CBS Delaying 'Star Trek: Discovery' To Maintain Quality (foxnews.com) 228
New submitter Zorro shares a report from Fox News: The premiere of "Star Trek: Discovery" on CBS' subscription streaming service, CBS All Access, was postponed nine months to maintain the quality of the brand. Executive producer Alex Kurtzman told the Television Critics Association Tuesday that they "spent a lot of time" discussing how to create this new world for TV that felt authentic to the "Star Trek" universe. Also during that time, executive producer Bryan Fuller decided to exit the series as showrunner to focus on other projects. Kurtzman said "it became clearer and clearer" that the targeted January debut would "compromise the quality of the show," so it was pushed with the blessing of CBS Chairman and CEO Leslie Moonves.
Stinker (Score:5, Insightful)
They've got a real stinker on their hands and they know it.
9 months to fix it? Good luck. That's long enough to tell us that there are serious fucking problems, yet not long enough for them to fix them.
I expect this will either be delayed further, outright canned, or just put out as-is and never spoken of again.
Re:Stinker (Score:5, Insightful)
In the long history of Star Trek, that knowledge has never stopped them before... and I say this as a fan of the franchise.
Re:Stinker (Score:5, Interesting)
Also as a fan of the franchise, after what Abrams did to it I didn't bother watching any more Star Trek movies.
There's always been a lot of escapist space-opera. Star Trek usually offered something greater than that, even when using an episodic, rather than a serialized format. Granted, that something-greater isn't for everyone, as there are a lot of people that like the escapist space-opera stuff that don't like Star Trek, but that's OK, they've managed to create well over 500 hours of content and are arguably the most successful science fiction media franchise in history, so clearly there's enough audience for what Star Trek has offered to justify it.
The problem is that if one attempts to change it to make it appeal to even more people then that special-something that built the fanbase in the first place is lost, and I have no doubt that more fans would be lost than would be found in the new format, at least for something that requires as much commitment as a weekly TV series.
TV shows struggle to find the balance between character-interaction/development and the situations that the characters find themselves in. Too much of one or the other and the audience shrugs and tunes in to something else. From what little I've heard about this new series it was going to be far too much on characters and not nearly enough on big-picture situations. Hopefully someone at CBS or whoever manages the franchise will realize that unless they manage to walk a fine line, they're going to end up spending a lot of money producing a show that doesn't build an audience.
Re: (Score:2)
Also as a fan of the franchise, after what Abrams did to it I didn't bother watching any more Star Trek movies.
Alex Kurtzman, one of Jar Jar's butmonkeys, is the "creator" of this upcoming shitfest.
You can also tell from the promotion material that it follows Jar Jar Trek design in everything from the style of the font used for the logo to in-show visuals like lights and special effects.
So it's no wonder they're having problems splicing it in between Enterprise and TOS.
It's neither visually nor thematically similar to either of those - but it fits just fine next to Jar Jar Trek.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought our little group was the only one referring to it as the Jar-Jar Star Trek universe :)
But then, looking at your sig, I'm starting to think you're me .... much confuzzled.
Re: (Score:2)
I was never a fan of Jar Jar (Binks one too) but I didn't dawn on me it until all the hype regarding Cloverfield resulted in... warmed up Slusho with a side order of shit.
Which is when I've actually browsed back through things he was involved with, realizing that hype, geeking out, piling shit on top of more shit and inability to make both the story and/or plot work or even connect logically - is his modus operandi.
My guess is that he is really good at convincing people that he has passion about projects he
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think the gays in the BBC who are trying to turn the next season of Dr. Who into a feminist transgender preach fest might give him a run for his money.
Re: (Score:2)
Naah... That's not it. If you think that LGBTQ is a new thing to Dr. Who universe, you haven't been paying attention.
It's the other thing.
Money.
There's more Dr. Who than all the Star Trek combined.
I'm not sure if anyone knows how much of it is actually out there - with all the books, comics, audio books, lost episodes and whatnot.
Except, they've "wasted" 8 iterations of the character on a tiny UK market and modern market doesn't allow for Tom Baker-like actor tenures.
