I fall into the loath TRIBBLE category. It's one series I have absolutely no intention of ever wasting my money, bandwidth, or time on. As an aside, changing the Remans (as distinct from the Romulans) would be less of an issue given there are at least 2 versions around. As for Andorians being yellow, why would that be a problem? Sure making them all yellow would be, but humanity comes in many shades so why insist aliens must be monotone?
Andorians being yellow would only be a problem when the change from blue was gratuitous, and served no real purpose. If a story line demanded there be yellow Andorians too, then fine, but it would be wrong to just change all Andorians to yellow, just because JJ and his cronies -- or whatever jerk-du-jour -- felt the color was prettier, as it's spitting in the face of lore. Continuation and internal consistency are simply paramount (pun intended) to a well-established franchise.
*points at Aenar*
Why? The Aenar (weren't those the blind types?) are part of canon, next to the Andorians -- not as a retconned replacement thereof. Like there being multiple Reman types.
Yeah, it's apocryphal. There's a quote out there codifying the comparison but I wasn't able to find it through a quick scan of memory alpha's background info. It's probably more fair to say that they're like Samurai as appreciated by a mainstream TV audience from the 80's and 90's. See. honor, duels, deceit as a character failing (see. Duras), and a fixation on a very particular kind of weapon.
Apocryphal, at the very best. Headcanon, more like. And even if someone associated with Trek literally said so, it matters very little, as it's just a retconned, post-facto rationale anyway, to no longer think of Klingons as the old Russian enemy (after we allegedly won the war with the Russians -- at least the economical one -- as signified in The Undiscovered Country).
Trying to retcon a new inspirational background story for the Klingons does not imply (as you seem to suggest), that Klingons were truly changed in the series as well.
But it's not just a change of the background story. It's a change on how Klingons behave on screen.
In TNG and DS9, they seen to be constantly wielding Bat'leths into battle, and we don't see any TOS or TOS Movie Klingons wielding any. The Klingons in TOS are about serving their Empire, and don't mention "honor" as a primary motivation for their actions. They also don't act particularly honorful or honor-minded.
We can say it's a retcon, and it was always like that, or we can assume that the Klingon culture might have actually changed and is more complex than we've thought before.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Yeah, it's apocryphal. There's a quote out there codifying the comparison but I wasn't able to find it through a quick scan of memory alpha's background info. It's probably more fair to say that they're like Samurai as appreciated by a mainstream TV audience from the 80's and 90's. See. honor, duels, deceit as a character failing (see. Duras), and a fixation on a very particular kind of weapon.
Apocryphal, at the very best. Headcanon, more like. And even if someone associated with Trek literally said so, it matters very little, as it's just a retconned, post-facto rationale anyway, to no longer think of Klingons as the old Russian enemy (after we allegedly won the war with the Russians -- at least the economical one -- as signified in The Undiscovered Country).
Trying to retcon a new inspirational background story for the Klingons does not imply (as you seem to suggest), that Klingons were truly changed in the series as well.
But it's not just a change of the background story. It's a change on how Klingons behave on screen.
In TNG and DS9, they seen to be constantly wielding Bat'leths into battle, and we don't see any TOS or TOS Movie Klingons wielding any. The Klingons in TOS are about serving their Empire, and don't mention "honor" as a primary motivation for their actions. They also don't act particularly honorful or honor-minded.
You are not wrong about this. The TOS Klingons were not the honorable Klingons of TNG/DS9. They were also simply not well fleshed-out, I think (after all, they were simply meant to represent rather backward, rogue -- barbaric even -- Russians). TNG gave them much more depth. But it's true, TOS Klingons were different.
I don't know why people are so worked up about this. I mean, what's so wrong about another half a dozen or so missions in which we kill 2-3 groups of space enemies while pressing F on 1-3 glowy things, beam down and kill 3-5 groups of ground enemies interspersed with more glowy things to press F on, and then beam back up and kill another 2-3 groups of space enemies?
So no one is talking about the mechanics of the DLC system here in STO, what we are talking about is the tendency for CBS to attempt to keep the show in the minds of the people who love Star Trek not because it's a normal marketing practice, but because they know that fans of Star Trek will not remember or get excited about this show because of it's content. Instead of allowing the show to fail on it's own merit, it's being shoved in our faces here on our beloved game, a game which has so far been awesome about keeping alive REAL Star Trek Values.
TRIBBLE has no place in the 25th century, which is post ST Nemesis and post STV when Voyager arrived home. We returned to the Delta and Gamma Quadrants, we've had temporal dealings with an attempt to kill off the federation and destroy time itself. Why would a non-canon program that has demonstrated no respect or support for TOS much less any of the most recent lore suddenly appear in the 25th century trek game? The answer is quite simple and has nothing to do with lore or enjoyment.
