Considering how far in the future the game takes place, we have no idea who were members of the Federation and what stylistic influences they might bring to the ships. We had a glimpse from the Enterprise-J and how spindly it was. Farther ahead in the future it seemed that ships used compact subspace manifolds to make it bigger on the inside so ships became Tardis like. We really are going to have no idea what the ships are like in the future is my guess.
To me it does not matter who they belong to, I have zero interest in DSC s3 at this point. Maybe they will actually make something worth watching later on or even possibly pull DSC out of its spiral down the toilet, but until then I have completely lost interest in CBS Trek.
> @phoenixc#0738 said: > (Quote) > > To me it does not matter who they belong to, I have zero interest in DSC s3 at this point. Maybe they will actually make something worth watching later on or even possibly pull DSC out of its spiral down the toilet, but until then I have completely lost interest in CBS Trek.
Discovery has everything it needs to be a successful show, and it is successful - so much so that we're already getting a fourth season.
Star Trek Picard on the other hand, that's the show that's going to take Trek down the toilet.
> @phoenixc#0738 said:
> (Quote)
>
> To me it does not matter who they belong to, I have zero interest in DSC s3 at this point. Maybe they will actually make something worth watching later on or even possibly pull DSC out of its spiral down the toilet, but until then I have completely lost interest in CBS Trek.
Discovery has everything it needs to be a successful show, and it is successful - so much so that we're already getting a fourth season.
Star Trek Picard on the other hand, that's the show that's going to take Trek down the toilet.
That success is mainly based on second season (which was the high point of the series so far), third season is such a radical shark jump that it could send it strait down the toilet if they are not very, very careful. And judging by their track record careful or clever are things Kurtzman's bunch do not do at all well. The better bet would have been hanging in there and trying to fix the damage from first season in parallel with SNW.
Another factor is that Moonves forged a strong tie between DSC and CBSAA in the minds of the public, that means that if they cancel DSC it is likely to spark a panic with the investors (and subscribers) which is not a good thing for CBSAA at all. Unless they decide to dismantle CBSAA and roll it into one of the services they got with the CBS/Viacom merge or they develop a show that can take the place of DSC as the CBSAA flagship they have little choice but to renew it for a minimum of five years no matter how bad their shark jump turns out.
A major handicap in the way the show was set up that CBS is having to fight now is that it was tailored for the numerous but notoriously fickle action movie fans who flocked to the Kelvin movies but got bored after just two of them and moved on.
They could have adjusted the show to be more intelligent, consistent and otherwise more acceptable to the original Trek fan profile but they chose to ride the jumping shark into the far future where they believe they can continue the non-Trek Trek formula in a new setting without fans complaining about prequels.
The flaw in that logic is that it was never the simple fact that DSC was a "prequel" that caused the problems in the first place, it was the fact that the DSC people did not know the source material and did not bother to find out or make the slightest effort to update TOS rather than try and overwrite it with something totally different. DSC could have started a little after Nemesis with the same contempt for earlier Trek series they had when they set it in the 2250s and it would still have met with exactly the same lack of acceptance from the long time fans.
SNW could turn out to be that new flagship if they somehow manage to avoid the pitfalls they made with DSC, but Kurtzman's track record with that is not good so it probably will be just another of their typical all SFX, poor plotting and writing, and no respect at all for the other Treks, which makes that rather iffy at best.
Another smart thing CBS could do would be to put a new Star Trek on their open network as an always there hook that would attract people to the Trek in the streaming service, but I doubt if they will.
Discovery has everything it needs to be a successful show, and it is successful - so much so that we're already getting a fourth season.
Star Trek Picard on the other hand, that's the show that's going to take Trek down the toilet.
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe when hell frezees over, it will be true... for you only, of course.
Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
Discovery has everything it needs to be a successful show, and it is successful - so much so that we're already getting a fourth season.
Star Trek Picard on the other hand, that's the show that's going to take Trek down the toilet.
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe when hell frezees over, it will be true... for you only, of course.
yeah yeah yeah, we get it. You guys hate any Trek that doesn't conform to your exact wishes. blah blah blah. Maybe you guys could just let it go and stop trying to ruin Trek and poisoning this community with your negativity.
