To All You Discovery Haters Out There...

I'm reading some comments on the forum and I don't understand why some of you just auto-delete DSC crew out of hand just because you either a) don't like the series, or b) haven't watched it yet. For me (and I'm almost old enough to remember TOS) Discovery is my second fave series - the writing, acting and STORY is potentially the best there has been in the whole ST universe. Sonequa Martin-Green is incredible, Jason Isaacs lends proper gravitas, and pretty much overall the acting is wayyy better than any of the previous series. If you haven't seen it yet, I would encourage you to do so; those characters have real depth.

For the record I should say my favourite series is TNG for pretty much, except for a few mis-steps, the same reasons. In comparison, and I know it's how it all started, TOS seems, well, *basic* (I fully understand the game-changer that was the Kirk-Uhura kiss and realise the wider importance of the show generally, but some of the acting and story was just wooden, it really was).

For game purposes some of the DSC crew are the best (see Culber for MED as an example) of the bunch and the game includes all characters from all series - which is what Roddenberry would have liked; all inclusive/equal/welcome regardless of origin, right? I will refrain from making any real-world political comment at this stage.

My least favourite personally is Enterprise but some of those cards are useful in the game, so I keep those to use and it would be silly to delete the cards because I don't like the series. So why do some of you just automatically delete DSC characters? It can only harm you in terms of gameplay, and I can only suggest that whatever your motives, that act of deleting is therefore ......... illogical.
«13

Comments

  • RennJaxoRennJaxo ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    I too am kind of confused by the knee-jerk Discovery hate on this forum. So far, I would argue that this has probably been the best first season of any Star Trek show (not including TOS, I suppose). And yet people still fall over themselves to decry the series, even in forum posts that aren't even relevant to Discovery, with little or no explanation as to why they hate it so much. It's bordering on petulant and childish at this point.
  • IvanstoneIvanstone ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    Issues that I have with Discovery:
    1 - Imagine if we started DS9 right in the middle of the Dominion War. People would get a different impression of what a Star Trek show would be like. Instead DS9 started with a fresh new Captain using baseball to explain linear time to aliens who don't understand the concept. That's a little more Trek.
    2 - I like Michael Burnham's story. SMG might not be the best actor to tell that story. Honestly, I find her to be the least compelling actor in the DSC cast. I expect better from the series lead. She has had some good moments though and may grow into the role later.
    3 - Art direction is not mastering its domain. DSC in some ways looks like what a futuristic ship should be. And then they went overboard. The new look Klingons being the most egregious example.

    I don't airlock everything DSC. Some of the crew are very good although I wish I didn't grab Lorca. He's not bad at 1/5 but I already have plenty of CSD crew. I ended up skipping Tilly and Mudd because I didn't want more 1/5 2 Skill characters. Most of the DSC crew live in the vault. Tactical Burnham is the easily the best out of the lot.
    VIP 10 - 200 Crew Slots - 460 Immortals
  • Briefly (I don't have a lot of time): I didn't DS9 because Brooks just overacted EVERY...SINGLE...WORD....HE...EVER...........(prepare to shout) ....*UTTERED* (shake head around for no reason at this point) but some of the writing was good. Horses for courses I guess but I don't agree with you on SMG - she can act just with her eyes and that's a real talent.

    DSC is more cinematic, that's maybe what I like best.
  • If you haven't seen it yet, I would encourage you to do so; those characters have real depth.
    The reason I haven't watched Discovery yet is that I would have to pay $10 a month to do that.
    In contrast, $99 a year gets me access to every episode of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. Plus, they throw in free shipping on stuff I order from Amazon.
    If I lived outside the US and could therefore get Discovery as part of Netflix I would probably do that. But CBS has decided that people in the US have to pay for All Access to see Discovery, and All Access doesn't have enough content to justify the price.

