• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Star Trek Discovery lack of interest

Doctor Anaximander

I gave him life!
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
19,200
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Google Trends Charts Hint CBS' Star Trek: Discovery Might Be A Complete Failure - Bounding Into Comics


the Google Trends show Star Trek: Discovery has way less search traffic than Star Trek: The Next Generation, a show that has been off the air since 1994. In fact, Star Trek: The Next Generation had greater search interest than Star Trek: Discovery throughout Discovery’s life.
I did my own experiment to see if in fact there is a problem with Star Trek: Discovery and I found some very interesting things. First, Doomcock is on point. As you will see below, Star Trek: Discovery is losing in trends to both older shows and the current comedic take on the franchise, The Orville.
I removed The Orville and instead added in two other older Star Trek shows for reference. First Star Trek: Voyager, and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. I also expanded the search to two years instead of one to give Star Trek: Discovery a better shot and for clarity of course.

A caveat this article fails to mention is some of the recent trending interest in TNG is likely due to announcements about the new Picard series.
 

Doctor Anaximander

I gave him life!
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
19,200
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I might consider subscribing when the new Picard series debuts. Most of my lack of interest in STD is due to it being yet another prequel or reboot. I think fans want Star Trek to leap forward and stop covering old ground. Picard looks promising because it’s taken the timeline about 20 years into the future from the end of Nemesis

I’m cautiously interested; I’ve been burned before
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Guardian of Ga'Hoole
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
16,505
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Errrr.......

ummmmm.................

220px-TOS-day_of_the_dove_klingons.png



This seems like the Star Trek equivalent of complaining of the infeasibility of bombs dropping in space (like we've already seen, although to be fair, evidently people can walk normally on that asteroid, so evidently it's an issue with an asteroid having more gravity than it should) or hyperspace ramming (like it makes so much sense that the Falcon could hide on the back of an Imperial starship in a fleet of starships unnoticed).
 

Doctor Anaximander

I gave him life!
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
19,200
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I liked the TNG style Klingons and the way Star Trek 6 updated the TOS look with general Chang. It is certainly possible to update something while keeping with the established aesthetic and traits. The new Klingons don’t do this. They are Klingons in name but not only is the new look barely in line with their previous aesthetic evolution, they culturally seem a far cry from any other version of Klingons. Like the writers said “let’s have generic xenophobic space aliens and call them Klingons”
 

Doctor Anaximander

I gave him life!
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
19,200
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
ummmmm.................

220px-TOS-day_of_the_dove_klingons.png



This seems like the Star Trek equivalent of complaining of the infeasibility of bombs dropping in space (like we've already seen, although to be fair, evidently people can walk normally on that asteroid, so evidently it's an issue with an asteroid having more gravity than it should) or hyperspace ramming (like it makes so much sense that the Falcon could hide on the back of an Imperial starship in a fleet of starships unnoticed).

I don’t think it’s equivalent. One thing involves nitpicking about space battle physics, which I agree is silly, when the majority of space battle physics seen across multiple sci fi franchises are unrealistic, so why choose to suddenly nitpick the bombers in TLJ?

The other thing involved people upset that a species and its culture were drastically altered and rewritten in a way that almost completely changed them. It would be like retconning the mandalorians or some other well established SW culture or race to the point of being unrecognizable, and I don’t mean physically unrecognizable. I can handle visual updates.