I fail to see how Discovery is still considered non-canon, apart from stuff like the Klingon look, Michael Burnham being Spock's adopted sister, and the spore drive.
1. They name drop Jonathan Archer and Christopher Pike as being decorated captains, along side a character we first meet in TOS, Matthew Decker.
2. The USS Defiant having crossed over from TOS to the mirrorverse was shown in Enterprise. This connects the show to canon in my opinion.
3. In order to maintain the fact that Kirk's crew wouldn't know about the mirror universe, the knowledge of the mirror universe is classified unknown.
4. Pike is still the CO of the Enterprise and thus will be another canon character within the realm of Discovery in season 2.
Yeah, it's apocryphal. There's a quote out there codifying the comparison but I wasn't able to find it through a quick scan of memory alpha's background info. It's probably more fair to say that they're like Samurai as appreciated by a mainstream TV audience from the 80's and 90's. See. honor, duels, deceit as a character failing (see. Duras), and a fixation on a very particular kind of weapon.
Apocryphal, at the very best. Headcanon, more like. And even if someone associated with Trek literally said so, it matters very little, as it's just a retconned, post-facto rationale anyway, to no longer think of Klingons as the old Russian enemy (after we allegedly won the war with the Russians -- at least the economical one -- as signified in The Undiscovered Country).
Trying to retcon a new inspirational background story for the Klingons does not imply (as you seem to suggest), that Klingons were truly changed in the series as well.
But it's not just a change of the background story. It's a change on how Klingons behave on screen.
In TNG and DS9, they seen to be constantly wielding Bat'leths into battle, and we don't see any TOS or TOS Movie Klingons wielding any. The Klingons in TOS are about serving their Empire, and don't mention "honor" as a primary motivation for their actions. They also don't act particularly honorful or honor-minded.
We can say it's a retcon, and it was always like that, or we can assume that the Klingon culture might have actually changed and is more complex than we've thought before.
This.
And to be honest, I quite like the differences!
Sorry to say it, but TNG onward the Klingons are a perfect example of the 'Planet of Hats' trope. They all, basically, look the same and every. single. one of them. is obsessed with honor. No diversity at all.
Sorry to say it, but TNG onward the Klingons are a perfect example of the 'Planet of Hats' trope. They all, basically, look the same and every. single. one of them. is obsessed with honor. No diversity at all.
Is there diversity among TRIBBLE's "Klingons"? As I understand it, they all tend to just be bloodthirsty TRIBBLE, with only varying degrees of fanaticism and/or intelligence.
"There will never be enough blood to wash away my need for vengeance! A single world...I could destroy a million worlds and it would not be enough! Your existence is an insult to the memory of my people! I will continue my fight, even if I must fight alone!"
Sorry to say it, but TNG onward the Klingons are a perfect example of the 'Planet of Hats' trope. They all, basically, look the same and every. single. one of them. is obsessed with honor. No diversity at all.
Is there diversity among TRIBBLE's "Klingons"? As I understand it, they all tend to just be bloodthirsty ****, with only varying degrees of fanaticism and/or intelligence.
It almost sounds you must have been caught in the Star Trek Universe and only exposed to Anti-Klingon propaganda, and haven't watched the actual show.
T'Kuvmas motivation in the first place had nothing to do with bloodthirstiness, unless the fear of eventually becoming part of the Federation or at least losing territory to it is defined as bloodthirstiness. L'Rell displays little bloodthirst. Kol himself is clearly more in the whole deal for getting power for himself, giving out Klingon cloaking tech only to people that swear fealty to him. If he was just blood thirsty, it would have been cloak for everyone, because more blood will flow that way.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Sorry to say it, but TNG onward the Klingons are a perfect example of the 'Planet of Hats' trope. They all, basically, look the same and every. single. one of them. is obsessed with honor. No diversity at all.
Is there diversity among TRIBBLE's "Klingons"? As I understand it, they all tend to just be bloodthirsty ****, with only varying degrees of fanaticism and/or intelligence.
Well if you watch the show there clearly is a fair bit of implied diversity as the Klingons are little more than different "clans" at the start, each with wildly distinct ship designs and tactics.
Its implied that the Klingon great houses have been split up for many years and they've probably all developed their ships independently of each other; there is no unified "planet of the hats" type of Klingon like we saw from TMP all the way through to VOY/DS9. That to me makes them way more interesting that just some random warrior race who waffle on about honour all the time.
There's potential here to see varying aspects of the Klingon early culture the rest of the shows just glazed over.