On top of it all, the canon of the show
Re: (Score:2)
a - Dude, it's Disney. You don't outlawyer the House of the Mouse.
b - Portals and various teleportation gates are older [tvtropes.org] than [wikipedia.org] dirt. [wikipedia.org]
It's a generic concept of a magical doorway into another world. And you can't copyright that.
There's a reason Disney slapped a TM on EVERYTHING Star Wars once they bought it. Cause all the shit in Star Wars is generic.
Only thing they CAN do is slap a name on "Generic Storm Trooper" and add a TM to it.
You can still make your own "Generic Storm Trooper" - just not one which is call
Re: (Score:2)
TV shows struggle to find the balance between character-interaction/development and the situations that the characters find themselves in. Too much of one or the other and the audience shrugs and tunes in to something else. From what little I've heard about this new series it was going to be far too much on characters and not nearly enough on big-picture situations.
Yes, that is a worry. Too much character just turns SF into a soap in space. SF also needs a good dose of tech, science, and sociology. Not fantasy — which is another worry if the main adversary is going to be especially dumb and brutal orc-like Klingons.
Re: (Score:2)
yea, I'm keeping an open mind. I think the whole ancient klingon stuff is great. Just 2 issues for me from what I can tell.
One is strictly from a look standpoint (at least with the uniforms, ships and tech in the background of some production stuff, I actually like the alien designs including the ancient klingons...if that's what they are). One reason some stuff can't look like exactly like the predecessors is because the star trek license is split between two corporations.
The second issue is they were want
Re: (Score:2)
I don't necessarily have a problem with the internal strife among the crew. I think that's one of the things that made DS9 great TV. Yes, it wasn't Roddenberry's grand vision of the utopian Federation, but it was a comfortable realism in which people didn't always get along and go along. The problem that I have is when that strife becomes "soapy" and the show is more about the crew's personal problems than it is about some interesting concept in science fiction.
Look at the TNG episode Relics, where Scotty c
Re: (Score:3)
Obligatory Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com]
Re:Stinker (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no way they don't ship it at this point, but given that the current plan is to make it available via their Streaming service, I bet when it tanks they blame streaming instead of the show.
We'll see, but I'm not hopeful.
Kurtzman and Goldsman ARE serious fucking problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever either Alex Kurtzman or Akiva Goldsman touch - it turns to shit.
Though, granted, they did find a worse combination than joining Kurtzman with Orci, Jar Jar and Lindelof, as usual.
I'm guessing that adding that "From the writer of "I Am Legend", "The Da Vinci Code", "Angels and Demons", "I, Robot", "Lost in Space", "Batman & Robin" and "Transformers: The Last Knight"" credit clinched it.
But hey! At least they've gotten rid of the guy who worked on DS9 and Voyager!
That'll make the Noo Trek so much better!
Re:Stinker (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole thing has had "trainwreck" plastered all over it at least since Bryan Fuller left. Fuller has a great TV track record and solid Trek experience. When he doesn't want anything to do with a Trek project, you know it must be a piece of shit.
Re:Stinker (Score:5, Insightful)
People seem to forget how bad all the other Star Trek series were at first. TNG had a really bad first season, and the original series had one failed pilot and a difficult start too. Even DS9 and Voyager weren't brilliant from the get-go.
Having said that, the trailer for Discovery looks okay. At most I'd say it's too early to pass judgement.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought DS9 was pretty well-written from the get-go, but some of the acting was severely painful, like worse than Babylon 5 in the first season painful. IMO Voyager took at least two years to really get going. I rewatched both not too long ago.
Having said that, the trailer for Discovery looks okay. At most I'd say it's too early to pass judgement.
I'd say it's too little footage to pass judgement. But if they're spending the next nine months fixing it somehow, then you couldn't make a call anyway because they might fix it or break it somehow.
Re: (Score:3)
The headline is misleading. The September launch date is still going ahead, it was just supposed to be January, i.e. 9 months ago. The trailer is what it's going to be like when it starts next month.