> @phoenixc#0738 said: > (Quote) > > That success is mainly based on second season (which was the high point of the series so far), third season is such a radical shark jump that it could send it strait down the toilet if they are not very, very careful. And judging by their track record careful or clever are things Kurtzman's bunch do not do at all well. The better bet would have been hanging in there and trying to fix the damage from first season in parallel with SNW. > > Another factor is that Moonves forged a strong tie between DSC and CBSAA in the minds of the public, that means that if they cancel DSC it is likely to spark a panic with the investors (and subscribers) which is not a good thing for CBSAA at all. Unless they decide to dismantle CBSAA and roll it into one of the services they got with the CBS/Viacom merge or they develop a show that can take the place of DSC as the CBSAA flagship they have little choice but to renew it for a minimum of five years no matter how bad their shark jump turns out. > > A major handicap in the way the show was set up that CBS is having to fight now is that it was tailored for the numerous but notoriously fickle action movie fans who flocked to the Kelvin movies but got bored after just two of them and moved on. > > They could have adjusted the show to be more intelligent, consistent and otherwise more acceptable to the original Trek fan profile but they chose to ride the jumping shark into the far future where they believe they can continue the non-Trek Trek formula in a new setting without fans complaining about prequels. > > The flaw in that logic is that it was never the simple fact that DSC was a "prequel" that caused the problems in the first place, it was the fact that the DSC people did not know the source material and did not bother to find out or make the slightest effort to update TOS rather than try and overwrite it with something totally different. DSC could have started a little after Nemesis with the same contempt for earlier Trek series they had when they set it in the 2250s and it would still have met with exactly the same lack of acceptance from the long time fans. > > SNW could turn out to be that new flagship if they somehow manage to avoid the pitfalls they made with DSC, but Kurtzman's track record with that is not good so it probably will be just another of their typical all SFX, poor plotting and writing, and no respect at all for the other Treks, which makes that rather iffy at best. > > Another smart thing CBS could do would be to put a new Star Trek on their open network as an always there hook that would attract people to the Trek in the streaming service, but I doubt if they will.
This is the most accurate statement I have ever read. I’m a fan of Star Trek but I’ll never watch Disco or any of the other shows on CBSAA because it’s behind a service instead of on a network channel “for the people”. Corporate decisions based on flawed logic as opposed to core vision has ruined many a franchise for me (Star Wars, Terminator, Transformers, etc.). As long as CBS is moving like Disney, we’ll never truly get another good series. And whether you’re a fanboy or casual fan, that’s the scariness in it. Watching a franchise fail simply because a corporate money crunchers are the ultimate shot callers is heartbreaking. I’ll play STO because it’s “free” but I’d never pay nor play if they went to a subscription only model. I don’t support the Zen Shop or loot boxes either with real money transactions because it’ll only further there agenda. But that’s my opinion and take on it.
I mean if you guys hate what it has become, then maybe find something else to love? I for one looking forward to more Trek, in this form or another. And clearly so do a lot of others. You can kick and scream all you want about it. But Trek will continue with or without you. And thankfully, the people making Trek are not going to bend to your tantrums. Just as it should be.
> @phoenixc#0738 said:
> (Quote)
>
> To me it does not matter who they belong to, I have zero interest in DSC s3 at this point. Maybe they will actually make something worth watching later on or even possibly pull DSC out of its spiral down the toilet, but until then I have completely lost interest in CBS Trek.
Discovery has everything it needs to be a successful show, and it is successful - so much so that we're already getting a fourth season.
Star Trek Picard on the other hand, that's the show that's going to take Trek down the toilet.
Let's be real about this...whatever the numbers on the viewership for this show...it is not clocking over in the double digits, high double digits.
Second, the merchandise that exists now, is a mere drop in the bucket, unlike the previous times of doing 30 to 40 million dollars with Prime Trek, that's gone now.
If the Discovery is to survive, the story telling, the characters and the suppose premise must be better and more appealing not to a selective audience but must touch across the greater board.
And lastly...if they cannot achieve the 2 latter statements, and they are going to make money via license fees *getting the show aired in broader markets*, no one outside the US wants to waste money on a show that does not appeal to a greater auidence, or reflect on the Trek they know. Yes, you can improve upon that, as long it is recognizeable to many.
But to serve a small niche of the population, with glitz and gams approach, is not what makes a Tv show endures upon a public's memories. And if the arguement will be made that TNG was in the same boat back then, when things turned around after Season 3, well...I wasn't aware of the disgruntled nature among the viewership. I was just enjoying the updating from TOS and the progressive forwarding.
Discovery hasn't done that, and that was a mistake...now going to the future to do what actually? What the premise? Take the lessons of the future and changed the past?
Well, if that is the angle...then it will mean that they will want to erase everything that came after them in their past/present timeline...yes, everything. No Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway, only Archer will survive, cause he is before them all.
The entire troupe of Discovery started wrong and never settled properly...and even now, I set my mind for Season 3 to impress me, upstaged my expectations.
It is not doing that...Discovery is not being successful so far.
it was the fact that the DSC people did not know the source material and did not bother to find out or make the slightest effort to update TOS rather than try and overwrite it with something totally different.
Except they did know their source material. Which is why 99% of the things people say Discovery got wrong, it didn't.
