[Bridger]

[Three of Seven]

Makes sense, my impression has been from early episodes that they wanted to reinvent Star Trek, not continue it.

[Mack]

Makes sense, my impression has been from early episodes that they wanted to reinvent Star Trek, not continue it.

I share this impression too. It's just not for audience seeking continuity.

[Rellimie]

I find her obnoxious

[Dark]

Wasn't this also the case for the JJ movies?

Also basically Bethesda with the Fallout property.

[aceman67]

If thats what they are trying to do, they're failing, because I like Discovery and I Like Trek...

Also, I find that she's rather obnoxious as well.

[LogicalLeopard]

These dumb videos. I love Trek, and I've loved it since before TNG premiered. I also love Discovery.

If a person doesn't like Discovery, why cant it be simply, "I dont like it." Why does it have to be, "I dont like it, and no REAL Trek Fan can like it either? Why do people devote so much time to actively hating something they DONT like?

There are lots of shows that I dont like. Yet I haven't made a YouTube video about any of them. Don't like Discovery? Fine. You have several hundred other Trek shows to watch for the rest of your life, plus novels. I'm not even sure why people look at these videos anyway. But rest assured, I wont make a video about Disco-haters videos. *L*

[Bridger]

People have different opinions and all of them should be respected for me Discovery has been complete disrespectful to anything Star Trek has been and many people are sharing this opinion and fear that the franchise is getting more and more damaged by it.

[aceman67]

That doesn't mean they're failing... It just means you like both...

It's obvious that Discovery is fundamentally different than any Star Trek show that came before. Discovery adheres to none of the formula that makes Star Trek, Star Trek. Does that make Discovery bad? Not on it's own, the show it self is okay if it was it's own standalone show. Is it bad when it comes to it being a Star Trek show? Yeah I think so.

It's not really surprising that there quite a bit of hate for them because of this shift. Look at Star Wars, look at Blizzard, look at any company that changed their formula. If you shift to much from what you used to do, you're going to have a lot of people feel alienated.

Different =/= Bad, I agree. Would I have been happy if Discovery had been some more of the same that we got from previous series'? No, but I would have been sad and disappointed at its inevitable cancelation because of lack of ratings.

Let's face it, the old Trek Formula from TNG/Voy/DS9/ENT would never work in today's entertainment culture, not when shows like Game of Thrones, New Battlestar Galactica, and the like have raised the bar so far past what Trek was for Science Fiction/Fantasy dramas.

Star Trek HAD to change. It had no choice. Its name isn't enough anymore, it's fan base, as loyal and passionate (and rabid, in some cases) as it is, it's not enough to support what would have to be a multi-million dollar per-episode series, because if they ever hope to attract new fans, fans mind you that are expecting the same level of production quality from newer shows of its ilk, it had to change.

[Taku]

It's the disregard for canon that is causing the uproar (for the most part). It's not the lighting, it's not the acting or the sets or the ships (again, for the most part), it's universe continuity. They plaster the name Star Trek on a show and you have certain expectations, you make certain assumptions, you reference certain historical milestones.

Disco ain't got no time fo dat!

Apparently.

[Arlu3n]

If CBS wouldn't call Discovery canon, there would not be such a big uproar by the fan base about them breaking the canon lore.. oof

[Mack]

Let's face it, the old Trek Formula from TNG/Voy/DS9/ENT would never work in today's entertainment culture, not when shows like Game of Thrones, New Battlestar Galactica, and the like have raised the bar so far past what Trek was for Science Fiction/Fantasy dramas.

I don't agree. While Orville is not entirely similar to previous Trek and comedic, it does have a story delivery concept of the previous Trek. They have good ratings.

So yes, maybe not everything. Change had to happen - we get that, yes. But in the name of 'change', stretching it right to the other side of graph and expecting the ENTIRE demographic to accept and like this 'change' is an absurd and unrealistic expectation.

Now - when you do that, you will have a divide of people who prefer this, people who resist it, and a mixture of people who accept the change or don't want anything to do with it. This is to be expected and normal when you do drastic changes, and this is a drastic change.

That's all that is to this.

[LogicalLeopard]

It's the disregard for canon that is causing the uproar (for the most part). It's not the lighting, it's not the acting or the sets or the ships (again, for the most part), it's universe continuity. They plaster the name Star Trek on a show and you have certain expectations, you make certain assumptions, you reference certain historical milestones.

Disco ain't got no time fo dat!

Apparently.

This whole canon thing....the biggest thing that appears to violate canon is the technology, like the holographic communication and the spore drive. Those can all be explained away. Other things are beginning to be explained, like the hairless Klingons, etc.

I am a fan of keeping things canon, and avoiding mistakes at all costs. But lets face it, this is STAR TREK we are talking about. TOS has all types of unexplained inconsistencies across just THREE years of the SAME series. One minute, it's the United Earth Space Probe Agency, the next it's Starfleet. If you look into the development of TNG, Gene Roddenberry wasn't a stickler for canon himself. There were radical changes to update the series to make things look better, like the Klingon and Romulan makeup changes. The Klingon makeup change went unexplained for something like two decades, from TMP to Enterprise.

All of the complaints that people have about Discovery have happened before, just at the time, people had limited ways of discussing them. There is NOTHING new about canon violations.

Yet in the last episode of Discovery alone, there are several canon references, including the obscure reference of Spock's room number aboard the Enterprise.

[Three of Seven]

No the biggest thing that breaks canon is the Klingons! Followed by an array of other major things.

With the Klingons, it's not just the hair, it's the lanuage, the shops, the skin tones, they are like a whole new race in Discovery.

[LogicalLeopard]

No the biggest thing that breaks canon is the Klingons! Followed by an array of other major things.

With the Klingons, it's not just the hair, it's the lanuage, the shops, the skin tones, they are like a whole new race in Discovery.

It's basically been there, done that with the Klingons, though. TOS Klingons are different in character and appearance than their depiction in the first Star Trek movie, and in TNG. There is enough similarity though to say, "Ok, these are Klingons." They updated the makeup, and showed them in the midst of a war. In DS9 I believe they said that Klingons sharpen their teeth before they go into battle. And now we hear about them eating enemies, which we couldn't see in syndicated television in the 90's. Kirk talked about how bad Klingon prison camps were, and now we see how bad they are. It can work if people are open minded, just like we had to be open minded about the TOS/TMP/TNG Klingon changes.