Re: (Score:2)
Even so, the trailer doesn't tell us much beyond what some of the characters will look like. The biggest reason I'm skeptical that it will be worth watching is that it's going to be on CBS, not anything I saw in the trailer. I, for one, do not actually give a damn about the ethnic makeup of the cast and Trek is almost always preachy so as long as it doesn't spend all its time being preachy about the same thing, I'll be fine. On the other hand, I'm not actually going to subscribe to their service to watch it
Re: (Score:2)
The headline copies a confusing mistake from the article headline. "Delaying" should have been "Delayed." Apparently, the headline author not do English so good.
Re: (Score:2)
But some of it was very good. I could point out Duet was first season.
Re: (Score:2)
Voyager was brilliant? When?
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when Janeway and Paris abandoned their lizard-babies on that planet without a second thought?
I always felt that was something special.
Re: (Score:3)
ST:DS9 took about until the middle of 3rd season before it got good - sorta coincided with certain people having left DS9 to work on ST:Voy
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Stinker (Score:5, Interesting)
If there's one place where SJW's belong, it's Star Trek. Frankly, the reboot movies were kind of boring because they were generic action flicks with none of the social commentary that Roddenberry was all about. Speculative fiction in general is partly built on presenting social issues with some of the prejudices stripped away through the use of alien ideas.
Even if the positions are silly or the metaphors don't hold up under scrutiny, at least they could've tried, rather than done yet another safe-but-not-super J.J. "I know how to start a story but have no clue how to finish it" Abrams vehicle.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Stinker (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone is in some weird 1% that doesn't quite fit in.
Maybe I'm using the wrong definition of SJW; I have been assuming it's a term for people who are so enamored with the idea of fighting for civil rights, that they don't really examine whether they're helping things get better, but there's a kernel that they are fighting for that either was at one time an issue or still is at least somewhat of an issue.
And that's why I think Star Trek is a good home for them: Star Trek was sometimes overbearing in its social commentary and that's part of what made it Star Trek. With that, though, you can help get people thinking about what's really going on and what should be better.
Re: (Score:1)
I have been assuming it's a term for people who are so enamored with the idea of fighting for civil rights
You shouldnt assume.
Re: (Score:2)
More accurately SJWs clamber all over causes fighting for nothing else but the public spotlight the money that follows, when main stream media pumps up the issue for ratings and to divide and conquer the working class, who are invariably the target of SJWs. Those kinds of SJWs have been touched on in Star Trek episodes more than once, as the core problem of a society that the Federation either solves or blocks. Social Justice where social is entirely narcissistic and all about them and the Federation strive
Re: (Score:2)
More accurately SJWs clamber all over causes fighting for nothing else but the public spotlight the money that follows,
There's plenty of poor kids who literally describe themselves as SJWs, in some kind of meta-ironic backlash against the sarcastic use of the term. It may well be about recognition, but it isn't necessarily about money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow the phrase has come to be equated with "whiny twat on the Internet that doesn't agree with my racist, homophobic, religion-intolerant worldview."
The phrase was coined for that purpose. Compare "White Knight".
Re: (Score:2)
Don't think whiny twat on the internet, they are completely acceptable, expressing their own opinion and striving for justice. Think narcissist with main stream media backing, you can tell the difference quite readily, one is about the cause and the other is about them and their championing their cause and their cause takes second place to them. So the abusers of SJW who took it over with main stream media backing in order to break up workers = left to the point where everyday workers are now deplorables ac
Re:Stinker (Score:4)
Star Trek Continues released a new episode at the weekend. It's another masterpiece, Trek at its very best. And it manages to deal with a modern social issue, migration and refugees, in a way that presents different arguments and views while creating drama and interest for the viewer.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed - a fantastic episode. If you're a TOS fan, this one is well worth checking out. A few 'holy shit' plot moments too.
Star Trek Continues -- migration & refugees (Score:2)
Just watched Episode 9 "What Ships Are For" based on your comment and -- wow -- well done!
http://www.startrekcontinues.c... [startrekcontinues.com]
I agree -- Trek at its very best.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm using the wrong definition of SJW; I have been assuming it's a term for people who are so enamored with the idea of fighting for civil rights, that they don't really examine whether they're helping things get better, but there's a kernel that they are fighting for that either was at one time an issue or still is at least somewhat of an issue.