Not really. I've only seen the first two episodes of discovery, I'm not willing to spend $ just to watch trek. Also sounds too much like AOY, will our character just be thrown into the 25c again? And I'm still working on my gamma recruit, and really don't want another "recruit" so soon, if they're going to do a recruitment event.
T'Kuvmas motivation in the first place had nothing to do with bloodthirstiness, unless the fear of eventually becoming part of the Federation or at least losing territory to it is defined as bloodthirstiness. L'Rell displays little bloodthirst. Kol himself is clearly more in the whole deal for getting power for himself, giving out Klingon cloaking tech only to people that swear fealty to him. If he was just blood thirsty, it would have been cloak for everyone, because more blood will flow that way.
Power-hungry TRIBBLE, then.
Have any of them given a sign that they're not all that on board with the whole "war with the Federation" thing? Worried about family, friends, or even themselves or the cost to the Empire? Has any of them served as a character unto themselves and not as merely an obstacle for the protagonists to overcome, or merely being set up as a future obstacle?
"There will never be enough blood to wash away my need for vengeance! A single world...I could destroy a million worlds and it would not be enough! Your existence is an insult to the memory of my people! I will continue my fight, even if I must fight alone!"
> @valoreah said: > kabutotokugawa wrote: » > > ...Show me where (in 1987) fans made the claims you are stating. > I know people picked on it, and they made fun of it, but I've not read anything in any Starlog Magazine or Star Trek Magazine articles that showed the reactions you describe.... > > > > > There was no internet back in 1987 like there is today. Just listen to the people involved with the show who have told the same stories over and over again at conventions and in documentaries and such. What we are seeing today is no different.
Actually slightly incorrect. The internet DID exist IIRC as early as 1985. Just not to the general public as DARPA was developing it for military use.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
I fail to see how Discovery is still considered non-canon, apart from stuff like the Klingon look, Michael Burnham being Spock's adopted sister, and the spore drive.
1. Every iteration of the Klingons looks different, just as every iteration of 1701 looks different. These are not literal representations of truth, these are depictions of a fictional reality to the best production and creative decisions a given team can make. It's true to the nature of how Star Trek approaches its visual story telling that there are changes to take into account how audiences have grown accustomed to "the world of the future" so audiences can continue experiencing that, and all its alien goodness, rather than a tone deaf retread of designs so well ingrained into the popular consciousness that they are cliche.
Canon in trek is never set by the literal visual presentation, always what that presentation is made to represent. Take for example how large the defiant is from scene to scene. If we take things literally (such that the Klingons in discovery are a problem) then we'd have to explain why starships have the ability to change scale at a whim. That'd be silly, ergo it's hard to launch a compelling argument that the Klingons in Discovery are bad because they don't conform to the Worf/Martok template (the suggestion implicit there is non-viable). Folks need to dig deeper into how the exact look of the Klingons affects their reception in the context of contemporary media. Ie. playing to modern tropes in alien design (a la Cloverfield as an easy path to reinterpretation) which could be improved on through iterative design changes in future seasons of DSC (should fans ever be able to articulate this point, rather than raging about their immersion.)
2. Spock doesn't talk about his family. This is the first thing Journey to Babel established about his relationship to his parents and was later played off in introducing Sybok (who was never hinted at prior to Final Frontier.) This is Spock being Spock.
3. Its proto-transwarp, foreshadowing the Excelsior which was introduced in the same movie as the first production KDF ship (that we know of) that had a cloaking device (this is narrative bookending, the start of the Klingon War references the last [unambiguous] conflict in the cold war that followed.)
For the mechanics of spore drive, see Dune. This really isn't something new to sci-fi.
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
TRIBBLE is hated, far more than just about any Star Trek before it (though I will concede that ST:5 TFF got a LOT of hate...some of which it deserved).
That is simply a fact at the moment. It can change, but not if the fans of TRIBBLE keep acting like you are.
I agree. This is fact, whether TRIBBLE (I still get a kick out of this abbreviation...fitting) fans want to accept it or not. It has abysmal ratings. CBS is in full panic mode. Why else would they do such a blatant injection of Orville-style humor into the second season?
I'll tell you why: because while they could give a toss about Star Trek (they're exclusively in the business of making money for their shareholders, of course), they want the show to succeed. What does this mean? Market research. When a show bombs, they do lots of it. I am almost positive their market research showed that even Star Trek fans were preferring Orville over TRIBBLE. "Guess it's time to put in Orville sketch comedy into TRIBBLE everyone" (see Elevator Scene in TRIBBLE season 2 trailer).
If TRIBBLE was doing so well with fandom, generally--of course there are some fans that do like it, but some folks need to learn the difference between general vs. universal argumentation--they would not be taking their cues from a show whose entire existence is a parody of Star Trek. Their panic is showing in spades.