I probably wouldn’t care that much about the total visual redesign of the Klingons, if not for the fact that they’ve also been changed in so many other ways to the point that their culture as seen in STD is nearly unrecognizable and not continuous with every aspect seen in every other version of Trek (including their brief portrayal in Into Darkness). The creators of STD could’ve easily created a new species if they wanted a generic xenophobic race that wanted to destroy the Federation because reasons, or they could have used a different species of which relatively little was known. The gorn actually would have been my choice, since there hasn’t really been much lore established about them. So establishing them as a reclusive race of xenophobes would actually enrich and add to the overall canon lore without causing obvious continuity issues. And it would fit with what little was already established about them in “arena” and “in a mirror darkly”

A lot of people bring up the TOS Klingons like it’s supposed to be this grand refutation of criticisms of the std Klingons. However the lore and physical appearance established in tos was never really changed or overwritten with the updated versions in later films and series, it was simply expanded upon and updated with better makeup and costumes. Their culture in TOS might come across as different than later portrayals, but remember we’re seeing tos era Klingons at a time when they were at war with the Federation and we’re seeing them through the eyes of Starfleet officers. But even then they’re portrayed in a fairly nuanced manner and no later changes and updates prior to STD really contradict that or make the entire continuity feel forced or incoherent in the way STD has done. Later versions of Klingons expanded upon them, rather than completely changing them. The STD producers have stated this series is meant to fit into the prime timeline narrative and that they have no intention of making it a reboot that contradicts the established lore, and yet they have done just that. I would not mind it being a reboot meant to overwrite old canon and lore if they just had the balls to call it such, rather than insulting the intelligence of everyone by expecting them to overlook obvious contradictions to a rich world of lore that hundreds of writers have been building upon for decades and have for the most part taken great care to make every new addition to lore fit the continuity as believably as possible.

This is why I’m sick of these prequels and reboots (including Enterprise, though it did have its moments and for the most part respected the established continuity and lore), as I think a lot of fans are. Most Trek fans aren’t afraid of change, they just want the existing history and lore left alone. If the timeline moves forward and changes occur, it would be more tolerable and believable. I’m ready for 25th century trek stories, which is why I’m stoked about the new Picard series, as it will be the first time Trek has moved forward in nearly 20 years. I’m not afraid of change, I like change. What I don’t like is lazy hack writers “reimagining” prexisting stories because they’re too lazy or uninspired to move forward and actually create something new
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Guardian of Ga'Hoole
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
16,505
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I don’t think it’s equivalent. One thing involves nitpicking about space battle physics, which I agree is silly, when the majority of space battle physics seen across multiple sci fi franchises are unrealistic, so why choose to suddenly nitpick the bombers in TLJ?

The other thing involved people upset that a species and its culture were drastically altered and rewritten in a way that almost completely changed them. It would be like retconning the mandalorians or some other well established SW culture or race to the point of being unrecognizable, and I don’t mean physically unrecognizable. I can handle visual updates.

I probably wouldn’t care that much about the total visual redesign of the Klingons, if not for the fact that they’ve also been changed in so many other ways to the point that their culture as seen in STD is nearly unrecognizable and not continuous with every aspect seen in every other version of Trek (including their brief portrayal in Into Darkness). The creators of STD could’ve easily created a new species if they wanted a generic xenophobic race that wanted to destroy the Federation because reasons, or they could have used a different species of which relatively little was known. The gorn actually would have been my choice, since there hasn’t really been much lore established about them. So establishing them as a reclusive race of xenophobes would actually enrich and add to the overall canon lore without causing obvious continuity issues. And it would fit with what little was already established about them in “arena” and “in a mirror darkly”

A lot of people bring up the TOS Klingons like it’s supposed to be this grand refutation of criticisms of the std Klingons. However the lore and physical appearance established in tos was never really changed or overwritten with the updated versions in later films and series, it was simply expanded upon and updated with better makeup and costumes. Their culture in TOS might come across as different than later portrayals, but remember we’re seeing tos era Klingons at a time when they were at war with the Federation and we’re seeing them through the eyes of Starfleet officers. But even then they’re portrayed in a fairly nuanced manner and no later changes and updates prior to STD really contradict that or make the entire continuity feel forced or incoherent in the way STD has done. Later versions of Klingons expanded upon them, rather than completely changing them. The STD producers have stated this series is meant to fit into the prime timeline narrative and that they have no intention of making it a reboot that contradicts the established lore, and yet they have done just that. I would not mind it being a reboot meant to overwrite old canon and lore if they just had the balls to call it such, rather than insulting the intelligence of everyone by expecting them to overlook obvious contradictions to a rich world of lore that hundreds of writers have been building upon for decades and have for the most part taken great care to make every new addition to lore fit the continuity as believably as possible.