Just to name a few easy ones
Klingon mummification was mentioned in ST6, and the TNG episode "Firstborn"
The "Black Fleet" afterlife concept T'Kuvma believes in, which is why he keeps the coffins around his ship, actually predates the idea of Sto'Vo'Kor. And had made its way into official canon in the DS9 episode "Soldiers of the Empire"
Klingons using suicide attacks was something brought up in the TNG episode "Reunion"
Klingons taking prisoners was a thing in ST6, and in the Enterprise episode "Judgement", with the Rura Penthe prison world
Holodeck technology was present back in the era, as seen in the TAS episode "The Practical Joker"
As seen in TNG, hinted at in TOS, and outright confirmed in Gene's novelization of the TMP, viewscreens, even in the TOS era, were not flat images, but rather 3D projections. And the full body communication systems were also something in use in that era.
The degeneration of the Klingon Empire into a bunch of warring clans was a plot point set up in the ENT episode "Judgement"
I could go on, but theres very little discovery actually got wrong. Even in Season 1.
There are some things they did by chance get right and you listed off most of them. Many of those were from the movies, which they do acknowledge to a degree (according to the set designer most of the stuff was based off The Undiscovered Country, which she said was the ONLY Star Trek worth anything, instead of the era closer to where DSC was set for instance), and as you point out many of the others were actually references to TOS that were made in the later series.
On the other hand, they got very important things wrong, like the warp drive. It is not a jump drive like in Star Wars and as shown in The Deadly Years going to warp is not a get away free card without a good head start, in TOS the enemy could see you and give chase perfectly well if their engines were up to the task.
They could also see what was around them in warp so they would not blunder into an asteroid field "dropping out of warp" the way DSC did. In fact, in Mudds Women they chased Mudd though an asteroid field dodging rocks at warp (Sulu was better at it than Mudd). In reasonably clear space they could see other ships hours away from their position, while in DSC the sensor operators rarely get enough time to warn the bridge that ships are inbound, even huge fleets of them like in Battle at the Binary Stars.
Also, from the last season or so of ENT when they figured out how to balance the phases of the weapons and warp field to not interfere with each other until the 2270s when they switched the phaser feed from the impulse stacks to the warp core, they fought at warp, entered and left orbit at warp, and in fact almost never used the impulse drive at all.
As for the poor quality free-air holograms, they were not an issue while Shenzhou was sitting right on top of the subspace relay (which was probably part of a diplomatic chain to Qo'noS, similar to the realworld cold war "Hotline"), those probably could actually push enough bandwidth fast enough to do something like that.
The issue was that TOS established that the relays were few and far between over most of the frontier so DSC should not have had realtime communications, especially stuff that high bandwidth, every single time they communicated with anyone. A large part of the tension in TOS came from the fact that they were often in areas where it took hours for a message to get back to command so Kirk was often almost as much on his own as Victorian age sailing ship captains.
And then we come to targeting systems. In TOS the average combat rule of thumb was the rule of fours, it was most often done at warp 4 at an approximate range of about 40,000km. And that was nowhere near the limit of their range, Enterprise bullseyed NOMAD with a photon at 90,000km, and a Klingon battlecruiser had no trouble at all hitting Enterprise at about 100,000km with its disruptor cannons in Elaan of Troyius. In DSC they seem to have serious trouble hitting the enemy at 40,000 feet distance judging by the visuals.
Then there is the fact that they were using what is now called the "sech" as the official DSC D7 but managed to back off from that later. Other aesthetic problems are that the interiors are based on The Undiscovered Country and not on a modernized TOS style. And there are many more differences both in aesthetics and function ranging from technology and uniform design philosphy, to the way the Federation and Klingon societies were portrayed.
Now, they would have been fine ADDING some of that stuff, but ignoring or intentionally replacing large intrinsic parts of that era of Trek and expressly forbidding the use of iconic features and background information is where they went wrong. They did fix some of it by retconning some of the first season DSC with damage control measures but so far it is too little too late to get a lot of the alienated core fans back, a factor not helped at all by the shallow action-hero style the show is written in. If an action gag is good it goes in no matter how much it lacks sense or compatibility with previous series.
I mean if you guys hate what it has become, then maybe find something else to love? I for one looking forward to more Trek, in this form or another. And clearly so do a lot of others. You can kick and scream all you want about it. But Trek will continue with or without you. And thankfully, the people making Trek are not going to bend to your tantrums. Just as it should be.
No one said anything about "hate", just that it would have been wiser for DSC to have started with TOS as the source instead of skipping it out of contempt for "the fifty year old show". Hollywood has a bad habit of sneering at anything they consider old though so they ended up with something that just does not appeal to the old core fans (which tended to be stickers for the kind of inter-series continuity DSC seems to distain so much).
