Star Trek Discovery SUCKS.
- Thread starter Overmind One
- Start date
heisenberg
Earl Grey
I am not sure what nerve we struck, but we don't hate trek. We just dislike where they are taking this Trek which is clearly not Star Trek. We all want to see Star Trek on TV again and are willing to give this show a chance provided it does not try to imitate other franchises. This seems like BSG with Star wars. Yeah, space battles are a great spectacle but you don't need to be so melodramatic about it.
heisenberg
Earl Grey
I was just stating that the love reviews are from people who are paid to write it, are star wars fans, fans of the new Abrams movies or fans of SGU and NUBSG.Nothing rigged from what I see.Page after page, starting with the first page, is dragging this show around by it's hair through mud and feces, without remorse. One star ratings come up for the first 10 pages (edit: make that the first 20 pages) when you just leave the User Reviews rating filter at "Best". And any of the positive shill reviews have negative comments. I see HATE for this show from the people who are watching it. I couldn't care less what the critics are saying. It's the viewing audience who is going to be the target for CBS All Access because only they will be paying.
So, this show is taking the same path as the movies, only it's dropping much MUCH faster into the bomb bin. Only two episodes, and it's already been rejected completely by the original fanbase.
EDIT: I just noticed, you purposely filtered the reviews for "Love it". Why did you do that?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5171438/reviews?filter=love
The default filter is "Best"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5171438/reviews?filter=best
Oh, ok.
Most everyone I know who shops on Amazon or eBay or reads IMdB goes right for the negative reviews FIRST because everyone knows the five star ratings are false. The only type of reviews worth paying somebody to write are the most positive ones. I think some of the critics were paid to try and slam Orville, but they are impotent because the show is Star Trek and Trek fans see it. The shill reviews are too obvious:
The real feelings of the viewers are reflected in the Helpful/Not Helpful votes. The "Best" reviews have the most Helpful votes from viewers, and the negative reviews are obviously more genuine.
Last edited:
heisenberg
Earl Grey
I wonder how much they paid him to give cred to Discovery? Nimoy made a bundle.
But seriously folks, even if Wolfgang Puck himself told you how delicious fried turds are, would that make you eat them?
heisenberg
Earl Grey
It could also be that they are bored of the traditional TNG formula so they want more of a different formula too. They are right that if a formula has been done, I mean Star Trek has been on for 50 years and we got TOS, TNG, Voyager, Enterprise, DS9 and 13 movies, that IMO means that they shouldn't have made another series unless they could make it work.Oh, ok.
View attachment 33530
The real feelings of the viewers are reflected in the Helpful/Not Helpful votes. The "Best" reviews have the most Helpful votes from viewers, and the negative reviews are obviously more genuine.
I would have rather had a miniseries where they didn't explore certain aspects of the stories such as Star Trek Titan which takes place right after nemisis but they choose to make this. Star Trek Titan would have been a great series to watch because the Novel is fantastic. I just hope that they do listen to fans and fix this series, like they did with TNG otherwise it's going to get cancelled fast.
I also don't mind a different formula but this is no different than Abrams Star Trek which was pretty much burnt itself out. The hype died so fast that I don't even think many cared to go watch the 3rd movie. I also don't like it when I am being misled to believe that this is a brand new Star Trek series when it's a formula that has been done in the movies and it had a very short shelf life. It's kinda ironic to hear from people who defend Discovery tell us how different trek this is when it's the same as the new rebooted movies.
We should have had a spoof of Star Trek instead. Not many of those have been done.
Think about it....FIFTY YEARS. That is how long that "traditional formula" has served Star Trek. Who the hell is asking it to be changed? This is why we have The Orville. It is using Star Trek's traditional formula, and that is what Trek fans wanted all along. CBS had the opportunity to make great new Trek after winning their lawsuit against Axanar. They could have taken control of the IP and licensing and hired those folks to do the new series. They were already right on par in the CGI department, the look and style. It was perfect.
You are very optimistic. It's a good trait.