    I feel this was a very stupid decision by CBS, and if airlocking all Discovery characters would cost them money, I'd be doing that.
    But it won't, so I don't.
  • I have to pay too. I'm in England and it's on Netflix here - we pay £15 per month for a family account. It's worth it for me but appreciate not everyone can/will pay money. For that money I have to say that I also have access to all the previous series and some (not all) of the movies.
  • Data1001Data1001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It's been a very slow burn. I was extremely skeptical when I first saw pics of the new Klingons (a design and overall implementation which I still don't care for), and I was very skeptical when I saw the first several episodes.

    Slowly, I began to think that there was some potential buried in there for a good show, if they didn't mess it up. And by the end of the first half-season, I was feeling quite hopeful about the show. When the 2nd half of the season returned this year, I found myself convinced that this would be a very solid addition to the franchise.

    It's divisive, though. I completely get that. DS9 was also divisive when it started... and yes, you can make comparisons to how that show was divisive in a different way, but that is nitpicking, I think. What's not nitpicking is to admit that DSC started off stumbling, to say the least. Anyone who checked out those first two or three episodes then stopped likely feels they wasted their time. I don't blame anyone for having that viewpoint, as I was of that mindset myself. It was only after sticking with it that I was able to see things come together. Lots of shows have really shaky starts, only to become well-loved by many. I don't know where the show is headed, or if they can manage to keep up the current quality standard they've set recently, but I am now at least optimistic about its future, and its addition to the franchise.


    Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
    ~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
  • Wow...this new Star Trek keep the discussion alive....I followed from the beginning first Star Trek ( first a movie and then the series in the seventies )...untill now...And I must say..;If I could choose between the New Star Trek or the other new series The Orville..;I would choose ...The Orville...because the story's stays in the spirit of Gene Roddenberry......exploration new worlds and strange situations in space.....and it's sometimes quit funny too. And also....the 3 last movies of the Crew of the young Kirk, Spock, Bones and etc...That would be a great serie for television......the other series going back in time didn't worked out so good...That's my opion offcorse
  • PallidynePallidyne ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    Briefly (I don't have a lot of time): I didn't DS9 because Brooks just overacted EVERY...SINGLE...WORD....HE...EVER...........(prepare to shout) ....*UTTERED* (shake head around for no reason at this point) but some of the writing was good. Horses for courses I guess but I don't agree with you on SMG - she can act just with her eyes and that's a real talent.

    DSC is more cinematic, that's maybe what I like best.

    You sure you're not talking about Shatner? I mean he's notorious for his overacting on every single word even to the point of there being SNL skits about it. (RIP John Belushi)

    I find your remarks a hard sell starting from that point
  • PallidynePallidyne ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    Incidentally I don't dismiss crew I don't like, cause well, they are useful to getting ones I do. Burnham for instance helped me get Tourist Quark.

    If I got rid of all the ones I didn't like I'd do a lot poorly in a lot of other events. I don't like Enterprise either. And I'm weird, I liked TAS. I cheered Arex.

    I'm not gonna begrudge someone liking Disco or getting the characters. I'm hoping DB keeps up with the classic characters as well. (With lots of Sisko, I know to your chagrin)

    I'm glad you like it. Enjoy it. Revel in it.

    Frankly other than here and re-runs I'm done with the franchise. The things that brought me in, like the morality plays, just don't appear to be there anymore, and other than Saru, I wouldn't shed a single tear if every single character ended up on a Klingon dinner table. I can't even say that about Enterprise, as I liked Phlox and Porthos and almost reached ambivalence with Trip. I feel no connection other than the graphics between old Trek and this.

    It's great action and suspense and twists coming out of nowhere. But I get that with characters I actually give a care about with shows like Luke Cage and others. And well, twists that have more than a 'holy shazam I can' t believe they did that' quality. (most character deaths in the eps I saw gave me only that emotion.) Agents of Shield vs the Kree right now is giving that. Even Dirk Gently did that.

    If my whole life revolved around getting new Trek, then maybe I'd give it some more time. But as I have a toddler which limits my viewing time, I've got better things to watch.
    (And yes I've been watching since TOS and muscled through Enterprise just to prove my loyalty.)