This is why I’m sick of these prequels and reboots (including Enterprise, though it did have its moments and for the most part respected the established continuity and lore), as I think a lot of fans are. Most Trek fans aren’t afraid of change, they just want the existing history and lore left alone. If the timeline moves forward and changes occur, it would be more tolerable and believable. I’m ready for 25th century trek stories, which is why I’m stoked about the new Picard series, as it will be the first time Trek has moved forward in nearly 20 years. I’m not afraid of change, I like change. What I don’t like is lazy hack writers “reimagining” prexisting stories because they’re too lazy or uninspired to move forward and actually create something new

I only saw the first episode, so and I didn't get enough from that to conclude they were significantly different.
 
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,104
This isn’t even Star Trek. It’s Trek trying to be other sci-fi. I like a large variety of sci-fi, which is why I never got into the whole Star Wars vs Star Trek debate. You can’t expect one to be the other. It’s apples and oranges. Both are set in space with futuristic (or ancient future like) technology. That’s where the similarities end.

Unfortunately, STD is trying to be anything but Star Trek. I don’t want my Star Trek to try and be a mishmash of Star Wars, Farscape, SG-1, Dr. Who, or Battlestar Galactica. I want it to be Star Trek at it’s core. I want exploration of humanity through exploration of alien cultures that represent certain ideas, philosophies etc. That’s what Trek does well. Everything is a mirror into ourselves. We’re asked questions and not handed the so-called correct answers or lectured to but simply posed the question to ponder. That’s what Star Trek is to me.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,657
As a lifelong lover of the Star Trek franchise, I grit my teeth through the first nine episodes and then, gave up on Discovery. It contains none or very little of what was so appealing throughout the franchise, the wonder and likable characters. Next Gen was fab, in its philosophical premises.

It's likely they tried to emulate the grittiness of the successful BSG reboot but they failed to consider the base premise of BSG, one where the story begins with an alien invasion and subsequent fleeing from it. The reboot took a superficial and somewhat campy series, and elevated it to a philosophical, dark, tense, gritty series. Brilliant writing which included relevance to the period it aired. Discovery's characters are empty.
 

Doctor Anaximander

I gave him life!
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
19,200
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
While The Orville-Discovery comparisons may have become tedious, it’s necessary, since Orville has been fashioned as a sort of spiritual successor to Star Trek. One cannot help but compare it to the “real deal” that is STD

I didn’t have particularly high expectations of The Orville and expected Family Guy in Space, and yet the attention to writing great, human characters has really surprised me. And it’s been anything but Family Guy in Space. They even toned down the comedy a bit in season 2, to the point that the humor now feels less forced and more organic.

Anyone can make a grimdark sci fi series with every trope in the book, but if they can’t write decent characters, interest is bound to wane. I hope the Picard series isn’t a mindless by the numbers show with flat characters. I really do hope it will feel like a true sequel to TNG and not make the same mistakes as Discovery
 

Doctor Anaximander

I gave him life!
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
19,200
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
As a lifelong lover of the Star Trek franchise, I grit my teeth through the first nine episodes and then, gave up on Discovery. It contains none or very little of what was so appealing throughout the franchise, the wonder and likable characters. Next Gen was fab, in its philosophical premises.

It's likely they tried to emulate the grittiness of the successful BSG reboot but they failed to consider the base premise of BSG, one where the story begins with an alien invasion and subsequent fleeing from it. The reboot took a superficial and somewhat campy series, and elevated it to a philosophical, dark, tense, gritty series. Brilliant writing which included relevance to the period it aired. Discovery's characters are empty.