Ah, well... there's your problem.
Your definition clearly lacks the reference to snowflakes or use of the term "cuck", as is the parlance of times and society.
And that's why I think Star Trek is a good home for them: Star Trek was sometimes overbearing in its social commentary and that's part of what made it Star Trek. With that, though, you can help get people thinking about what's really going on and what should be better.
Personally, only overbearing episode I can think of was the one when space ISIS take over the Enterprise [wikia.com] and start deleting files and blowing themselves up.
On the other hand...
I'm under the impression that the lack of examination you mention makes SJWs more... Star Wars fans.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to be a contrarian here: Justice is supposed to be about wrongs being righted. Period. Full Stop.
Every time I see a modifier to that (i.e. 'social justice', 'economic justice', 'environmental justice', 'racial justice', 'gender justice' are all examplars of this that I've seen), it's always attached to a specific political agenda. And each type that I've seen all advocate controls on some sort of behavior that usually has little, if anything, to do with righting the particular wrong addressed.
A
Re: Stinker (Score:2, Interesting)
If you read the first two books of Plato's Republic, you'll find six or seven contrasting definitions of Justice. Even the ancient Greeks knew that "justice" was a beautiful-sounding word promising some vague celesetial virtue whose earthly manifestation could be anything convenient to the person speaking at the moment.
Never fight for buzzwords. Fight for specific, quantified goals.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm the 1% of the population who doesn't give a fuck about social justice. Not even four years ago I was living below the federal poverty level for the 10 years of my adult life with my crowning achievement being a 20 hour a week minimum wage job at Staples where I mostly just manned the till and stocked shelves. And according to this [pewresearch.org] I'm now within the upper class, and I didn't need any stupid social justice.
I didn't have an inheritance of any kind, parents didn't pay for a thing that I needed, I didn't ha
Hubris (Score:2)
Your capacities, path, opportunities, drives, and circumstances are not universal constants.
So your "I've been there" is bound to be inaccurate for others, and any general conclusions you draw about those other people from such a presumption are bound to be flawed.
Re: (Score:2)
Your capacities, path, opportunities, drives, and circumstances are not universal constants.
So your "I've been there" is bound to be inaccurate for others, and any general conclusions you draw about those other people from such a presumption are bound to be flawed.
Accuracy of my situation to others is completely irrelevant. No two people are alike. And so why do we need justice for this? Justice means being impartial or righting a wrong. If we're truly being impartial, then all people will need to succeed or fail on their own merits, which includes everything you just mentioned above rather than being given special favors, which is by definition NOT impartial.
But if you're talking about righting a wrong, then who wronged whom?
Was the 16 hours a day for 8 years world
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say a word about "justice." I simply observed that your presumptions about other people are invalid. Because they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... SJW's tend to be the kind of people who are complaining that there weren't enough blacks, women, and transgendered people represented in the new Dunkirk movie.
Umm... it's a military movie based in the 1940's. There weren't many blacks, women, and transgendered people stranded on that beach that needed saving from the Germans.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, like, say, nerds?
20% of the population, so fits in.
Re:Stinker (Score:5, Insightful)
I would disagree with you 100%. The message of star trek was that race and sex don't matter. They had a diverse cast to show that everyone was the same. The world of Star Trek is a strict meritocracy.
The message of "Social Justice" is the complete opposite of this. SocJus declares that race and sex matter more than anything else. SocJus declares meritocracy to be racist and sexist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Race mattered in Star Trek. Allowances were made for Worf due to being a Klingon, for example. And it wasn't quite as post-racial as people think, e.g. Riker's reaction when some Ferengi were invited to the Enterprise and he couldn't hide his disgust, even asking for them to be quartered well away from his own dwelling.
Where "social justice", or rather some of the movements that are labelled as such, say that race and gender matter they are just accepting reality as it is. In reality men and women are diffe
Re: (Score:2)
Social commentary in Star Trek, after the Viacom meltdown, is owned by CBS. Paramount *can't* do social commentary story lines.
Re: (Score:2)
One problem with the late war was that we didn't kill enough Nazis.