  • PallidynePallidyne ✭✭✭✭✭
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    Briefly (I don't have a lot of time): I didn't DS9 because Brooks just overacted EVERY...SINGLE...WORD....HE...EVER...........(prepare to shout) ....*UTTERED* (shake head around for no reason at this point) but some of the writing was good. Horses for courses I guess but I don't agree with you on SMG - she can act just with her eyes and that's a real talent.

    DSC is more cinematic, that's maybe what I like best.

    You sure you're not talking about Shatner? I mean he's notorious for his overacting on every single word even to the point of there being SNL skits about it. (RIP John Belushi)

    I find your remarks a hard sell starting from that point

    Actually, he's not. Shatner was an incredibly talented and very subtle actor (watch his work in TOS S1) that didn't really start hamming it up until S3 and, according to Nimoy, it was because he'd lost interest once it became clear they were done.

    The myth of Shatner overacting was largely created by comedians looking for something easy to riff on. Couple that with the fact that he's a theatre actor that transitioned to TV and it's easy to see why people get it wrong.

    Sorry but S2 and S3 he's over the top more than not. Yes he's a subtle actor in other venues especially Boston Legal, but damn Command Wrap Kirk not overacting is like Janeway not sounding like Hepburn.
  • don't like

    Brick Mutant Cannibal Klingons
    Subtitles, Holograms, Holodeck
    a war without any decent large space battle. and/or not large enough so far ...
    dystopian visual and storytelling (trek's success and rewatchability value is in it's utopian sagas)
    no mirror opening sequence
    they put Andorians and Tellarites on the rebel council, can live with the visual changes but they should have some script ...
    the story about how the war began was unsatisfying. the Vulcan-Hello would have been every captain's choice
  • Data1001Data1001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    Actually, he's not. Shatner was an incredibly talented and very subtle actor (watch his work in TOS S1) that didn't really start hamming it up until S3 and, according to Nimoy, it was because he'd lost interest once it became clear they were done.

    The myth of Shatner overacting was largely created by comedians looking for something easy to riff on. Couple that with the fact that he's a theatre actor that transitioned to TV and it's easy to see why people get it wrong.

    Sorry but S2 and S3 he's over the top more than not. Yes he's a subtle actor in other venues especially Boston Legal, but damn Command Wrap Kirk not overacting is like Janeway not sounding like Hepburn.

    I hereby present this gif with the following setup: Shatner has just been told he overacts on occasion, an accusation which he at first brushes off... but then he turns to Nimoy with a "Do I?" look, and...

    86FTZGe.gif

    Haha, couldn't resist. Shatner does have hammy moments, for sure, but as Nimoy has pointed out, his energy allowed Spock to be more reserved, whereas Jeffrey Hunter (Captain Pike) had a more restrained acting style which forced Nimoy to counter that by playing Spock much bigger. So, the greatness of Spock's reactions and interactions with Kirk and Bones is, to a large extent, due to Shatner's theatricality, if you will. (Not that theatricality necessarily translates to hamminess, mind you.)

    On a side tangent, I was just thinking the other day about the acting talents of the TOS cast, and although Nimoy is fantastic, I would probably give highest honors in that regard to DeForest Kelley. De had by far the biggest acting resume of all the cast by the time he joined Trek, and did some really top-notch work in that time. But I just think he brought a great presence to the role of Bones, and was in my opinion integral to the show's lasting legacy. (Another side note: I just learned recently that Roddenberry had considered De for the role of Spock. Very interesting to imagine what that would've been like!)


    Could you please continue the petty bickering? I find it most intriguing.
    ~ Data, ST:TNG "Haven"
  • PallidynePallidyne ✭✭✭✭✭
    Data1001 wrote: »
    Pallidyne wrote: »
    Actually, he's not. Shatner was an incredibly talented and very subtle actor (watch his work in TOS S1) that didn't really start hamming it up until S3 and, according to Nimoy, it was because he'd lost interest once it became clear they were done.

    The myth of Shatner overacting was largely created by comedians looking for something easy to riff on. Couple that with the fact that he's a theatre actor that transitioned to TV and it's easy to see why people get it wrong.

