Latest fan-theory (after tonight's episode, which I did not watch and will not watch) is that TRIBBLE is the mirror-universe.
As a fan of the Mirror Universe, I must inform you, we do not want this cluster**** and formally demand the prime universe fans suck it and keep it maintained to their universe.
Love
Mirror Universe fans.
P.S. Perhaps the Kelvin timeline fans will take one for team trek.
Latest fan-theory (after tonight's episode, which I did not watch and will not watch) is that TRIBBLE is the mirror-universe.
Well, then, that's what you get for being ill-informed, LOL... because the way I look at it, the ending of last night's episode only proves that this is in the Prime Timeline.
Aside from the pesky fact that the Terran Empire was already established in the 22nd century, so Discovery can't be in the Mirror universe.
Interesting disparity between critics and audience for both ST:D and The Orville:
Star Trek: Discovery
Critics 74-4.6 Audience - Metacritic
Critics 85- 59 Audience - Rotten Tomatoes
Orville
Critics 36-8.2 Audience - Metacritic
Critics 19- 92 Audience - Rotten Tomatoes
Orville appeals to TNG nostalgia, trying to be 90's Trek.
Discovery is the better show that's trying to be 21st century Trek.
The problem is that some Trek fans want a new Star Trek show that feels exactly like a 90's Star Trek show. 90's TNG Trek sci-fi writing, 90's TNG Trek character drama (none), 90's TNG Trek sets, 90's TNG Trek direction, TNG's lack of drama, 90's Trek episodic stories.
It's like when TNG was first broadcasted, fans whined about how it wasn't TOS and how people were cardboard cutouts. To be fair though, it was season one of TNG.
I mean if this were TNG being broadcasted for the first time we'd have had "Encounter at Farpoint", "The Naked Now", "Code of Honor" and "The Last Outpost". Yeah sorry, Discovery is leaps and bounds better than season 1 of TNG, not to mention Voyager, Enterprise and DS9. Only TOS had a better start.
It's exactly the same problem Doctor Who fans had when new Who started. Some wanted a Doctor Who show that was more or less exactly like the one they enjoyed back in the old days.
Discovery is the better show that's trying to be 21st century Trek.
Wrong. Star Trek: Discovery is trying to be Game of Thrones meets Stargate: Universe. It is not "better". It is "different". It does not appeal to the existing fan base (as seen on the aggregate sites) and instead is trying to make a brand new audience from scratch. Which it is struggling to do since it is locked behind premium pay services.
The problem is that some Trek fans want a new Star Trek show that feels exactly like a 90's Star Trek show. 90's TNG Trek sci-fi writing, 90's TNG Trek character drama (none), 90's TNG Trek sets, 90's TNG Trek direction, TNG's lack of drama, 90's Trek episodic stories.
Feel free to focus entirely on the negative while not actually addressing the stated concerns of "fans". What is that called? "Strawman"?
Star Trek: Discovery shows a bleak, awful future where most humans are total garbage because "drama". Somewhere, offscreen, actually likeable characters are doing things we, the audience, never see. I'm glad this scratches your itch for "realistic Trek", but it actually detracts from the unique elements of Star Trek. There are already plenty of "dark" and "gritty" sci-fi settings. The best Star Trek: Discovery can do is add swear words and a higher body count to Stargate: Universe.
It's exactly the same problem Doctor Who fans had when new Who started. Some wanted a Doctor Who show that was more or less exactly like the one they enjoyed back in the old days.
I see nothing wrong with wanting MORE of what you ENJOY. If the writers, directors and producers cannot deliver on that, then leave it alone. Telling your audience to "get used to" the taste of New Coke is stupid.
Well with TRIBBLE the whole lack of a moral compass on the Federations part is a huge let down and frankly true Star Trek fans should be raising hell over what is being done as far as that goes. I wish someone had sent CBS the link to the TOS era writers guide as that covers the the time period that Discovery is set in. One last thing I see folks calling Orville a comedy that says they have not even watched it beyond episode one. It is very much like TOS and the later seasons of STTNG with some humor and some very serious story lines. Watch Episode 3 that is worthy of any Trek series. Currently with episode 6 they set forth a question of what was the moral thing to do in a no win situation. Ignore the comedy and watch the story it will open your eyes.
I agree, the Orville has some very solid stories to tell however the episodic format requires them to be resolved in one episode which feels rushed but ultimately you get the point. Discovery's format feels like we're not going anywhere simce we have a continuing story, yet still give basic exposition every episode so far (third time explanation how the magic mushroom drive works, third exposè in "Klingon" culture - which would be unnecessary if they hadn't written completely different Aliens but called them Klingons. We would have been familiar for pinks sake).
^ 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
Discovery is the better show that's trying to be 21st century Trek.
Wrong. Star Trek: Discovery is trying to be Game of Thrones meets Stargate: Universe. It is not "better". It is "different". It does not appeal to the existing fan base (as seen on the aggregate sites) and instead is trying to make a brand new audience from scratch. Which it is struggling to do since it is locked behind premium pay services.
The problem is that some Trek fans want a new Star Trek show that feels exactly like a 90's Star Trek show. 90's TNG Trek sci-fi writing, 90's TNG Trek character drama (none), 90's TNG Trek sets, 90's TNG Trek direction, TNG's lack of drama, 90's Trek episodic stories.
Feel free to focus entirely on the negative while not actually addressing the stated concerns of "fans". What is that called? "Strawman"?