I know it probably sounds weird to anyone not part of the fan scene of the '70s and thereabouts, but a large part of the Trek fanbase treated the various series as a solid fictional history (and still do), with distinctive eras each with their own look and feel, but CBS apparently just wants everything to use the exact same aesthetics, technology, and social factors like it was all happening at the same time regardless of the era and how much time there is between them in the setting.
Would you really expect a TV series dealing with stories set in real historical periods like the US Civil War, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, and the Middle East conflicts to all look the same and use the same equipment? CBS apparently expects Trek fans to do the equivalent of that.
It is a disappointment, and some few exceptionally irate fans do seem to hate it but really the new stuff is not bad at all by modern TV generic sci-fi standards. It just is not worth taking exceptional steps like signing up for a pay streaming service to watch it when there are other generic shows in the same general style out there, especially with the direction the third season is going (unless they pull a Hail Mary and do something to get it to fit right in the 2250s, like a time intervention or something, but that is almost certainly not going to happen with Kurtzman and company in charge).
Discovery hasn't done that, and that was a mistake...now going to the future to do what actually? What the premise?
The same premise shows like Andromeda, and the undeveloped Star Trek: Federation, and Star Trek: Final Frontier, had.
That even in a future where things seem bleak, the hope that the Federation gave the galaxy, and the ideals it was founded on, will survive even past it, and can be used to bring people together again even in the galaxy's darkest times.
Do you know why the numbers were high in the beginning? Curiosity...folks wanted to see what it was all about. Second, overseas, especially in the UK, they have a noticeably huge fan base over there (Next to Doctor Who). So yes, a major spike will occur in that fashion.
The time era of Andromeda (which I watched) was not polluted with today's current mind divided among the fanbase. Like any sci fi show that was out during that time, I was lapping it up, because it was sci fi fun and at that time great or decent storytelling...no platform motif, no political statement outright (but done in a subtle way through the story) that smashed hard against your beliefs.
As for the numbers...sustainability, constant sustainability must be showed that public interest is caught and kept, with the avenue to increase the numbers if the show grows.
But as of late with Doctor Who, many Whovians are dismayed with the rewritten of History on their beloved show of decades old.
And many here, feared the same thing...which is happening now. If CBS/Secret Hideout wanted a journey of Trek, they should have done it with a new crew and new story line, and didn't need to touch anything of the past or the pseudo present illustrated here by current gaming company.
There was plenty of room, to build and grow a new legend, which could have been respected and possible loved...but no, tear down it, stomp it and whatever else to the past and current present that was left off at...tear it down and people will come back. That is becoming very unlikely...
For the Nu-Trek folks, they won't be generational, just instant fills...the mindset has changed over the many years, and the division of differences has punched its way to once considered a sacred place to many, and yes it was setup that many didn't understand or really see coming. But Social media used by normal folks who love those nerdy or geeky times...gave out those cries and many started to pay attention, the main media never did that, just regular folks and hence the ground swell of awareness to what changes are happening now or correctly, since 2009.
I am willing to give Discovery a chance, but it does not deserve the motif of being called a 'Star Trek' journey.
We can agree to disagree on that point of view...
Added--Overseas audiences are less fussy to American movies or Tv shows because it is just curiosity on what the 'Colony' makes these days, but that attitude is changing too, through social media...that is why many American films are shown first across the waters...because there are no true hang ups that exist over there. But that premise that does hold true either in some other countries. Some films must be tailored to the sensibilities mandated by certain governments and tv shows are not excluded.
Discovery has everything it needs to be a successful show, and it is successful - so much so that we're already getting a fourth season.
Star Trek Picard on the other hand, that's the show that's going to take Trek down the toilet.
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe when hell frezees over, it will be true... for you only, of course.
yeah yeah yeah, we get it. You guys hate any Trek that doesn't conform to your exact wishes. blah blah blah. Maybe you guys could just let it go and stop trying to ruin Trek and poisoning this community with your negativity.
Except for the fact that I actually like Picard, which is "new Trek". And who said anything about stuff not comforming to my exact wishes? Get off your high horse and realize that just because someone likes something it doesn't mean that EVERYONE has to like it. Just as it's true for the contrary.
I guess it's easier to make fun of people because *gasp* they DARE think differently than you!
But go off, I guess.
Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
its sad everyone hates on Discovery, its a good damn show, so was Picard, i see it this way, if you cant like "star trek" for being "star trek" your not a trekkie, but thats my opnion.
