase.
And with DIS it's similar.
The old formula doesn't work anymore. Modern TV-audiences are used to a different kind of thing now. DIS wants to be a modern incarnation made for modern audiences. Hardcore-fans bash the hell out of it because it's too different.
Ironically, Star Trek always was about welcoming things that are different. Even if it tried to kill you, try to be nice. Make old enemies new friends.
The new Star Trek is actually new? TRIBBLE it. That's not what we want. It's no comfortable jacket I've been wearing for years or decades. Even Picard said that this kind of thinking is dangerous.
I've seen people nitpick about whatever they can find. My only personal Problem with DIS is that I find the Klingons a bit too different. I liked the passionate, laughing, drinking and expressive klingons from previous incarnations a lot more. They're too monsterfied and too unrelateable now. However, this decision was made fairly consciously and I can accept that. The Klingons are still more or less klingons as in 'largely still in-character'.
Other alien characters are done surprisingly well though. On the trailers I thought Saru was a mess, but that was because of missing context.
I was not talking about make-up or visuals here. More like the trailers made his race seem like a stupid concept but with the added context it made sense for him to say stuff like that.
The initial premise was to have conflict between the maquis and Starfleet. They canned that because it was weird and the hack writers could not pull it off. People loved several characters on Star Trek: Voyager but make no mistake. There was plenty of criticism of the writing on that show. Mostly how the writers thought "science" was taught at Hogwarts.
Star Trek:Enterprise is when they started retconning things. Also, most of the characters were not as good as the ones on Star Trek: Voyager. I did not like ENT.
Also, it was an "origin story". With a generic mad-man for a villain and a plot full of stupid.
That's cool. Star Trek: Discovery can be whatever it wan'ts and tell it's viewers "things can't be like that anymore"... while The Orville, a freaking parody, is better received. Methinks that the ye olde Trekky formula has some legs yet. Everyone is too busy trying to sell us New Coke though.
Using deceit, torture or cannibalism? That is how Trek is portrayed in Star Trek:Discovery. Get with the times, man. Stop referring to old busted Trek here.
Welcoming new ideas is for those who can afford to. This is WAR! We must destroy our enemies using whatever is at our disposal. Our principles are meaningless in times of war. Hell, principles have to be the first things to abandon because they are a liability!
Yeah Picard was right. Diplomacy is for chumps. Best to shoot first, then take them as sex slaves.
There's too much interference, captain.
Seriously though I guess you've misinterpreted quite a few things I've tried to say.
No offense here, but what I was trying to say through a few metaphores is simply that DIS can do whatever it wants but all the so-called hardcore-fans are going to bash it no matter what happens because it's too different from what they're comfy with.
I think that's a shame. That's why I think it's a Kobayashi Maru. It's better than people make it out to be, but also in a no-win-scenario-spot.
The stupidity of the concept would have come from the specific line given in the trailer when Saru said his species would have one purpose only, to sense the coming of death.
Out of context, this simply made no sense at all. A species with only this specific purpose would have a questionable reason to (still) exist at all. Luckily, the show delivered a context that actually makes Saru relateable, and kinda likeable.
Now, good execution is something we can agree to disagree on. I've already had numerous discussions about this with friends and other people in person, on various topics.
My favourite example in Trek about bad execution are Voyager, Enterprise and all the TNG-movies.
Voyager because of its writing. The premise and its characters were completely messed up. The premise was to have a federation ship stranded and helpless in some remote part of the galaxy that's unexplored. So far so good. Could have made for an awsome show. But the writing simply wasn't up to or didn't keep up with it. They chose the cheap route and made Voyager a bad Imitation of TNG. Even though they sometimes throw in lines about replicator-rations, or limited supplies here and there, it never *feels* like they actually are undersupplied. In fact, for being stranded, Voyager is in fairly good shape throughout the entire show. If they'd not always spell out that they want to get home, you'd forget they are far away from home.
Having to spell out things because otherwise the audience wouldn't notice is bad execution of terrible writing.
Generations had the same problem, but worse. It was a movie. A movie should deliver actual reference to what's at stake so the audience can relate to it and feel tension and drama. Instead, there was short mention of the population of one planet that would die if Soran would successully launch his doomsday-device. Do we get to see life on that planet? No. For the plot, it has absolutely no further meaning.
You get the idea.
Execution is indeed VERY important, but one of the major problems some of us have is that they're turning a blind eye to bad exection when it comes in handy to bash something that's different.
For many, it has to do with "worldbuilding". The idea that this sci-fi setting has it's own history, culture, and technology. That the show takes place in a wider universe where things happen 'offscreen'. That the events that happen 'offscreen' effect events 'onscreen'. Rather than being a random collection of poorly written short stories with little connection to each other, Star Trek is actually a collection of poorly written short stories that take place in an entire universe. A place with history and events that is intriguing and adds a level of depth to the setting, which makes the characters more enjoyable, more relate-able. It adds stakes to drama pieces. We have seen these places, know their history. It's why some fans cared when JJ blew up Romulus and Vulcan (it's actually the reason he blew them up. Cheap drama).
Inconsistencies cheapen this setting. They change it from an interesting universe to a product to be sold to whomever Ed in marketing said was the 'target audience'. When you re-write things in a fictional universe with it's own established history, it stops being something you can invest in. Whomever CBS hands the reigns to will want to 'make their mark' or be 'immortalized' or some nonsense. 'Bring Star Trek into the current year' by going backwards in time.
