[Rellimie]

So while we speculate on the success or struggles of CBS All Access it turns they are succeeding. They hit their 4 million subscriber mark ahead of schedule. https://trekmovie.com/2019/02/15/cbs...bscriber-goal/

[Brianwgcom]

You could apply the same logic to Discovery fans. There are legitimate reasons for the hate and frustration. Someone using ad homenim attacks because they are angry is bad form but everyone is a tough guy on the Internet so it comes with the territory.

When posting on the internet though you should always consider your audience.

It's one thing to call yourself ProtectorzofTRek on Youtube and call anyone who likes Discovery an idiot for doing so (or worse) and drum up clicks for a video that is Anti Discovery.

But doing the same thing on a forum where the guy/gal you call an idiot is most likely the person you could be teaming with in STO will soon cut you down to size.

But yeah it is kind of funny how quickly people change when there actually talking to people. One guy I work with forgets he's dealing with people he depends on for a living and will send emails that for lack of a better word are harsh to the person. When they call up to complain to him he suddenly switches to customer service mode and is nice....

[Rellimie]

So while we speculate on the success or struggles of CBS All Access it turns they are succeeding. They hit their 4 million subscriber mark ahead of schedule. https://trekmovie.com/2019/02/15/cbs...bscriber-goal/

Lol I got a thumbs down for posting news, that’s some reddit level stuff right there

[Scarlett]

But come onnnn, Scarlett! Michael Burnham by being Spock's foster sister, neither violates canon, nor tramples it. Actually, it does build upon it - with the best example of that being their elaboration on the rift between Sarek and Spock.

<snip because I can>

Although I didn't say violates, I may have implied it. Also, "tramples" may have been hyperbole.

Upon consideration, you are right that sisterhood is an addition because it's new. Yet, the point I was attempting to make was that connection was unnecessary. Put another way, that connection was made or it's own sake, which, in my opinion, reduces the decades-established idea of "Spock" from TV, movies and books. It's almost lazy in it's application and is not serving as a credible vehicle for engaging story-telling.

Again, as it's own example, yet one of at least a few others, is what may be breaking down several fan's acceptance of the show as either enjoyable or canonical.

As for Spock and Sarek's relationship, that can be told without Michael's sisterhood in place and I'm fairly confident about that. Don;t get me wrong, do I care about that family intrigue? Sure, why not: other's people drama is much better than my own But it is relevant from what we know in the current series (so far)? No. Not at all.

And that's why I still maintain (with a slight tweak):

That's not really building anything, it's [affecting] the foundation and forcing it to be something it never was before and for no reasonable explanation. Michael didn't have to be Spock's sister at all. It was an irrelevant point in Season 1 and is a tenuous link only for dramatic effect in Season 2.

[casualsto]

It's not Patrick Stewart level Star Trek, but it's a good show and season 2 seems to be working hard to impress us. After seeing the 5th episode of season 2, I'm inclined to give it the honest chance to impress us.

I personally dislike the TOS content more than the Discovery stuff. We grew in the TNG era. That's a hard standard.

[LogicalLeopard]

Although I didn't say violates, I may have implied it. Also, "tramples" may have been hyperbole.

Upon consideration, you are right that sisterhood is an addition because it's new. Yet, the point I was attempting to make was that connection was unnecessary. Put another way, that connection was made or it's own sake, which, in my opinion, reduces the decades-established idea of "Spock" from TV, movies and books. It's almost lazy in it's application and is not serving as a credible vehicle for engaging story-telling.

Again, as it's own example, yet one of at least a few others, is what may be breaking down several fan's acceptance of the show as either enjoyable or canonical.

As for Spock and Sarek's relationship, that can be told without Michael's sisterhood in place and I'm fairly confident about that. Don;t get me wrong, do I care about that family intrigue? Sure, why not: other's people drama is much better than my own But it is relevant from what we know in the current series (so far)? No. Not at all.

And that's why I still maintain (with a slight tweak):

I will agree that it was not necessary. I think it does slightly diminish Burnham by giving her this particular link, because there's the temptation to look at her as Spocks sister. But the show is about Burnham, so shes had plenty of time to shine on her own, especially in the first season.

The second season? Full disclosure: I am so happy we haven't seen Spock yet. There seems to be too much handwringing about him, which distracts from the other characters. But I'm happy with how they're doing it - saving him toward the end, and just using him as a thread that connects the episodes.

So basically, I agree that the Spock tie was unnecessary, and I agree that at least this season, it's been distracting. The only thing I disagree with is the thought by some that it's just a horrible, franchise crippling decision that ripped a hole in the space time continuum of canon and caused teardrops to appear in the eyes of someone's autographed picture of Gene Roddenberry. And, I do like the depth the choice has brought to Spck, Sarek, and Amanda.

[Terrell]

Some interesting responces to this point.

In relation to the comparisson to the Diablo IV/Diablo Immortal fiasco, I'm not so sure it's the ideal comparitor. From my own viewpoint, I was frustrated and disappointment that Blizzard had decided to prioritise a mobile game over a console/PC entry because I knew that the mobile version would ultiately be poor, not from an artistic viewpoint but because of the manner in which such games are designed. The core gameplay loops are always confined and interupted by the need to push aggressive and often predatory microtransactions. "Create problems and sell the solutions" as I often hear.

Discovery isn't like that. Discovery is the product of the entertainment industry as it is today. Less we forget that it was 13 years between the end of Enterprise and Discoverys premiere. A lot has changed in those years, not just the way in which the medium is delivered in terms of season spanning plot arcs but the target audience they're trying to pick up. Discovery absolutely has its flaws, there are a number of things about the show I actually rather dislike however I won't condemn it for trying something different. Season two was definitely better than the original, including some excellent character development with my favourite being Saru.

Is it "Star Trek"? Absolutely! Is it better or worse than TNG or Voyager etc? That's a point of view that only the viewer can decide. However, to say that only people who dislike Star Trek enjoy Discovery is hogwash. I enjoyed it, quite a lot infact. It's not the Trek that Gene iniitially envisioned, however it is an evolution of a franchise that now spands multiple decades. It has evolved past it's initial form, for better or for worse. That being said, we always have the other shows to go back to.

[Scarlett]

It's not the Trek that Gene iniitially envisioned, however it is an evolution of a franchise that now spands multiple decades. It has evolved past it's initial form, for better or for worse. That being said, we always have the other shows to go back to.

Underline mine and THAT'S what is rubbing people a certain way.

Right or wrong, Discovery's premise is set in an era before ... everything. Much like Enterprise, they couldn't make the show look dated like TOS is to us now. Yet, the writers made decisions that didn't evolve the overall story, but changed it. Completely. Tweeking and adjusting is one thing, but to suggest Discovery is an evolution seems a bit hyperbolic to me. Visually, sure, Star Trek has evolved with the capability to make a visually compelling TV show. Story-wise, some thing are really cool in their explanation or revelation, yet some are not cool because it was change was it's own sake, not for the story or franchise.

[Raz Beraht]

Holy Thread Necro Batman!

Just like the JJ-verse, I consider Discovery to be "Trekkish" but not "Trek" as I understand it. I've had to get used to the idea, several times, that the "Trek" I know and love ended in the 60's. TNG was different enough to TOS to where it was missing a lot of things that I liked about TOS, but enough was there for me to like it on it's own merits. Same with the other "Golden Age" Rick Berman shows. Then JJ, now Disco. I just take each show on it's own merits and failures and try to not get too worried about it. It's too late in the evolution/devolution of Trek to get too upset at this point. I have my own beef with Disco which probably wouldn't be popular here but I still find plenty to like about the show.