I'm a bit confused as to how the Federation goes from the sleek design of the Wells and mastered time travel to those that look like they're downgraded ships that belong in the 26th century. I know the writers haven't watched much of the star trek shows, so they're probably unaware of Subspace Folding, The time travel and temporal accords, and the battle of Procyon 5 and everything but... it really feels like they should've done some research on the future before messing around in there.
its sad everyone hates on Discovery, its a good damn show, so was Picard, i see it this way, if you cant like "star trek" for being "star trek" your not a trekkie, but thats my opnion.
Again, that word 'hate'...is wrongly used. Dislike, disapproval, disappointment are the general feelings here.
Consider this, I watched every show that Secret Hideout has done on 'Trek'...a newbie company created in 2014, given the reigns of back then, a late 40ish year old franchise.
And to add, I watch all previous Treks, but not including the original anime one, never got around to it. I didn't hate them either.
What is going here, is a comparison...a measuring stick of all previous knowledge known to many who has followed the franchise since its birth.
When you get to that age of the franchise longevity, you will make the comparison too, when someone else will try to make a new 'Trek', in an unusual way to what you usually are expecting.
Then reflect on this discussion when that occurs and realize on why this happened.
I'm a bit confused as to how the Federation goes from the sleek design of the Wells and mastered time travel to those that look like they're downgraded ships that belong in the 26th century. I know the writers haven't watched much of the star trek shows, so they're probably unaware of Subspace Folding, The time travel and temporal accords, and the battle of Procyon 5 and everything but... it really feels like they should've done some research on the future before messing around in there.
Given the fact, that they don't research in great depths to understand the previous history...I am not expecting any major improvements down the road.
> @somtaawkhar said: > (Quote) > They explicitly mentioned the Temporal Cold War in episode 1 of Discovery's 3rd season. Specifically, after the Temporal Wars all time travel tech was destroyed and outlawed. Any ships based on that technology would have been destroyed also. > > Also "subspace folding" isn't a thing. Its an ability in STO, but not an actual term in Star Trek.
Thats nonsense. There is physically no way they'd be able to successfully prevent the Na'kuhl and the other temporal forces from time traveling or creating more time travel devices. The moment the good guys are like "lets all destroy our own time travel tech" the bad guys would make even MORE time travel devices.
And the good guys would need to keep their time travel tech to stop the bad guys.
And subspace manifolds are real, though I got the name wrong, Kal Dano's ship used them to be bigger on the inside.
The novels aren't Canon though. And it does hurt their efforts if time travel enemies can spring up from anywhere in the future but they only have agents from one time period. 29th to 31st century, 3 centuries of good guys, but potentially infinite centuries of bad guys.
This is a bit of a side tangent, and I don't know if it was intentional, but I did like how the Orion/Andorian Mercantile had some visual 'ring' similarities to the old Orion ship designs:
This is a bit of a side tangent, and I don't know if it was intentional, but I did like how the Orion/Andorian Mercantile had some visual 'ring' similarities to the old Orion ship designs:
Someone else said...it looked more Mass Effect, the Citadel.
Comments
To me it does not matter who they belong to, I have zero interest in DSC s3 at this point. Maybe they will actually make something worth watching later on or even possibly pull DSC out of its spiral down the toilet, but until then I have completely lost interest in CBS Trek.
Same, unfortunately.
> (Quote)
>
> To me it does not matter who they belong to, I have zero interest in DSC s3 at this point. Maybe they will actually make something worth watching later on or even possibly pull DSC out of its spiral down the toilet, but until then I have completely lost interest in CBS Trek.
Discovery has everything it needs to be a successful show, and it is successful - so much so that we're already getting a fourth season.
Star Trek Picard on the other hand, that's the show that's going to take Trek down the toilet.
That success is mainly based on second season (which was the high point of the series so far), third season is such a radical shark jump that it could send it strait down the toilet if they are not very, very careful. And judging by their track record careful or clever are things Kurtzman's bunch do not do at all well. The better bet would have been hanging in there and trying to fix the damage from first season in parallel with SNW.
Another factor is that Moonves forged a strong tie between DSC and CBSAA in the minds of the public, that means that if they cancel DSC it is likely to spark a panic with the investors (and subscribers) which is not a good thing for CBSAA at all. Unless they decide to dismantle CBSAA and roll it into one of the services they got with the CBS/Viacom merge or they develop a show that can take the place of DSC as the CBSAA flagship they have little choice but to renew it for a minimum of five years no matter how bad their shark jump turns out.
A major handicap in the way the show was set up that CBS is having to fight now is that it was tailored for the numerous but notoriously fickle action movie fans who flocked to the Kelvin movies but got bored after just two of them and moved on.
They could have adjusted the show to be more intelligent, consistent and otherwise more acceptable to the original Trek fan profile but they chose to ride the jumping shark into the far future where they believe they can continue the non-Trek Trek formula in a new setting without fans complaining about prequels.