TNG was the show that made me love Trek. I’m still fairly meh about TOS. TOS never got all that philosophical and instead relied on morality plays with Kirk delivering his stern Bob Saget speeches to naughty aliens at the end of each episode. TNG took it to another level. I want another Trek show that can do that and more.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,657
TNG was the show that made me love Trek. I’m still fairly meh about TOS. TOS never got all that philosophical and instead relied on morality plays with Kirk delivering his stern Bob Saget speeches to naughty aliens at the end of each episode. TNG took it to another level. I want another Trek show that can do that and more.
TNG was the best. The next in line for me is Voyageur which you'll likely disagree with. I'm going to make a wild guess that your next in line is DS9. That said, Kirk was lame and overacted by Shatner. Spock and Bones made the show.

I'd walk on amputated stumps through deep snow, to watch an ST series that rebooted (not dark or gritty) or emulated NextGen. Considering the state of the world, we need a show that's not dark, has wonder and gives hope to the future.
 

Z Buck McFate

I'm too sad for pants.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
5,873
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'd actually heard good things about it (Discovery) but +1 to waiting for it to hit streaming. I don't even have a broadcast antenna hooked up to my TV. They're missing a big chunk of potential audience.
 

Doctor Anaximander

I gave him life!
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
19,200
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
TNG was the best. The next in line for me is Voyageur which you'll likely disagree with.

Voyager would be number 3 for me. It’s unfairly lambasted but it did a good job of exploring the human condition with characters like The Doctor and Seven of Nine. I’m very pleased they’re bringing Seven back for the new Picard series as I always wondered how her character might have evolved since the end of Voyager.

Voyager also had some great episodes that really stand up there alongside the best of TNG and DS9, like “Distant Origin”

I'm going to make a wild guess that your next in line is DS9.

Yep. If Picard is my favorite captain, I found Sisko the most relatable. And the show expanded the world building arguably even better than TNG did. No Trek series did a better job of fleshing out the various cultures and the politics. TNG May have done philosophy better but DS9 explored grey morality and the complexity of political maneuvering masterfully

That said, Kirk was lame and overacted by Shatner.

My second least favorite captain after Archer. However I think Shatner acted well when he had a really good director handling him. Nicholas Meyer got him to tone down the overacting in ST II and ST III, and Shat actually did pretty subdued, nuanced performances in those films. And he did alright in III and IV with Nimoy directing him.

Spock and Bones made the show.

Agreed.

I'd walk on amputated stumps through deep snow, to watch an ST series that rebooted (not dark or gritty) or emulated NextGen. Considering the state of the world, we need a show that's not dark, has wonder and gives hope to the future.

Then you should give The Orville a try. Set aside any preconceptions or distaste for Seth McFarlane. Even though he’s the captain, he hasn’t tried to make it all about him. It borders on plagiarism but it’s apparent the creators really love TNG and wanted to create a spiritual successor that doesn’t toss out optimism or try to be a grimdark drama like nearly every other current sci fi series
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Guardian of Ga'Hoole
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
16,505
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
TNG was the show that made me love Trek. I’m still fairly meh about TOS. TOS never got all that philosophical and instead relied on morality plays with Kirk delivering his stern Bob Saget speeches to naughty aliens at the end of each episode. TNG took it to another level. I want another Trek show that can do that and more.

Well, it did give us whatever this is supposed to be.

GH3Ws-1445612943-embed-spacedog_spock.jpg



I also like tribbles... the fact that they just made (or purchased) throw pillows and overdubbed purring on to them is pretty hilarious. McCoy talks about observing their anatomical structure at one point, but let's be real, it's probably just goose down.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
46,795
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Errrr.......

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!

I was okay with it, but I understand why a bunch of people didn't care for it / got pissed over it.