I'm not belittling people that enjoy TRIBBLE; to each their own. Enjoy the new content when it comes around. Personally, for those who are not very keen on it, I wouldn't worry too much. It's clear to me STO is being used as a marketing platform to hopefully boost TRIBBLE's abysmal numbers. There are also at least 4 other ST shows rumored to be in production talks. TRIBBLE is not going to be what CBS (or STO) hangs its hat on.
TRIBBLE is hated, far more than just about any Star Trek before it (though I will concede that ST:5 TFF got a LOT of hate...some of which it deserved).
That is simply a fact at the moment. It can change, but not if the fans of TRIBBLE keep acting like you are.
I agree. This is fact, whether TRIBBLE (I still get a kick out of this abbreviation...fitting) fans want to accept it or not. It has abysmal ratings. CBS is in full panic mode. Why else would they do such a blatant injection of Orville-style humor into the second season?
I'll tell you why: because while they could give a toss about Star Trek (they're exclusively in the business of making money for their shareholders, of course), they want the show to succeed. What does this mean? Market research. When a show bombs, they do lots of it. I am almost positive their market research showed that even Star Trek fans were preferring Orville over TRIBBLE. "Guess it's time to put in Orville sketch comedy into TRIBBLE everyone" (see Elevator Scene in TRIBBLE season 2 trailer).
If TRIBBLE was doing so well with fandom, generally--of course there are some fans that do like it, but some folks need to learn the difference between general vs. universal argumentation--they would not be taking their cues from a show whose entire existence is a parody of Star Trek. Their panic is showing in spades.
I'm not belittling people that enjoy TRIBBLE; to each their own. Enjoy the new content when it comes around. Personally, for those who are not very keen on it, I wouldn't worry too much. It's clear to me STO is being used as a marketing platform to hopefully boost TRIBBLE's abysmal numbers. There are also at least 4 other ST shows rumored to be in production talks. TRIBBLE is not going to be what CBS (or STO) hangs its hat on.
I noticed that about the S2 previews they released on YouTube. It's like they're trying to make TRIBBLE more like The Orville. For me that doesn't change the fact that the show feels to much like the Kelvin universe instead of the prime universe as well as other choices in how they designed the look of the show.
On a side note, I saw The Orville's S2 promo and it looks like they toned down the comedy a bit compared to the first season. I'm not sure if that's just their selective choices of scenes to show but it is something that I found interesting about their promo.
If TRIBBLE was doing so well with fandom, generally--of course there are some fans that do like it, but some folks need to learn the difference between general vs. universal argumentation--they would not be taking their cues from a show whose entire existence is a parody of Star Trek. Their panic is showing in spades.
And this is rhetorical noise. You're projecting an emotional reaction into the machinations of a corporation which happens to agree with your chosen point of view. This is an argument of convenience, uncritically interpreting events in a way that you find most suitable to your sense of self respect to then parrot, unqualified, in an attempt to change the narrative of this discussion to suit your point of view.
No.
Take a step back and consider than any meaningful conversation about ratings is dependent on filtered data from CBS and there's no sign of them backing down on Discovery. Season 2 is locked in and there's no shortage of changes that folks who despised the first season will take as a direct affront to their sensibilities (Saurians, redesigned 1701 uniforms, spore drive remaining central to the plot, pop music in the trailer, and Spock.) I'm sure they're listening to general feedback, view data, and adjusting the balance of elements as best they see fit but know that the "fan" POV, which you say is inducing panic, is certainly not (from the changes we've seen so far) central to these changes.
You might think the internet has been overreacting.
Furthermore, Age of Discovery has been confirmed in STO as a multi-season endeavor which pushes its involvement with the game to at least a year out. Not since the Iconian arc have we seen such a direct statement about Cryptic's future plans and they're centered around this show. They won't be exclusively centered around this show and you can trust that population-level feedback (ie. usage statistics more so than convenience-driven rage on the forums) will adjust the balance there too. But there's a very firm commitment in Discovery which is at odds with your basic premise.
Might want to have a rethink.
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
> @valoreah said: > cuzecoze wrote: » > > ...It has abysmal ratings. CBS is in full panic mode... > > > > > Source please? And let's try to keep it to sources with real data released by CBS, not guesstimates and suppositions.
This is just my guess take as ya will. I don't think the ratings for Season 1 of DSC is in the toilet, otherwise season 2 would of never happened. That being said, I don't think they are good either.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
I agree. This is fact, whether TRIBBLE (I still get a kick out of this abbreviation...fitting) fans want to accept it or not. It has abysmal ratings. CBS is in full panic mode. Why else would they do such a blatant injection of Orville-style humor into the second season?
in production talks. TRIBBLE is not going to be what CBS (or STO) hangs its hat on.