The flaw in that logic is that it was never the simple fact that DSC was a "prequel" that caused the problems in the first place, it was the fact that the DSC people did not know the source material and did not bother to find out or make the slightest effort to update TOS rather than try and overwrite it with something totally different. DSC could have started a little after Nemesis with the same contempt for earlier Trek series they had when they set it in the 2250s and it would still have met with exactly the same lack of acceptance from the long time fans.
SNW could turn out to be that new flagship if they somehow manage to avoid the pitfalls they made with DSC, but Kurtzman's track record with that is not good so it probably will be just another of their typical all SFX, poor plotting and writing, and no respect at all for the other Treks, which makes that rather iffy at best.
Another smart thing CBS could do would be to put a new Star Trek on their open network as an always there hook that would attract people to the Trek in the streaming service, but I doubt if they will.
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe when hell frezees over, it will be true... for you only, of course.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
yeah yeah yeah, we get it. You guys hate any Trek that doesn't conform to your exact wishes. blah blah blah. Maybe you guys could just let it go and stop trying to ruin Trek and poisoning this community with your negativity.
> (Quote)
>
> That success is mainly based on second season (which was the high point of the series so far), third season is such a radical shark jump that it could send it strait down the toilet if they are not very, very careful. And judging by their track record careful or clever are things Kurtzman's bunch do not do at all well. The better bet would have been hanging in there and trying to fix the damage from first season in parallel with SNW.
>
> Another factor is that Moonves forged a strong tie between DSC and CBSAA in the minds of the public, that means that if they cancel DSC it is likely to spark a panic with the investors (and subscribers) which is not a good thing for CBSAA at all. Unless they decide to dismantle CBSAA and roll it into one of the services they got with the CBS/Viacom merge or they develop a show that can take the place of DSC as the CBSAA flagship they have little choice but to renew it for a minimum of five years no matter how bad their shark jump turns out.
>
> A major handicap in the way the show was set up that CBS is having to fight now is that it was tailored for the numerous but notoriously fickle action movie fans who flocked to the Kelvin movies but got bored after just two of them and moved on.
>
> They could have adjusted the show to be more intelligent, consistent and otherwise more acceptable to the original Trek fan profile but they chose to ride the jumping shark into the far future where they believe they can continue the non-Trek Trek formula in a new setting without fans complaining about prequels.
>
> The flaw in that logic is that it was never the simple fact that DSC was a "prequel" that caused the problems in the first place, it was the fact that the DSC people did not know the source material and did not bother to find out or make the slightest effort to update TOS rather than try and overwrite it with something totally different. DSC could have started a little after Nemesis with the same contempt for earlier Trek series they had when they set it in the 2250s and it would still have met with exactly the same lack of acceptance from the long time fans.
>
> SNW could turn out to be that new flagship if they somehow manage to avoid the pitfalls they made with DSC, but Kurtzman's track record with that is not good so it probably will be just another of their typical all SFX, poor plotting and writing, and no respect at all for the other Treks, which makes that rather iffy at best.
>
> Another smart thing CBS could do would be to put a new Star Trek on their open network as an always there hook that would attract people to the Trek in the streaming service, but I doubt if they will.
This is the most accurate statement I have ever read. I’m a fan of Star Trek but I’ll never watch Disco or any of the other shows on CBSAA because it’s behind a service instead of on a network channel “for the people”. Corporate decisions based on flawed logic as opposed to core vision has ruined many a franchise for me (Star Wars, Terminator, Transformers, etc.). As long as CBS is moving like Disney, we’ll never truly get another good series. And whether you’re a fanboy or casual fan, that’s the scariness in it. Watching a franchise fail simply because a corporate money crunchers are the ultimate shot callers is heartbreaking. I’ll play STO because it’s “free” but I’d never pay nor play if they went to a subscription only model. I don’t support the Zen Shop or loot boxes either with real money transactions because it’ll only further there agenda. But that’s my opinion and take on it.
Let's be real about this...whatever the numbers on the viewership for this show...it is not clocking over in the double digits, high double digits.
Second, the merchandise that exists now, is a mere drop in the bucket, unlike the previous times of doing 30 to 40 million dollars with Prime Trek, that's gone now.
If the Discovery is to survive, the story telling, the characters and the suppose premise must be better and more appealing not to a selective audience but must touch across the greater board.
And lastly...if they cannot achieve the 2 latter statements, and they are going to make money via license fees *getting the show aired in broader markets*, no one outside the US wants to waste money on a show that does not appeal to a greater auidence, or reflect on the Trek they know. Yes, you can improve upon that, as long it is recognizeable to many.
