Paul Farquhar
Legend
No one would notice the difference, since no one cares about the Discovery characters. In 25 years absolutely no one will be getting excited about a Disco reunion show.Imagine Discovery without the Discovery characters.
No one would notice the difference, since no one cares about the Discovery characters. In 25 years absolutely no one will be getting excited about a Disco reunion show.Imagine Discovery without the Discovery characters.
These things go together. If Enterprise had been unmissable event TV, there would have been a lot of pressure to make sure it was available. But no one is going to go to a lot of trouble to watch a meh show.Part of the problem was viewers like me couldn't watch episodes of Enterprise as they came out. Our UPN affiliate was a fairly weak and distant UHF broadcaster and we didn't have cable. The three prior Treks, all of which made it to seven seasons, had been fully available to me because they were syndicated. Had Enterprise been syndicated, I believe it would have done much better. But it was saddled with having to be the flagship of UPN, exclusively.
I think TV acting has changed from 60/70s to now though. The first time I saw TOS our TV set was small, grainy and black and white. You had to act big for the viewer to see. There was no point in using micro-expressions to convey emotion, because they wouldn't be visible on the TVs of the day (apart from very expensive ones). It was like acting for a huge auditorium, rather than a small intimate theatre.I don't think acting styles have fundamentally changed that much from 1980s to now.
Funnily enough, I'm the reverse - I watched all of ENT as it came out, but dropped out of VOY partway through.Yeah ENT broke me of the Star Trek habit. I mean, VOY did a lot of damage, but ENT was the finishing move.
This is also why so much modern TV is so dark, and why there are periodic complaints about the cast mumbling their way through the show - screens, microphones, and speakers have advanced so far that these are now more easily dealt with.I think TV acting has changed from 60/70s to now though. The first time I saw TOS our TV set was small, grainy and black and white. You had to act big for the viewer to see. There was no point in using micro-expressions to convey emotion, because they wouldn't be visible on the TVs of the day (apart from very expensive ones). It was like acting for a huge auditorium, rather than a small intimate theatre.
DS9 did that for me.Paramount's network was a failure because the best it could do, was a show like "Enterprise." I watched every episode, as they came out. It's what convinced me that I really don't have to do that, just because a show has "Star Trek" on the label.
This is objectively not true. Over the years I've seen an awful lot of fan adulation for this show, on social media. It began the new tv era of Trek. I'm not crazy about the show myself, but it has a lot of fans.No one would notice the difference, since no one cares about the Discovery characters.
I would love to know what exactly these fans like about Discovery, because I really don't get it, especially the first two seasons.DS9 did that for me.
Before people's heads explode: for whatever reason, somewhere in season 6 I felt like I was just watching it because it had "Star Trek" in the name. I just had lost interest. Go figure.
But!!!
A few years later a friend sold me on finishing up the series and loaned me his VHS (?!?!) tapes to do so. And I dug it!
I'm still not the DS9 fan that a lot of people are, but at least now I get it.
This is objectively not true. Over the years I've seen an awful lot of fan adulation for this show, on social media. It began the new tv era of Trek. I'm not crazy about the show myself, but it has a lot of fans.
Discovery fans are like the yeti. I've heard about them but no one has ever met one.I would love to know what exactly these fans like about Discovery, because I really don't get it, especially the first two seasons.