[Scarlett]

The difference, in my humble opinion, is that TNG-VOY built upon existing canon (TOS) in a progression. Things weaved into the existing framework.

ENT (and obviously debatable DSC) are supposed to be "catching up" to the TOS foundation. They can build upon untouched topics, sure, but when they step onto something already there, then it's got to "fit". No kidding, it simply must.

SoOoOoOoO … when CBS says, "See this character is Spock's sister" … c'mon. That's not really building anything, it's trampling on 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.

You know?

EDIT - look, I get it: if CBS says so, then too bad suckah. Yet, I'd wager, if CBS does not cater to majority fan's expectations, then the franchise is in trouble. Like it or not.

[Sul-Matuul]

Yeah all true, but in fairness they already pulled the sibling trick in ST:V so adding another doesn't do any more harm really. And Spock has always been pretty reluctant to openly talk about his family anyway, so no surprise he never mentioned a sister. Hell he barely mentions his father is the ambassador back in TOS until the guy beams on board!

[Scarlett]

Yeah all true, but in fairness they already pulled the sibling trick in ST:V so adding another doesn't do any more harm really. And Spock has always been pretty reluctant to openly talk about his family anyway, so no surprise he never mentioned a sister. Hell he barely mentions his father is the ambassador back in TOS until the guy beams on board!

I suppose, but if memory serves, nobody talked about their parents in TOS, except Spock … when Dad beamed aboard. Because Dad was an ambassador.

We don't expect characters to talk about their family. Who cares? Dare I say, no one. Even when throw away lines are used in chat, like, "I remember when my mom made Key Lime Pie. It made me feel like I could fly … just like I'm doing with this shuttle in this minefield! Did I mention my dad was Starfleet's ace Peregrine pilot in 2367?" It's inconsequential to the story, yet adds flavor to the character. Buuuut when you have the lead character of a new show be linked to an iconic character for really no reason, then a rather consequential fact is just thrown away for really no reason.

So, although I can understand the counter-point, it may not absolve Michael being a sister, even if she's not biological. I think it's a stronger argument that she didn't have to be Spock's sister at all. In fact, as a mental exercise, try taking that fact out. Is her story or character made different or better/worse for it? Not really. So, it's not helping the character or the story (thus the show). In my opinion, it helps hurt the show.

And this is just one detail. Nitpicky? Sure. Yet, it's being made for the sake of overall discussion.

In the end, it is what it is, so whatever

[Brianwgcom]

Spock never talks about his family in general, Sybok hasn't even being shown yet in Discovery or mentioned yet either. But looking at the family dynamic in General they keep to themselves and not give others unnecessary info about their family. In other words they are very private about it.

As for Discovery for being for fans that don't like Star Trek I've never heard such nonsense until now. Like all new generations of Star Trek (TNG included) there has always being "Fans" that don't like the new Trek. Every single show from TNG to ENT suffered lackluster first 2 seasons compared to their later shows.

Discovery is doing amazingly well all things considered as their 2nd season is so far better than their first. I'm looking forward to the other 4 new announced shows too.

[Three of Seven]

As for Discovery for being for fans that don't like Star Trek I've never heard such nonsense until now. Like all new generations of Star Trek (TNG included) there has always being "Fans" that don't like the new Trek. Every single show from TNG to ENT suffered lackluster first 2 seasons compared to their later shows.

I'm not sure I like the use of quotation marks arounf fans in your comment there, seems to imply that people who don't like it aren't really fans.

I don't like Discovery because most of the characters are so forgettable, atleast with the opening two seasons of every other Star Trek show, you knew the bridge crew, Discovery really seems to be nothing more that Star Trek: Burnham, they don't really develop many other characters, well they don't really develop Bunrham either, outside of force plotlines of being Spocks sister.

I have my issues with Discovery, I have repeated them ad nauseum, and I don't think anyone really needs me to repeat them. I think it has potential, but it'll never reach it for me because they are too stuck in forcing Burnham to be the centre of everything, and having plots that come from teenage fanfiction.

[Bridger]

[Brianwgcom]

No it's say "Fans" as in the true hard core fans that veiw themselves to be the protectors of true Star Trek.

They are a group who change over the years.

First they hated the Motion Picture.... (not the show I remember!!!!)