But to serve a small niche of the population, with glitz and gams approach, is not what makes a Tv show endures upon a public's memories. And if the arguement will be made that TNG was in the same boat back then, when things turned around after Season 3, well...I wasn't aware of the disgruntled nature among the viewership. I was just enjoying the updating from TOS and the progressive forwarding.
Discovery hasn't done that, and that was a mistake...now going to the future to do what actually? What the premise? Take the lessons of the future and changed the past?
Well, if that is the angle...then it will mean that they will want to erase everything that came after them in their past/present timeline...yes, everything. No Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway, only Archer will survive, cause he is before them all.
The entire troupe of Discovery started wrong and never settled properly...and even now, I set my mind for Season 3 to impress me, upstaged my expectations.
It is not doing that...Discovery is not being successful so far.
There are some things they did by chance get right and you listed off most of them. Many of those were from the movies, which they do acknowledge to a degree (according to the set designer most of the stuff was based off The Undiscovered Country, which she said was the ONLY Star Trek worth anything, instead of the era closer to where DSC was set for instance), and as you point out many of the others were actually references to TOS that were made in the later series.
On the other hand, they got very important things wrong, like the warp drive. It is not a jump drive like in Star Wars and as shown in The Deadly Years going to warp is not a get away free card without a good head start, in TOS the enemy could see you and give chase perfectly well if their engines were up to the task.
They could also see what was around them in warp so they would not blunder into an asteroid field "dropping out of warp" the way DSC did. In fact, in Mudds Women they chased Mudd though an asteroid field dodging rocks at warp (Sulu was better at it than Mudd). In reasonably clear space they could see other ships hours away from their position, while in DSC the sensor operators rarely get enough time to warn the bridge that ships are inbound, even huge fleets of them like in Battle at the Binary Stars.
Also, from the last season or so of ENT when they figured out how to balance the phases of the weapons and warp field to not interfere with each other until the 2270s when they switched the phaser feed from the impulse stacks to the warp core, they fought at warp, entered and left orbit at warp, and in fact almost never used the impulse drive at all.
As for the poor quality free-air holograms, they were not an issue while Shenzhou was sitting right on top of the subspace relay (which was probably part of a diplomatic chain to Qo'noS, similar to the realworld cold war "Hotline"), those probably could actually push enough bandwidth fast enough to do something like that.
The issue was that TOS established that the relays were few and far between over most of the frontier so DSC should not have had realtime communications, especially stuff that high bandwidth, every single time they communicated with anyone. A large part of the tension in TOS came from the fact that they were often in areas where it took hours for a message to get back to command so Kirk was often almost as much on his own as Victorian age sailing ship captains.
And then we come to targeting systems. In TOS the average combat rule of thumb was the rule of fours, it was most often done at warp 4 at an approximate range of about 40,000km. And that was nowhere near the limit of their range, Enterprise bullseyed NOMAD with a photon at 90,000km, and a Klingon battlecruiser had no trouble at all hitting Enterprise at about 100,000km with its disruptor cannons in Elaan of Troyius. In DSC they seem to have serious trouble hitting the enemy at 40,000 feet distance judging by the visuals.
Then there is the fact that they were using what is now called the "sech" as the official DSC D7 but managed to back off from that later. Other aesthetic problems are that the interiors are based on The Undiscovered Country and not on a modernized TOS style. And there are many more differences both in aesthetics and function ranging from technology and uniform design philosphy, to the way the Federation and Klingon societies were portrayed.
Now, they would have been fine ADDING some of that stuff, but ignoring or intentionally replacing large intrinsic parts of that era of Trek and expressly forbidding the use of iconic features and background information is where they went wrong. They did fix some of it by retconning some of the first season DSC with damage control measures but so far it is too little too late to get a lot of the alienated core fans back, a factor not helped at all by the shallow action-hero style the show is written in. If an action gag is good it goes in no matter how much it lacks sense or compatibility with previous series.
No one said anything about "hate", just that it would have been wiser for DSC to have started with TOS as the source instead of skipping it out of contempt for "the fifty year old show". Hollywood has a bad habit of sneering at anything they consider old though so they ended up with something that just does not appeal to the old core fans (which tended to be stickers for the kind of inter-series continuity DSC seems to distain so much).
I know it probably sounds weird to anyone not part of the fan scene of the '70s and thereabouts, but a large part of the Trek fanbase treated the various series as a solid fictional history (and still do), with distinctive eras each with their own look and feel, but CBS apparently just wants everything to use the exact same aesthetics, technology, and social factors like it was all happening at the same time regardless of the era and how much time there is between them in the setting.
Would you really expect a TV series dealing with stories set in real historical periods like the US Civil War, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, and the Middle East conflicts to all look the same and use the same equipment? CBS apparently expects Trek fans to do the equivalent of that.