Re: (Score:2)
Too many SJWs, probably. Everything they touch turns to crap.
Another MRA, looking for any excuse to blame SJWs.
Re: (Score:3)
Another MRA, looking for any excuse to blame SJWs.
So which ones are currently being played up by the gatekeepers of media, politics, intelligentsia and so on? And have been played up for the better part of a decade now. Right. That's not a "excuse to blame" it's that there's a very heavy push by people living in a bubble trying to push their garbage onto everyone else. It wasn't the right that embraced identity politics, it isn't the right pushing segregation like someone in 1952. It's not MRA's pushing supremacist garbage, and it's not MRA's crying a
Re: (Score:2)
In this case too many capitalists- it's a Paramount produced show, CBS owns the original series IP, and Paramount owns the movies. This intellectual property fight has ruined the franchise, hiding behind multiple "alternate universe" story lines with sets, story lines, and costumes designed ONLY to avoid intellectual property issues.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Complaints about "SJWs" are always more informational about the complainers than demonstrative about the complainee.
Re: (Score:2)
So thinking that SJW are ridiculous indicates to you that I'm living in my parents basement?
I think defending rioting over Milo and screaming at people in studying in libraries for not joining their protest as an indication of supporters of SJW (like YOU) are still living in their parents basement.
Re: (Score:2)
Wut?
Who is Nichelle Nichols?
I would complain because ToS is largely trash with awful, hammy overacting by Zapp Brannigan. TNG is far better, even though it's got tons of soap opera episodes. (In general, I am not a fan of Star Trek or Roddenberry.)
I don't even know what Discovery is about. I only heard about it briefly during the SDCC media blitz. I'm merely commenting on the fact that the studio doing this is a clear sign that it's a fucking stinker.
Re: (Score:2)
Two thumbs up.
Re: (Score:2)
And to pour over the color tables to get the sepia tones just...about...perfect.
It needs to be on showtime as well. in Canada it's (Score:2)
It needs to be on showtime as well. in Canada it's planed to be on basic cable.
Do they need make the 1st show kick ass with a big next week on Star Trek: Discovery to sell CBS All Access ???
Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. And at the very moment of me writing this the Wikipidia page still lists the release date as September 24th. Kind of begs the question. Do they mean 9 months from this new date in September or do they mean months from January. Because the article mentions a 'targeted January debut'.
At this point I don't know if anyone has any idea what's going on with this project. For all I know this turd burger could end up being so messed up that it's stuck in development hell until CBS just gives up on it.
Re: (Score:2)
doomed (Score:2)
Re:doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Too much change... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
But what do Klingons look like, anyway? There are already several good answers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too much change... (Score:4)
It's hardly new for Trek - TNG re-imagined a lot of stuff, including the look for the Klingons. In any case, in the established universe (which this is part of, it's not a reboot) the Klingons did look different back then. There were the augmented Klingons and various other groups with different appearances.
Re:Too much change... (Score:4, Informative)
It's hardly new for Trek - TNG re-imagined a lot of stuff, including the look for the Klingons. In any case, in the established universe (which this is part of, it's not a reboot) the Klingons did look different back then. There were the augmented Klingons and various other groups with different appearances.
Actually, the 're-imagined' Klingons first appeared in the first TOS movie.
Best way to Maintain Quality of this dud (Score:2)
is just to not release it.
Pretty sad when (Score:2)
the fan made series are better than glossy network produced shows. The latest episode of Continues was spot on with a plot that left Kirk between a rock and hard place holding to the prime directive, or saving an entire race of people, well worth the free. (as in beer), viewing.
https://player.vimeo.com/video... [vimeo.com]
This labor of love is by far the best spin on the ST universe.
Terrible article - no additional delay in reality (Score:2)
But... (Score:2)
Why do they keep calling it "Star Trek returns to TV" when it's an internet streaming show, rather than on the actual broadcast network?
Attracting a new crowd? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're spot-on. Consider this like music. Assuming you're above the age of 30, nobody cares about the music you used to listen to, and the music that is produced now isn't for you, it's for the 13-24 year old age group that actually spends money on music.