The next generation of these fans hated on TNG. (OMG Wheres Kirk??)

Then it was Enterprise. (OMG it's too new!!!!) That show was a nightmare to visit a forum and find anything positive about it on-line. The hate it got back then makes Discovery look popular.

[JByb04]

If Doomcock's "source" is correct we should be seeing something hitting the mainstream internet within the next 24 - 48 hours.

Until that happens I'm skeptical that this is any more than clickbait.

Doing an about face after so much publicity and axing the Picard series which has generated significant buzz would be a huge mistake in my opinion. However I'll wait and see what happens.

[Sul-Matuul]

I tend to ignore all of those videos being posted on Youtube. There's an extremely vocal part of the Trek community who feel the need to constantly try and stir up a rabble with pitchforks, aimed at spreading rumours and negativity about Discovery.
I fully accept it's not everyone's cup of tea and people are entitled to their opinions. But when it gets to the stage you're using a platform like Youtube, probably supported by advert revenue per click, and creating almost an echo-chamber environment things take an altogether shadier direction.
There's a big difference between some of the simple episode review videos posted, and those like the ones linked here that are such hives of anger and vitriol.

[JByb04]

Agreed,

If you watch Doomcock's other videos he tends to basically hate anything new and modern. Apparently his stated mission is to save Pop-Culture.

From what? What does it need to be saved from?

I happen to like Discovery. Season One was an adjustment but in Season Two they have definitely made an effort to return to Trek like story telling. I would also like to see the bridge crew developed a little more. Perhaps that will come in future episodes / Season 3. As the old saying goes only time will tell.

I've also said in the past that the show would likely do better if the paywall were removed. That is a huge turn off to some people in what is an already supersaturated subscription market.

That being said I will wait and see what hits the mainstream internet within the next day or so. As sending home an entire production team isn't something that's going to stay quiet. Especially with a show that has been promoted as much as Discovery has.

[Petrarch]

I appreciate Disco for what it is, a bit of sci-fi Trek, but I neither like it nor dislike it. I simply don't mind it. I like the ship designs and with Season 2 I think adding Pike, particularly who they got to play him, was a stroke of casting genius.

There seems to be an attitude within the Trek fandom from some that if you say anything remotely positive about Discovery, you've violated General Order 7 and that's grounds for you to be dragged down to the shuttle bay and summarily shot. That's just silly. Everyone has things they love or hate for whatever reason, but the key is to stay objective and remember that things don't freeze in a certain point of time. The world changes, time moves on and Trek is trying to move with it. Whether or not they work it out and get it right remains to be seen.

The fundamental issue I have with Discovery is that as Three said, they keep making Burnham central to everything, a character that has rapidly become a more annoying version of Wesley Crusher, not helped by the fact that the character, in my eyes, has never been likeable in the first place.

All the previous series, especially from TNG onwards, had their central characters (though I think they went a bit wrong on that front with Voyager) but the focus was on the ship, the crew and the journey. That's what's missing for me in Discovery.

[Scarlett]

You darn tootin' YouTube vids are made for clickbait - that's how they make money. But I digress on that issue. There are some worthy YouTube "news" sites that present a reasonably balanced point of view. The trick, like many things in the world, is to use reasoned judgment. If you don't like Discovery, then "news" putting it down will appeal to you, naturally.

Having said that, there are issues with the show. It's not perfect for everyone, yet none of the other Trek shows were either. And I don't believe STD is made for non-Trek fans, that's almost hyperbole

[Bridger]

Well at least one thing has already been confirmed by Sonequa Martin-Green in her Larry King interview is that it has not been renewed yet.

[Three of Seven]

The reason it might not have been renewed yet, and there is speculation about the status of Discovery probably more hangs on the current merger talks between CBS and Viacom, it has been ongoing for a long while now, but has come back in the news as there is rumour of a new animated Star Trek coming to Nickelodeon.

[Sul-Matuul]

Yes, I think the paywall does most of the damage tbh. People can't just stick it on to see what it's like and decide for themselves. A lot of people must listen to videos like that Doomcock guy and those are hardly a balanced view.

Older Trek was always on TV somewhere so you could just jump in and out. With only 10 episodes a season and locked behind a subscription, no wonder there is some resistance to a new take on the idea.