    Sorry but S2 and S3 he's over the top more than not. Yes he's a subtle actor in other venues especially Boston Legal, but damn Command Wrap Kirk not overacting is like Janeway not sounding like Hepburn.

    I hereby present this gif with the following setup: Shatner has just been told he overacts on occasion, an accusation which he at first brushes off... but then he turns to Nimoy with a "Do I?" look, and...

    86FTZGe.gif

    Haha, couldn't resist. Shatner does have hammy moments, for sure, but as Nimoy has pointed out, his energy allowed Spock to be more reserved, whereas Jeffrey Hunter (Captain Pike) had a more restrained acting style which forced Nimoy to counter that by playing Spock much bigger. So, the greatness of Spock's reactions and interactions with Kirk and Bones is, to a large extent, due to Shatner's theatricality, if you will. (Not that theatricality necessarily translates to hamminess, mind you.)

    On a side tangent, I was just thinking the other day about the acting talents of the TOS cast, and although Nimoy is fantastic, I would probably give highest honors in that regard to DeForest Kelley. De had by far the biggest acting resume of all the cast by the time he joined Trek, and did some really top-notch work in that time. But I just think he brought a great presence to the role of Bones, and was in my opinion integral to the show's lasting legacy. (Another side note: I just learned recently that Roddenberry had considered De for the role of Spock. Very interesting to imagine what that would've been like!)

    The only proper response. "Indeed."
  • My hate stems from the fact that you cannot watch it for free like you should be able to
    Jack Mitchell
  • IrialIrial ✭✭✭✭
    jackson992 wrote: »
    My hate stems from the fact that you cannot watch it for free like you should be able to

    To clarify, I think you do not like how much you would need to pay to be able to watch the show during its original airing ... to the best of my knowledge, for any/every show being newly created these days, you have to one way or another pay something, don't you?
  • Banjo1012Banjo1012 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Irial wrote: »
    jackson992 wrote: »
    My hate stems from the fact that you cannot watch it for free like you should be able to

    To clarify, I think you do not like how much you would need to pay to be able to watch the show during its original airing ... to the best of my knowledge, for any/every show being newly created these days, you have to one way or another pay something, don't you?

    Again with the picking apart of every last tiny detail. The dude doesn’t like a $10 subscription charge to watch one show a week. Let it be
  • I initially hated the fact that in every other country in the world the show is free if you have Netflix. In the US it's the CBS streaming and here in Canada, where the shownis filmed, you can only watch it by switching your provider cable/internet provider.

    Now, well, I don't hate that. I'm grateful because... well, see my post above.
  • ClanofClanof ✭✭✭
    Wait there are certain cable providers that don't have it? Isn't it on Space? Which every cable provider carries?
  • it would be silly to delete the cards because I don't like the series.

    Why?
    This is a game and it's supposed to be fun. If there's something about it that isn't fun, I don't engage with that aspect. With characters, that often means airlocking them if I don't like them because I just don't want to have to look at them all the time; they remind me of something I hate rather than something I like. To spend time (and potentially money) engaging with things you don't like is illogical.

    I don't hate Discovery, nor do I airlock characters just because they're from Discovery. But I do airlock most non-canon characters and characters from Enterprise, because I dislike them and have no interest in collecting them.

    Talking of Discovery, I want to like it, but so far, I can't.
    So much focus on just the one character is fundamentally boring.
    those characters have real depth

    They really don't though. Burnham is the only one who that might be true of. We still know relatively little about anyone else.
    Lorca has some vague trauma he's trying to recover from
    Saru is scared all the time
    Tyler is obviously a
    Klingon agent
    Tilly claims to be shy and awkward.. except she's actually not for much of the time (bad writing)
    Stamets... What can I say here? He's been catatonic or high for almost the entire time, we know almost nothing of who he really is.

    It's not enough. They're all one thing, and that's pretty much it. There's no "depth" there at all.
    the writing, acting and STORY is potentially the best there has been in the whole ST universe

    I don't agree with this either.
    I've found everything about the show so far to be completely predictable, just as I predict that Lorca is really
    Mirror Lorca
    .