A little contradictory there. You refer to DSC's supposedly "abysmal" ratings. And in the next sentence you make refernce to season 2.
Guess what? If the ratings were REALLY as bad as you claim (evidence please) there wouldn't BE a second season.
He also tried to finish with "to each their own" after criticizing fans of Discovery for Orville gaining any kind of traction (as if the success of another show can show an objective failing with subjective appreciation.)
He's not very good at this.
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
TRIBBLE is hated, far more than just about any Star Trek before it (though I will concede that ST:5 TFF got a LOT of hate...some of which it deserved).
That is simply a fact at the moment. It can change, but not if the fans of TRIBBLE keep acting like you are.
I agree. This is fact, whether TRIBBLE (I still get a kick out of this abbreviation...fitting) fans want to accept it or not. It has abysmal ratings. CBS is in full panic mode. Why else would they do such a blatant injection of Orville-style humor into the second season?
I'll tell you why: because while they could give a toss about Star Trek (they're exclusively in the business of making money for their shareholders, of course), they want the show to succeed. What does this mean? Market research. When a show bombs, they do lots of it. I am almost positive their market research showed that even Star Trek fans were preferring Orville over TRIBBLE. "Guess it's time to put in Orville sketch comedy into TRIBBLE everyone" (see Elevator Scene in TRIBBLE season 2 trailer).
If TRIBBLE was doing so well with fandom, generally--of course there are some fans that do like it, but some folks need to learn the difference between general vs. universal argumentation--they would not be taking their cues from a show whose entire existence is a parody of Star Trek. Their panic is showing in spades.
I'm not belittling people that enjoy TRIBBLE; to each their own. Enjoy the new content when it comes around. Personally, for those who are not very keen on it, I wouldn't worry too much. It's clear to me STO is being used as a marketing platform to hopefully boost TRIBBLE's abysmal numbers. There are also at least 4 other ST shows rumored to be in production talks. TRIBBLE is not going to be what CBS (or STO) hangs its hat on.
Sorry, but you can't back-up anything regarding the viewing figures for TRIBBLE. CBS doesn't release All Access figures. You're also not accounting for EVERY country this has been shown in. The only 'official' figures out came from the US network showing of the pilot episodes. There's no figures from the UK, Canada, Europe or any of the other 180+ countries this was shown in. Many sites speculate, but the majority of sites report 'positive' viewing figures. Your opinion that view figures tanked is backed up by absolutely nothing.
"You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
Yeah If DSC was not doing very well there would be no S2 because in the USA at least getting a second season of any show is extremely difficult and a huge percentage of shows are cancelled each year after only a single season. I've seen various figures suggesting between 60-80% of shows get canned after only a single season; it's a really tough environment to survive in.
S2 was green-lit before S1 has even got half way, which has to be taken as good news; it must have been doing pretty well to have been considered safe.
Wow, you mean the Trek IP drove record numbers of subscriptions to an already underperforming and relatively new streaming service? No way...
Also, I don't know how to do this? Good one. Especially as TRIBBLE fan critique of my post has been both "CBS does not release viewership information; therefore, your post is unsubstantiated" along with "look at these links showing how amazing TRIBBLE is doing."
I was being hyperbolic using words like "abysmal." Clearly, if it got a second season it is still profitable. If you equate making profit with being a success, ok. I suppose by that criteria TRIBBLE is a success. So are many other things that you would probably consider garbage as a whole.
I don't see how I was being contradictory by saying "to each their own." Are only the fans of TRIBBLE allowed to express opinions on the matter? I'm getting a #blacklivesmatter vibe. I can say F TRIBBLE, and say to-each-their-own and that is not inconsistent.
"He also tried to finish with "to each their own" after criticizing fans of Discovery for Orville gaining any kind of traction (as if the success of another show can show an objective failing with subjective appreciation.)
He's not very good at this."
If that's what you took from my post, you're the one that isn't good at this. I was never criticizing the fans of TRIBBLE, I was criticizing the show. "To each their own" implied exactly this point. Fans are free to subjectively like whatever they choose. I can still subjectively think it isn't a quality product. I don't even conceive of how you can take my post to mean I am criticizing TRIBBLE for Orville gaining traction. I stated CBS is copying Orville because they see it is more successful based on market research. I also clearly presented that it was my interpretation of what was going on behind the scenes, and obviously I do not have direct evidence of their market research. However, circumstantially, they just so happen to be injecting Orville style humor into TRIBBLE. Hmm.
I would have thought "I am almost positive" as a qualifying statement to the market research opining would have made this obvious. When I was saying "I agree. This is a fact." It was in relation to what I quoted (and I stated it immediately after the quote) about how TRIBBLE is the most criticized/polarizing show to date.