Each iteration of Star Trek isn't about the 'old guard' so much as attracting a new generation of viewers. The old guard isn't enough to bank a show on, unless their kids get in on it.
This is a good move, Maybe delay until 2025-2030.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good science fiction (maybe intermittent at times) is what fans want. If you can pump it up with season arcs and more social development (no relation) all the better.
I can forgive barking Klingons in skeleton zoot suits if the stories are good. (The golden glow sepia stuff needs to go though.)
When's Orville starting?
Re: (Score:2)
Odd.. (Score:2)
Last night (8/2), CBS was still advertising and promoting a Sept 20th date.
Maybe, that's just for the series premier with the series itself being delayed?
Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A white klingon would look weird, but a green andorian would look completely alien.
Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here (Score:4, Insightful)
Well you certainly are trying to prove it. Do you think your post has anything but trolling?
The push for diversity, as Marvel has found, can't come at the expense of your target audience. I would also counter than ST:TNG, Voyager & Deep Space Nine had no diversity problem at all - I wasn't a fan of Voyager but I loved ST:TNG & Deep Space Nine. You can bow to the pressure of these fringe groups, but they are NOT the ones that are going to watch the shows. Look at GhostBusters. They got exactly what they asked for (plus a shitty script) and...those very people failed to support it. That's pretty much been the story. Look at Black Panther & The Crew. Quickly cancelled because...no one was interested. No one reads comics for that sort of political crap. I can watch the news if I want that garbage.
The bottom line: It's about the money. If comics/movies about [pick your favorite PC flavor of the month] made them money, I PROMISE you they'd be all over it. If they come on with a solid stories and good acting, ST:D (HAHAHAHHAHA) will do fine. I simply have no faith the scripts will also not be a bunch of political PC BS.
The other death knell is hijacking it to their streaming service. I don't plan to watch it regardless of where it broadcasts but I certainly am not going to sub to CBS to see it.
Re:Don't expect intelligent discussion here (Score:4, Insightful)
The push for diversity, as Marvel has found, can't come at the expense of your target audience.
Marvel found that "pushing for diversity" isnt a good business model, that those loud people that think something is wrong unless every single box is checked... are a minority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did a post comparing the number of white male to non-white or non-male characters in Discovery a while back. Can't find the link now but basically it's 50% of the cast is white male.
TOS was over 70% white male. TNG was more balanced, about 50% depending on who you count as being part of the main cast.
Picard - white male
Riker - white male
Troi - white female
Crusher, B. - white female
Crusher, W. - white male
LeForge - black male
Worf - black male
Data - white male
So really Discovery is not at all radical or un
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the issue is the diversity in itself, for the very reasons you specify. Roddenberry had Uhura as a bridge officer, and she was treated as the part of the senior staff she was, well respected by her fellow officers. Chekhov might have been a white male, but having a Russian pilot the ship in the 60's was still a bold statement since everyone was scared of the Russians at the time. Right behind that was having a Japanese man in charge of tactical with WWII, Pearl Harbor, and internment camps all
Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Deep Space Nine - Star Trek on a space station. When the commander points his finger and says "Engage", nothing happens. That's why halfway through it's run, they brought in the Defiant.
Voyager - Gilligan's Island in space. I didn't care that the Captain was a woman, but apparently the rest of the demographic did. Halfway though it's run, they dropped Kes and got Seven of Nine for eye candy.
Enterprise - Star Trek with the guy from Quantum Leap. They deal with species that we never see in any of the other shows, and are missing the species that we WANT to see. Only lasted about 4 years.
There is only one formula that works. That's what the viewers want to see. CBS is *NOT* going to do that, so Discovery will suck.
Re: (Score:3)
The original Star Trek only ran for 3 seasons, but created a *HUGE* following, and led to several movies, a few of which were actually good.
The original Trek had an amazing cast, presented a new view of the future, and pushed the boundaries of television at the time.
TNG was a reboot and it lasted for 7 seasons, and also had a HUGE following. It followed the same formula, and it did great!
TNG had an amazing cast, amazing writers, and generally high production values.
Deep Space Nine - Star Trek on a space station. When the commander points his finger and says "Engage", nothing happens. That's why halfway through it's run, they brought in the Defiant.