Aside from the paywall issue and coming late to the party, there's also a problem with TV maturing a lot in the last 10 years. I guess some shows still do okay even if they are reflective of an older style, but Discovery had a lot of problems because it couldn't decide what it wanted to be tone/theme wise, lost its showrunner before Season One production was completed, and it really feels cobbled together in terms of vision -- it's like the vision changed drastically. Plus they rushed a lot of storylines that could been incredible if they had given them room to breathe. I kinda liked it until the last few episodes,where they seemed to gut everything that I personally found appealing to return it to a more "on brand" style Trek.

I didn't watch Season Two.

I don't know if I would like TNG today. I like the stuff that is more story arc and/or deeper characterization, but some of it feels too encapsulated / too trite for me, now that I have been spoiled by a lot better TV drama shows. Shows with too neatly packaged dialogue and episode wrapups where everything goes back to status quo at the end of an episode are not something I'm much into any more, although I remember liking it in the early 90s.

I definitely think a lot of the TNG searches have been pushed by the Picard series, which has a lot of buzz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Doctor Anaximander

I gave him life!
Joined
Aug 27, 2013
Messages
19,200
Enneagram
5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
BWA HA HA HA HA HA!

I was okay with it, but I understand why a bunch of people didn't care for it / got pissed over it.

Aside from the paywall issue and coming late to the party, there's also a problem with TV maturing a lot in the last 10 years. I guess some shows still do okay even if they are reflective of an older style, but Discovery had a lot of problems because it couldn't decide what it wanted to be tone/theme wise, lost its showrunner before Season One production was completed, and it really feels cobbled together in terms of vision -- it's like the vision changed drastically. Plus they rushed a lot of storylines that could been incredible if they had given them room to breathe. I kinda liked it until the last few episodes,where they seemed to gut everything that I personally found appealing to return it to a more "on brand" style Trek.

I didn't watch Season Two.

I don't know if I would like TNG today. I like the stuff that is more story arc and/or deeper characterization, but some of it feels too encapsulated / too trite for me, now that I have been spoiled by a lot better TV drama shows. Shows with too neatly packaged dialogue and episode wrapups where everything goes back to status quo at the end of an episode are not something I'm much into any more, although I remember liking it in the early 90s.

I definitely think a lot of the TNG searches have been pushed by the Picard series, which has a lot of buzz.

The spikes in interest for TNG seem to coincide with times major announcements have been made about Picard. I am speculating but I think TNG has been kept alive in the pop culture memory quite a bit with almost constant references in certain media like any Seth McFarlane cartoon (he’s a gianormous fan boy). TNG for some reason has also been a huge source of memes in the Internet age, even in the semi-early years when stuff like the darkmateria Picard song was a thing, and for instance popular images/gifs like Picard facepalming, etc. All of that likely contributed to it remaining a trending search term well after its cancellation and even before anyone knew that Stewart would return to a new series. I wouldn’t be surprised if Red Letter Media didn’t play some role in continuing interest with those hilarious Plinkett reviews of the TNG films as well, since they likely drew a lot of views from SW fans who first watched Plinkett’s Phantom Menace review

I was surprised DS9 seemed to trend less than Voyager since it’s generally regarded so much better by most fans, but then it was always sort of the bastard stepchild of the franchise and it just never seemed to make the same splash in the greater pop culture memory as its sister shows did. I think it was always that one trekkies watched when there wasn’t a new episode of TNG or later Voyager on TV any given week. Also it was doing extensive multi episode arcs at a time when most dramatic TV was still sticking to the episodic format, so if people tuned in in the middle of an arc, they must have found it more difficult to follow and just given up (I didn’t even give it a serious shot until I had a friend with the entire DVD set who let me borrow it; it truly was a show ahead of its time and would have been HUGE had it debuted in the age of stream-and-binge). Mulgrew and Jeri Ryan have also remained fairly prominent with roles on popular series, so I’m sure that’s helped. Whereas all I can remember from DS9 is Bashir in a bit part on Game of Thrones and OBrien in an occasional movie
 
Top