The bolded quote only illustrates you cannot even comprehend what I was saying, and read things into my post that didn't even exist. Nice straw men.
As for whether I can present direct evidence of market data, of course not, but neither can any of you (so thanks for the meaningless links?) This entire thread is everyone being subjective, and saying what is on their mind. I assumed everyone understood that. If you want to champion logical consistency, how about starting with accepting the context of peoples' statements, and acknowledging that no one's opinion or conjecture about the inner workings of CBS is more or less valid than anyone else's? Hence..."to each their own" and "TRIBBLE fans, enjoy the content when it comes" and "those of you who don't like it, don't worry so much, it's only temporary, like all other STO content." I didn't think I needed to spell things out so much on this forum of logical juggernauts.
Apparently since this fellow doesn't like ST:D, it therefore must be unpopular with everyone, because he has the very epitome of good taste. Netflix signed on for overseas distribution of Season 2 because they just love losing customers, obviously.
Also, there's a point that's been permitted to slide here, but The Orville is not a parody of Star Trek, despite the way that Fox has tried to sell it, and any insistence that it is shows that the one insisting hasn't watched much of it. Yes, MacFarlane used TNG as a stepping-off point (I usually describe it to folks who haven't seen it yet as "TNG with real humans instead of Roddenberry paragons"), but there's nothing in there that "parodies" anything, except for lazy sci-fi tropes (like the takedown of macho all-male militaristic aliens in "About a Girl").
They're data of subscriptions and by third party sources, not CBS's data, or internal market research, which is what I was opining about. But thanks for finding those links, it is interesting information nonetheless.
Comments
Why? The Aenar (weren't those the blind types?) are part of canon, next to the Andorians -- not as a retconned replacement thereof. Like there being multiple Reman types.
In TNG and DS9, they seen to be constantly wielding Bat'leths into battle, and we don't see any TOS or TOS Movie Klingons wielding any. The Klingons in TOS are about serving their Empire, and don't mention "honor" as a primary motivation for their actions. They also don't act particularly honorful or honor-minded.
We can say it's a retcon, and it was always like that, or we can assume that the Klingon culture might have actually changed and is more complex than we've thought before.
You are not wrong about this. The TOS Klingons were not the honorable Klingons of TNG/DS9. They were also simply not well fleshed-out, I think (after all, they were simply meant to represent rather backward, rogue -- barbaric even -- Russians). TNG gave them much more depth. But it's true, TOS Klingons were different.
I fail to see how Discovery is still considered non-canon, apart from stuff like the Klingon look, Michael Burnham being Spock's adopted sister, and the spore drive.
1. They name drop Jonathan Archer and Christopher Pike as being decorated captains, along side a character we first meet in TOS, Matthew Decker.
2. The USS Defiant having crossed over from TOS to the mirrorverse was shown in Enterprise. This connects the show to canon in my opinion.
3. In order to maintain the fact that Kirk's crew wouldn't know about the mirror universe, the knowledge of the mirror universe is classified unknown.
4. Pike is still the CO of the Enterprise and thus will be another canon character within the realm of Discovery in season 2.
My character Tsin'xing
Is there diversity among TRIBBLE's "Klingons"? As I understand it, they all tend to just be bloodthirsty TRIBBLE, with only varying degrees of fanaticism and/or intelligence.
T'Kuvmas motivation in the first place had nothing to do with bloodthirstiness, unless the fear of eventually becoming part of the Federation or at least losing territory to it is defined as bloodthirstiness. L'Rell displays little bloodthirst. Kol himself is clearly more in the whole deal for getting power for himself, giving out Klingon cloaking tech only to people that swear fealty to him. If he was just blood thirsty, it would have been cloak for everyone, because more blood will flow that way.
Well if you watch the show there clearly is a fair bit of implied diversity as the Klingons are little more than different "clans" at the start, each with wildly distinct ship designs and tactics.
Its implied that the Klingon great houses have been split up for many years and they've probably all developed their ships independently of each other; there is no unified "planet of the hats" type of Klingon like we saw from TMP all the way through to VOY/DS9. That to me makes them way more interesting that just some random warrior race who waffle on about honour all the time.
There's potential here to see varying aspects of the Klingon early culture the rest of the shows just glazed over.
Power-hungry TRIBBLE, then.
Have any of them given a sign that they're not all that on board with the whole "war with the Federation" thing? Worried about family, friends, or even themselves or the cost to the Empire? Has any of them served as a character unto themselves and not as merely an obstacle for the protagonists to overcome, or merely being set up as a future obstacle?
> kabutotokugawa wrote: »
>
> ...Show me where (in 1987) fans made the claims you are stating.