It is a disappointment, and some few exceptionally irate fans do seem to hate it but really the new stuff is not bad at all by modern TV generic sci-fi standards. It just is not worth taking exceptional steps like signing up for a pay streaming service to watch it when there are other generic shows in the same general style out there, especially with the direction the third season is going (unless they pull a Hail Mary and do something to get it to fit right in the 2250s, like a time intervention or something, but that is almost certainly not going to happen with Kurtzman and company in charge).
Do you know why the numbers were high in the beginning? Curiosity...folks wanted to see what it was all about. Second, overseas, especially in the UK, they have a noticeably huge fan base over there (Next to Doctor Who). So yes, a major spike will occur in that fashion.
The time era of Andromeda (which I watched) was not polluted with today's current mind divided among the fanbase. Like any sci fi show that was out during that time, I was lapping it up, because it was sci fi fun and at that time great or decent storytelling...no platform motif, no political statement outright (but done in a subtle way through the story) that smashed hard against your beliefs.
As for the numbers...sustainability, constant sustainability must be showed that public interest is caught and kept, with the avenue to increase the numbers if the show grows.
But as of late with Doctor Who, many Whovians are dismayed with the rewritten of History on their beloved show of decades old.
And many here, feared the same thing...which is happening now. If CBS/Secret Hideout wanted a journey of Trek, they should have done it with a new crew and new story line, and didn't need to touch anything of the past or the pseudo present illustrated here by current gaming company.
There was plenty of room, to build and grow a new legend, which could have been respected and possible loved...but no, tear down it, stomp it and whatever else to the past and current present that was left off at...tear it down and people will come back. That is becoming very unlikely...
For the Nu-Trek folks, they won't be generational, just instant fills...the mindset has changed over the many years, and the division of differences has punched its way to once considered a sacred place to many, and yes it was setup that many didn't understand or really see coming. But Social media used by normal folks who love those nerdy or geeky times...gave out those cries and many started to pay attention, the main media never did that, just regular folks and hence the ground swell of awareness to what changes are happening now or correctly, since 2009.
I am willing to give Discovery a chance, but it does not deserve the motif of being called a 'Star Trek' journey.
We can agree to disagree on that point of view...
Added--Overseas audiences are less fussy to American movies or Tv shows because it is just curiosity on what the 'Colony' makes these days, but that attitude is changing too, through social media...that is why many American films are shown first across the waters...because there are no true hang ups that exist over there. But that premise that does hold true either in some other countries. Some films must be tailored to the sensibilities mandated by certain governments and tv shows are not excluded.
That might change...down the road.
Except for the fact that I actually like Picard, which is "new Trek". And who said anything about stuff not comforming to my exact wishes? Get off your high horse and realize that just because someone likes something it doesn't mean that EVERYONE has to like it. Just as it's true for the contrary.
I guess it's easier to make fun of people because *gasp* they DARE think differently than you!
But go off, I guess.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
Again, that word 'hate'...is wrongly used. Dislike, disapproval, disappointment are the general feelings here.
Consider this, I watched every show that Secret Hideout has done on 'Trek'...a newbie company created in 2014, given the reigns of back then, a late 40ish year old franchise.
And to add, I watch all previous Treks, but not including the original anime one, never got around to it. I didn't hate them either.
What is going here, is a comparison...a measuring stick of all previous knowledge known to many who has followed the franchise since its birth.
When you get to that age of the franchise longevity, you will make the comparison too, when someone else will try to make a new 'Trek', in an unusual way to what you usually are expecting.
Then reflect on this discussion when that occurs and realize on why this happened.
Given the fact, that they don't research in great depths to understand the previous history...I am not expecting any major improvements down the road.
> (Quote)
> They explicitly mentioned the Temporal Cold War in episode 1 of Discovery's 3rd season. Specifically, after the Temporal Wars all time travel tech was destroyed and outlawed. Any ships based on that technology would have been destroyed also.
>
> Also "subspace folding" isn't a thing. Its an ability in STO, but not an actual term in Star Trek.
Thats nonsense. There is physically no way they'd be able to successfully prevent the Na'kuhl and the other temporal forces from time traveling or creating more time travel devices. The moment the good guys are like "lets all destroy our own time travel tech" the bad guys would make even MORE time travel devices.
And the good guys would need to keep their time travel tech to stop the bad guys.
And subspace manifolds are real, though I got the name wrong, Kal Dano's ship used them to be bigger on the inside.
Someone else said...it looked more Mass Effect, the Citadel.
> (Quote)
>
> Someone else said...it looked more Mass Effect, the Citadel.
They were already copying Mass Effect in Picard its no surprise to see more things "inspired" by it in Disco
The word 'Inspired' doesn't fit well with AK and SH dubious machinations on illustrating other scifi well known properties...