All true, but DS9 was still a well-loved show. That's why its run was long enough to have a halfway worthy of the name.
Voyager - Gilligan's Island in space. I didn't care that the Captain was a woman, but apparently the rest of the demographic did. Halfway though it's run, they dropped Kes and got Seven of Nine for eye candy.
Seven of Nine was not only better eye candy than Kes (although she had her own substantial following of fanboys) but also a stronger and more interesting character in every way, not merel
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A 9 month delay on a TV series mean scrapping a lot of stuff. At a guess Days of our Lives in space, day time soap opera for broad, more accurately female appeal, bombed really badly with test audiences, day time soap opera viewers hated it and sci fi aficionados absolutely loathed it. SJWs loved what was in it but hated to watch it and believed they could force other people to watch it, it's their self serving nature. It seems to be all they can produce now, the last series of Dr Who was crap, just went st
Re: (Score:2)
> day time soap opera for broad, more accurately female appeal,
May I congratulate you on the number of levels in that comment? It caught my eye.
Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem (Score:5, Insightful)
DS9 was the best Trek show ever. It was the only one where the characters acted like anything remotely resembling real people.
Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem (Score:5, Informative)
I love DS9. The characters have depth, and the writers didn't treat each one as if they existed in a vacuum. They might have focused more on a particular individual for a specific episode, but the rest of the characters would still be believably intertwined in the story.
Also, it had well-written and well-acted antagonists - that tends to make a show stronger (just like how the best Bond movies always had strong villains). Gul Dukat was complicated, conflicted, and amazing. Weyoun wasn't quite as deep, but Jeffrey Combs sold it (he also may have been the best thing about Enterprise). The Founders were evil and awful, but as you learned more you could see how they were driven down that path.
I also really liked the way they wrote Benjamin and Jake Cisco. They weren't just father and son for the sake of the occasional plot line - they had a relationship which felt real (something TNG couldn't manage with Worf and Alexander).
It seems like the main complaint I hear about DS9 is that some people just don't like long story arcs... but I'm not one of those people.
Re: (Score:2)
You liked Jake Cisco? All of you other points are now invalid.
Nog at least had some interesting roles to play. The whole Prophets story arc was painful. They did have some good character development, probably because they had to given the space station environment. Anyway I didn't hate DS9, but there were a lot of episodes I could pass on, namely anything to do with the Prophets or that had Jake as the central character.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you hit the nail on the head - the whole DS9 series was about faith and religion.
That's both the reason why it alienated a bunch of strictly secular trekkies, and why it was so much more interesting and deep that any of the other ST franchises.
Now, to be clear, I'm a full-on god-does-not-exist atheist, but understanding that a vast majority (sadly) of humanity does believe in supernatural dogma, means that when you exclude faith and religion, you lose a great part of the human story.
TNG had a better
Re:Saw the preview, it's not a "quality" problem (Score:5, Interesting)
The original Star Trek only ran for 3 seasons, but created a *HUGE* following, and led to several movies, a few of which were actually good. TNG was a reboot and it lasted for 7 seasons, and also had a HUGE following. It followed the same formula, and it did great!
A season when TOS was made was 26 episodes with a new season every year. A "modern" season is 13 episodes with a new season every year and a half.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't drop Kes, she left the show and came back for one or two episodes.
Re: (Score:2)
> There is only one formula that works.
Oh I must protest. TOS and TNG followed the same basic formula and were great and I love both of them, but DS9 is my favorite series over and above that, and it's not because of the Defiant. It's because of the scope and what happened when the rubber of Federation ideals hit the road of a hostile frontier that pushed back hard. TNG was great but if I had one criticism of it, it would be that idealism pretty much always won out, with a few scattered exceptions. D
Re: (Score:2)
In a way some might argue that this new show is starting off on that same foot given the SJW involvement. After all, simplistic morality is what the SJW's claim to represent (they dont know that what they think is simplistic.)
Consider the phrase "it goes without saying"
The SJW's feel the need to say the things that go without saying, constantly. Every waking moment is dedicated to projecting those things that go without saying.
If
Re: (Score:2)