> I know people picked on it, and they made fun of it, but I've not read anything in any Starlog Magazine or Star Trek Magazine articles that showed the reactions you describe....
>
>
>
>
> There was no internet back in 1987 like there is today. Just listen to the people involved with the show who have told the same stories over and over again at conventions and in documentaries and such. What we are seeing today is no different.
Actually slightly incorrect. The internet DID exist IIRC as early as 1985. Just not to the general public as DARPA was developing it for military use.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
1. Every iteration of the Klingons looks different, just as every iteration of 1701 looks different. These are not literal representations of truth, these are depictions of a fictional reality to the best production and creative decisions a given team can make. It's true to the nature of how Star Trek approaches its visual story telling that there are changes to take into account how audiences have grown accustomed to "the world of the future" so audiences can continue experiencing that, and all its alien goodness, rather than a tone deaf retread of designs so well ingrained into the popular consciousness that they are cliche.
Canon in trek is never set by the literal visual presentation, always what that presentation is made to represent. Take for example how large the defiant is from scene to scene. If we take things literally (such that the Klingons in discovery are a problem) then we'd have to explain why starships have the ability to change scale at a whim. That'd be silly, ergo it's hard to launch a compelling argument that the Klingons in Discovery are bad because they don't conform to the Worf/Martok template (the suggestion implicit there is non-viable). Folks need to dig deeper into how the exact look of the Klingons affects their reception in the context of contemporary media. Ie. playing to modern tropes in alien design (a la Cloverfield as an easy path to reinterpretation) which could be improved on through iterative design changes in future seasons of DSC (should fans ever be able to articulate this point, rather than raging about their immersion.)
2. Spock doesn't talk about his family. This is the first thing Journey to Babel established about his relationship to his parents and was later played off in introducing Sybok (who was never hinted at prior to Final Frontier.) This is Spock being Spock.
3. Its proto-transwarp, foreshadowing the Excelsior which was introduced in the same movie as the first production KDF ship (that we know of) that had a cloaking device (this is narrative bookending, the start of the Klingon War references the last [unambiguous] conflict in the cold war that followed.)
For the mechanics of spore drive, see Dune. This really isn't something new to sci-fi.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
I agree. This is fact, whether TRIBBLE (I still get a kick out of this abbreviation...fitting) fans want to accept it or not. It has abysmal ratings. CBS is in full panic mode. Why else would they do such a blatant injection of Orville-style humor into the second season?
I'll tell you why: because while they could give a toss about Star Trek (they're exclusively in the business of making money for their shareholders, of course), they want the show to succeed. What does this mean? Market research. When a show bombs, they do lots of it. I am almost positive their market research showed that even Star Trek fans were preferring Orville over TRIBBLE. "Guess it's time to put in Orville sketch comedy into TRIBBLE everyone" (see Elevator Scene in TRIBBLE season 2 trailer).
If TRIBBLE was doing so well with fandom, generally--of course there are some fans that do like it, but some folks need to learn the difference between general vs. universal argumentation--they would not be taking their cues from a show whose entire existence is a parody of Star Trek. Their panic is showing in spades.
I'm not belittling people that enjoy TRIBBLE; to each their own. Enjoy the new content when it comes around. Personally, for those who are not very keen on it, I wouldn't worry too much. It's clear to me STO is being used as a marketing platform to hopefully boost TRIBBLE's abysmal numbers. There are also at least 4 other ST shows rumored to be in production talks. TRIBBLE is not going to be what CBS (or STO) hangs its hat on.
I noticed that about the S2 previews they released on YouTube. It's like they're trying to make TRIBBLE more like The Orville. For me that doesn't change the fact that the show feels to much like the Kelvin universe instead of the prime universe as well as other choices in how they designed the look of the show.
On a side note, I saw The Orville's S2 promo and it looks like they toned down the comedy a bit compared to the first season. I'm not sure if that's just their selective choices of scenes to show but it is something that I found interesting about their promo.
And this is rhetorical noise. You're projecting an emotional reaction into the machinations of a corporation which happens to agree with your chosen point of view. This is an argument of convenience, uncritically interpreting events in a way that you find most suitable to your sense of self respect to then parrot, unqualified, in an attempt to change the narrative of this discussion to suit your point of view.
No.
Take a step back and consider than any meaningful conversation about ratings is dependent on filtered data from CBS and there's no sign of them backing down on Discovery. Season 2 is locked in and there's no shortage of changes that folks who despised the first season will take as a direct affront to their sensibilities (Saurians, redesigned 1701 uniforms, spore drive remaining central to the plot, pop music in the trailer, and Spock.) I'm sure they're listening to general feedback, view data, and adjusting the balance of elements as best they see fit but know that the "fan" POV, which you say is inducing panic, is certainly not (from the changes we've seen so far) central to these changes.