The only reason so many have issues with Star Trek: Discovery is because they going back in time to sell Biff Tannen a sports almenac. Stop that.
The successful formula for Star Trek: "Don't retcon things. Add new stuff to the Trek Universe". Easier to do that when you don't go back in time or redefine what a "Klingon" is. For the record, I did not like Star Trek: Enterprise either.
But ya don't change a ship design for a D7 with what looks like a Romulan Miracle Worker ship and expect everyone to go, "got it, cool!" no.
They *needed* to do this. DIS is meant for all audiences and not exclusively for people that watched Star Trek before. Which is also one of the reasons why the KT-ships look so much more modern than they "should have".
I agree that the designs are *radically* different in DIS, but what's the matter? The things that we as fans remember are not taken away, they just look different in this particular show. The visuals of the show are fine.
I find it a lot more important that the tone and the writing can keep up. And from my perspective, both feels right. A modern Star Trek simply can't be made like TNG anymore. The Alien-of-the-week-formula aged terribly, Battlestar Galactica's remake was the final proof of that. Modern Sci-Fi-audiences wanted a cinematic and serialized story. That show outranked Enterprise big time, even though Enterprise was broadcast publically while BSG was not.
Even Voyager had fairly low quotes, it never came close to DS9 or TNG.
DIS is simply a modern Star Trek with decent writing and thus, it gets all the bashing by so-called "hardcore-fans" that on one hand want Star Trek back but then don't accept changes that are somewhat necessary.
And trekyards is not exactly an authority on the matter either. They're just two geeks discussing designs from sci-fi with a strong focus on ST, but they hardly deliver useful insight or facts. They only tell their audience what *they* like or dislike about this or that ship. "Too much out of the box for me" is clear evidence that he simply doesn't like the design because it's different-looking. That's not a valid point.
The original D7 doesn't even look like a very effective battlecruiser at all. It looks too fragile and not very alien. With the warp-nacelles on it, the original could even be mistaken for a starfleet-ship by a newcomer, especially if you'd add the original paintjob.
Nothing was stopping them from bringing in new objects that can easily fit in the setting without changing the stories that came before.
Nothing was stopping them from bringing in new characters that can exist in the setting without changing the stories that came before.
Nothing was stopping them from making new stories that doesn't have to change anything about the setting, the objects that exist, and the people that live in it.
I think they thought it was trying to adhere to the same aesthetic of the aliens, of the technology (ships) that it was why Voyager and ENT didn't do well. Who know what were they thinking about retconning the Klingons and their ships?
All I can figure is that TPTB have no lick of what make great storytelling.
You mean, the cheap D7-model that was built with very low budget was actually made into a capable-looking warship that actually seems somewhat non-human. The original D7-design only means something to TOS-fans that actually cared about the alien ships back then. Modern non-trekkie-audiences which also happen to be a huge target-audience for DIS would not be impressed by the original D7-design, even if it'd be beefed up like in the Kelvin Timeline.
It's iconic for a minority among the hardcore-fans. Star Trek has always been federation-centered and the open passion for klingon ships came with the movies... specifically the Bird of Prey, not the K'T'inga. The D7 is iconic because of the later cult-status of TOS. SOME fans like the design, including me. But I understand that it's simply not suited for a modern audience.
Imagine you have someone that has NEVER EVER seen Star Trek.
You show that person the original Enterprise and the original klingon D7 on the same spot and think away the hull-markings and insignia.
Yes, that person could tell that they look a bit different, but would be uncertain if they belong to the same fleet or faction or different ones. The romulan BoP from Balance of Terror would be in the same boat if you added that one too.
All three ships are grey.
All three ships have some sort of dual engine-pod-system, two of them are mostly rounded with only the D7 having more edges but still like a spherical front with a half-rounded plate on it.
All three of them have some sort of "tower" somewhat in the middle of the rounded structure-parts.
The only clear indication of faction on the iconic TOS-ships are hull-markings and insignia.
It would be a very ineffective visual language for today's standards.
Of course the conceptual design was not new. What I'm referring to as 'new' though is, that this concept made it to the screen as the lead-ship and namesake of the show. That's new and bold, as aside from two study-models that were put in backgrounds (Earth spacedock and space-junkyard) that concept was never used.
Some of the pictures you posted are impressive and I know what you're aiming at and I get your point, however no matter how much we are going to discuss this, it won't change anything. CBS is not a democracy and neither Trek-fans nor Sci-Fi/casual audiences were voting on how the new incarnation of Trek will look like. And there is no "as it should"... DIS is its own thing. For now it plays in a largely unreferenced timeframe of the prime-timeline, so the lore should be fine.
Personally I like the visuals and have no problem with canonical designs looking radically different. Good for me, because CBS ain't going to change that. The train is rolling with or without fan-approval.
It's an awsome design. Yes. It's perfectly klingon the way we're used to. Yes. It'd perfectly fit into that timeframe, yes. Will CBS change their current designs now because of awsome fanart? No. DIS's first season is already wrapped.
With all that backlash from the fans I truly hope the general audience receives it well enough so CBS can justify a second season.
My character Tsin'xing