Unfortunately, what you suggest is not realistic. You think they can "fix" this show. Why you think that is curious to me. Kurtzman does not have the Fix Formula in him. To him, Discovery is the fixed version of Star Trek. To even start thinking about changing it means firing Kurtzman and anyone writing for him or designing those awful, crypt-like sets. And what would they gain by listening to fans? Their interests are financial, not artistic. They will listen to market analysts and investors.The bolded is reality. But so is The Orville. I have watched the three episodes about half a dozen times each already.
Bitchy stereotype. So unnecessary. Who gives a shit what the sexuality of any of the characters is? For all we know, any of the previous characters in any of the series could be gay. Even the married ones. So what? Why would it be a "thing" in Star Trek? What disappointed me most was Engineering:
The horizontal warp core is fitting, but they overdid the iconic blue and and pinkish red. The whole chamber looks "dead". Too much wasted, empty space. How does anyone stay awake in this thing?
The horizontal warp core is fitting, but they overdid the iconic blue and and pinkish red. The whole chamber looks "dead". Too much wasted, empty space. How does anyone stay awake in this thing?
heisenberg
Earl Grey
Mainly the audience and well the writers. You can't change something that has been told already, however, what you can change is where it goes from here and this is what the writers decided to give us. I don't agree with the direction they've taken trek but TNG has been done before but what the Orville does that Discovery did not is that it's taken the good bits from Trek and made into its own IP adventure. That is no small task even though it's a direct copy of Star Trek. The Orville shouldn't even exist actually but it does.
Writers get flack for copying Straight from Trek, Alienating new and old or simply making a god awful version that everyone hates it so they are in a tricky situation.
You are very optimistic. It's a good trait.
If we had not given it a chance, TNG would have been canned as well. We all know how god awful the first season of TNG was. It was horrendous.
[/quote]
It's from both audience but I tend to stay in the middle. I don't like to take 'sides'. Same way I don't like to go left or right in politics.
PussyGalore
Meow
I liked that one of them stated how much they disliked the main character Michael. I agree completely. She is not a sympathetic protagonist. Her motivations and actions are that of a paranoid schizophrenic.
What I found surprising about the review is that one of the guys ultimately liked the show. This is interesting because RLM is known for recognizing cinematic train wrecks and delights in viciously, albeit honestly, dissecting them.
Gate_Boarder
Well Known GateFan
OK, my mind is starting to betray me. If this takes place 10 years before TOS and we know that one of the Klingon tribes were looking more human in the early episodes, it was so obvious in fact, that Worff had to mention it when they introduced him. In what time period did the Klingons suffer that great biological devastation, or genetic attack?
I agree I was a little surprised Mike liked it. And I did like that they both felt Michael should either have been shoved out an airlock or put into an asylum.
heisenberg
Earl Grey
TNG had some pretty bad acting but it was portraying a very perfect society; something that can't happen so discovery may not be that far off from telling the truth because of its flaws.
Think about it....FIFTY YEARS. That is how long that "traditional formula" has served Star Trek. Who the hell is asking it to be changed? This is why we have The Orville. It is using Star Trek's traditional formula, and that is what Trek fans wanted all along. CBS had the opportunity to make great new Trek after winning their lawsuit against Axanar. They could have taken control of the IP and licensing and hired those folks to do the new series. They were already right on par in the CGI department, the look and style. It was perfect.
You are very optimistic. It's a good trait.
The bolded is reality. But so is The Orville. I have watched the three episodes about half a dozen times each already.
If I want truth and flaws, there is real life for that.
One of the biggest oxymorons out there is "reality TV".
Tripler
Well Known GateFan
Its has fans ? Big or small spinning propellers fans or one of those dyson blade-less ones ? ,,,God forbid anything should interfere with the broadcasting of this show. The legions of fans would riot.
PussyGalore
Meow
Its has fans ? Big or small spinning propellers fans or one of those dyson blade-less ones ? ,,,
This kind of fan.
PussyGalore
Meow
It doesn't bode well when the main character is universally disliked. Like I said earlier, she isn't a protagonist. That means this show is rudderless in terms of who the viewers can connect with. That's not a good sign.