You might think the internet has been overreacting.
Furthermore, Age of Discovery has been confirmed in STO as a multi-season endeavor which pushes its involvement with the game to at least a year out. Not since the Iconian arc have we seen such a direct statement about Cryptic's future plans and they're centered around this show. They won't be exclusively centered around this show and you can trust that population-level feedback (ie. usage statistics more so than convenience-driven rage on the forums) will adjust the balance there too. But there's a very firm commitment in Discovery which is at odds with your basic premise.
Might want to have a rethink.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
> cuzecoze wrote: »
>
> ...It has abysmal ratings. CBS is in full panic mode...
>
>
>
>
> Source please? And let's try to keep it to sources with real data released by CBS, not guesstimates and suppositions.
This is just my guess take as ya will. I don't think the ratings for Season 1 of DSC is in the toilet, otherwise season 2 would of never happened. That being said, I don't think they are good either.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
He also tried to finish with "to each their own" after criticizing fans of Discovery for Orville gaining any kind of traction (as if the success of another show can show an objective failing with subjective appreciation.)
He's not very good at this.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Sorry, but you can't back-up anything regarding the viewing figures for TRIBBLE. CBS doesn't release All Access figures. You're also not accounting for EVERY country this has been shown in. The only 'official' figures out came from the US network showing of the pilot episodes. There's no figures from the UK, Canada, Europe or any of the other 180+ countries this was shown in. Many sites speculate, but the majority of sites report 'positive' viewing figures. Your opinion that view figures tanked is backed up by absolutely nothing.
S2 was green-lit before S1 has even got half way, which has to be taken as good news; it must have been doing pretty well to have been considered safe.
Also, I don't know how to do this? Good one. Especially as TRIBBLE fan critique of my post has been both "CBS does not release viewership information; therefore, your post is unsubstantiated" along with "look at these links showing how amazing TRIBBLE is doing."
I was being hyperbolic using words like "abysmal." Clearly, if it got a second season it is still profitable. If you equate making profit with being a success, ok. I suppose by that criteria TRIBBLE is a success. So are many other things that you would probably consider garbage as a whole.
I don't see how I was being contradictory by saying "to each their own." Are only the fans of TRIBBLE allowed to express opinions on the matter? I'm getting a #blacklivesmatter vibe. I can say F TRIBBLE, and say to-each-their-own and that is not inconsistent.
"He also tried to finish with "to each their own" after criticizing fans of Discovery for Orville gaining any kind of traction (as if the success of another show can show an objective failing with subjective appreciation.)
He's not very good at this."
If that's what you took from my post, you're the one that isn't good at this. I was never criticizing the fans of TRIBBLE, I was criticizing the show. "To each their own" implied exactly this point. Fans are free to subjectively like whatever they choose. I can still subjectively think it isn't a quality product. I don't even conceive of how you can take my post to mean I am criticizing TRIBBLE for Orville gaining traction. I stated CBS is copying Orville because they see it is more successful based on market research. I also clearly presented that it was my interpretation of what was going on behind the scenes, and obviously I do not have direct evidence of their market research. However, circumstantially, they just so happen to be injecting Orville style humor into TRIBBLE. Hmm.
I would have thought "I am almost positive" as a qualifying statement to the market research opining would have made this obvious. When I was saying "I agree. This is a fact." It was in relation to what I quoted (and I stated it immediately after the quote) about how TRIBBLE is the most criticized/polarizing show to date.
The bolded quote only illustrates you cannot even comprehend what I was saying, and read things into my post that didn't even exist. Nice straw men.
As for whether I can present direct evidence of market data, of course not, but neither can any of you (so thanks for the meaningless links?) This entire thread is everyone being subjective, and saying what is on their mind. I assumed everyone understood that. If you want to champion logical consistency, how about starting with accepting the context of peoples' statements, and acknowledging that no one's opinion or conjecture about the inner workings of CBS is more or less valid than anyone else's? Hence..."to each their own" and "TRIBBLE fans, enjoy the content when it comes" and "those of you who don't like it, don't worry so much, it's only temporary, like all other STO content." I didn't think I needed to spell things out so much on this forum of logical juggernauts.
Also, there's a point that's been permitted to slide here, but The Orville is not a parody of Star Trek, despite the way that Fox has tried to sell it, and any insistence that it is shows that the one insisting hasn't watched much of it. Yes, MacFarlane used TNG as a stepping-off point (I usually describe it to folks who haven't seen it yet as "TNG with real humans instead of Roddenberry paragons"), but there's nothing in there that "parodies" anything, except for lazy sci-fi tropes (like the takedown of macho all-male militaristic aliens in "About a Girl").