Star Trek: Discovery shows a bleak, awful future where most humans are total garbage because "drama". Somewhere, offscreen, actually likeable characters are doing things we, the audience, never see. I'm glad this scratches your itch for "realistic Trek", but it actually detracts from the unique elements of Star Trek. There are already plenty of "dark" and "gritty" sci-fi settings. The best Star Trek: Discovery can do is add swear words and a higher body count to Stargate: Universe.
It's exactly the same problem Doctor Who fans had when new Who started. Some wanted a Doctor Who show that was more or less exactly like the one they enjoyed back in the old days.
I see nothing wrong with wanting MORE of what you ENJOY. If the writers, directors and producers cannot deliver on that, then leave it alone. Telling your audience to "get used to" the taste of New Coke is stupid.
what's more to the point, is that Discovery doesn't do Dark and Gritty WELL either.
The writing is like someone with no experience trying to copy Frank Miller's style in a Trek parody, after reading the trek Wikipedia for half an hour and never, ever, ever, lowering themselves to actually watching the original shows.
as an ORIGINAL series, it would not and does not stand up on it's own. These critics that give it positive reviews? they don't watch science fiction, or read it, outside of what they have to do to give it 2 1/2 stars for their columns. The positive rating is for the name, and some for how much was spent to make the CGI scenes look awesum.
and tehre's a critical indicator...
the actual parody show (The Orville) has a higher audience score, with a lower critics score, than the official 'trek' show made with a higher budget, more big names that are bigger names, with a longer development lead-time.
The worst Trek, the first two seasons of Enterprise had more positive audience response than 59%. And that was a show crippled with a lame-**** title track and a tenth the budget (Adjusted for inflation).
If you took the name "Star Trek" away and renamed everything , with the same scripts and the same actors and even the same budget, ST:D is a failure-the characters are unsympathetic, unlikeable, and incompetent-including the heroes. If you took the budget away and kept the name, it would fail for the same exact reasons and it would fail if you did both.
because there's nothing really 'there' to like.
The Orville presents viewers with Likeable main characters, and while it's only a comedy, it does the comedy well. Little clue here that's been proven over, and over, and over again: if you can't do comedy, your drama's going to suck. Seriously. some of the funniest **** you'll ever read was written by Harlan Ellison, Stephen King, and other notables in the HORROR genre.
Likewise, some of the scariest **** you'll ever read, was written by notable comedy authors, and on the screen, could you honestly claim "The Cable Guy" wasn't skin-crawling creepy? If you can do comedy, you can do Drama. If you can't do funny, your drama will be one-note and bland.
Like Discovery.
Good stuff.
Critics I never pay attention to, they serve no purpose to me.
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.
Comments
As a fan of the Mirror Universe, I must inform you, we do not want this cluster**** and formally demand the prime universe fans suck it and keep it maintained to their universe.
Love
Mirror Universe fans.
P.S. Perhaps the Kelvin timeline fans will take one for team trek.
Well, then, that's what you get for being ill-informed, LOL... because the way I look at it, the ending of last night's episode only proves that this is in the Prime Timeline.
Aside from the pesky fact that the Terran Empire was already established in the 22nd century, so Discovery can't be in the Mirror universe.
Sorry.
My character Tsin'xing
Star Trek: Discovery
- Critics 74-4.6 Audience - Metacritic
- Critics 85- 59 Audience - Rotten Tomatoes
OrvilleMy character Tsin'xing
Orville appeals to TNG nostalgia, trying to be 90's Trek.
Discovery is the better show that's trying to be 21st century Trek.
The problem is that some Trek fans want a new Star Trek show that feels exactly like a 90's Star Trek show. 90's TNG Trek sci-fi writing, 90's TNG Trek character drama (none), 90's TNG Trek sets, 90's TNG Trek direction, TNG's lack of drama, 90's Trek episodic stories.
It's like when TNG was first broadcasted, fans whined about how it wasn't TOS and how people were cardboard cutouts. To be fair though, it was season one of TNG.
I mean if this were TNG being broadcasted for the first time we'd have had "Encounter at Farpoint", "The Naked Now", "Code of Honor" and "The Last Outpost". Yeah sorry, Discovery is leaps and bounds better than season 1 of TNG, not to mention Voyager, Enterprise and DS9. Only TOS had a better start.
It's exactly the same problem Doctor Who fans had when new Who started. Some wanted a Doctor Who show that was more or less exactly like the one they enjoyed back in the old days.
Daizen - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Selia - Lvl 60 Tactical - Eclipse
Wrong. Star Trek: Discovery is trying to be Game of Thrones meets Stargate: Universe. It is not "better". It is "different". It does not appeal to the existing fan base (as seen on the aggregate sites) and instead is trying to make a brand new audience from scratch. Which it is struggling to do since it is locked behind premium pay services.
Feel free to focus entirely on the negative while not actually addressing the stated concerns of "fans". What is that called? "Strawman"?
Star Trek: Discovery shows a bleak, awful future where most humans are total garbage because "drama". Somewhere, offscreen, actually likeable characters are doing things we, the audience, never see. I'm glad this scratches your itch for "realistic Trek", but it actually detracts from the unique elements of Star Trek. There are already plenty of "dark" and "gritty" sci-fi settings. The best Star Trek: Discovery can do is add swear words and a higher body count to Stargate: Universe.
I see nothing wrong with wanting MORE of what you ENJOY. If the writers, directors and producers cannot deliver on that, then leave it alone. Telling your audience to "get used to" the taste of New Coke is stupid.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Critics I never pay attention to, they serve no purpose to me.
As was said, everyone has different tastes.
Nothing sexualized about it, sir.
I think he was happy someone agreed with him
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.