    There's literally only been two episodes I have any desire to see again; the one where they space the Tardigrade and the time loop one.

    There's far too much focus on Klingons, Vulcans and the Mirror Universe, all of which has been done to death already. Been there, done that, nothing else interesting to do there.

    Please note, I approached the show with an open mind and have seen every episode. I want to like it, and it is my hope that it still might improve. There is potential there, but with every new episode it seems less and less likely that it's going in the direction I want.
  • [BL] Q [BL] Q ✭✭✭✭✭
    I don't get it when people say they won't spend $10 a month to watch the show on cbs all access but spend $100+ a week on Trek pixels
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Banjo1012Banjo1012 ✭✭✭✭✭
    [BL] Q wrote: »
    I don't get it when people say they won't spend $10 a month to watch the show on cbs all access but spend $100+ a week on Trek pixels
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Great point! I do both. Discovery has been awesome!

  • SpyOneSpyOne ✭✭
    edited January 2018
    Clanof wrote:
    Now I've been told by others that are fans of TOS that they're not all that different from TOS Klingons. I don't know if that's true because I haven't seen all of TOS because I don't like it, but they have no resemblance whatsoever to Klingons in DS9, VOY, TNG or ENT.
    If you want to check for yourself, th good news is you only would need to see a handful of episodes.
    While klingons appeared in a few other episodes, I'd say Trouble With Tribbles, Day of the Dove, and Errand of Mercy, cover it nicely (though Friday's Child shows someone siding with the Federation against the Klingons specifically because of the Klingons' lack of honor).
    (Also, those show the TOS versions of characters you have already sen, as DS9's Blood Oath brought back Koloth from TwT, Kang from DotD, and Kor from EoM.)
    I can't compare them for the opposite reason of yours: I haven't seen Discovery.
    And I totally understand if your dislike of TOS is strong enough that you don't want to watch any of yhose. But if your curiously is high enough to get you yo watch four episodes, that would pretty much gover yhe episodes with Klingons in them.

  • ClanofClanof ✭✭✭
    I probably will check them out, four episodes isn't much of a time commitment. Thanks for the tip.
  • Gene would be very proud of DIS... War as a main theme at star trek..... the Uruk'hai as antagonistst. i think the 3 episodes i watched just wants him to turn around in the grave.
    Every fan hated archers ENT for not really matching the time.
    But DIS has more in common with Kelvin-Time form me, started with the "antique" uniforms, with Uruk'hai called klingongs in baroque dresses.
    I don't airloke them but in fact send them to stasis no matter of their traits or stats are better than the existing ones.
    I dont like Dis for his main theme, for the script, the actors, the storys behind the crewmembers the gender madness and in most for the transparency of every single moment of the story.
  • Clanof wrote: »
    Wait there are certain cable providers that don't have it? Isn't it on Space? Which every cable provider carries?

    Bell only. They did a deal with CBS for exclusive rights in Canada.
  • ClanofClanof ✭✭✭
    edited January 2018
    I did not know that. I happen to be with Bell, which has a monopoly in my province, so I didn't know other people didn't have access to it.
  • IvanstoneIvanstone ✭✭✭✭✭
    Clanof wrote: »
    Wait there are certain cable providers that don't have it? Isn't it on Space? Which every cable provider carries?

    Bell only. They did a deal with CBS for exclusive rights in Canada.

    If you have a subscription to CraveTV you can watch it. That's how I do it. They put it up one day after its broadcast. I just finished watching episode 12 on it.

    Its annoying that I have to pay for a different subscription service but at least they have other things to watch. CBS subscribers get to watch bad network TV. So far on Crave I've watched The Wire, The Sopranos, Handmaid's Tale, Billions, Frontier, Ray Donovan and just started watching Deadwood. So far worth the $8 CAD a month. They even had a special Discovery package (sign up for 6 months, get one free).
    VIP 10 - 200 Crew Slots - 460 Immortals
Sign In or Register to comment.