Agreed!

I left this post on another thread last night.

"I watched it this evening. It had a couple of funny moments, but I'm hoping they can stay away from the 'puerile' humor. I will watch next week and make a decision then."

@Remington Steele said:

I didn't know what to expect, I was impressed.

It was funny but not too silly with it, it respected the genre without being fan fiction about it and it had great camera work and scoring.

The Doctor being Iron 'Gates' McFadden made me smile but that's probably a leap that only exists in my head.

Roll over Discovery, you're goose has already been cooked prior to you even airing.

More of the same and I'll be a happy bunny watching this - good jorb everyone involved ;)

????????

Didn't find it funny, at all, so I hope they weren't going for too much comedy. The banter between most of the cast irritated me. But I ended up generally liking it. It's more Star Trek than anything put out by Paramount in a decade.

Pretty solid pilot. Love MacFarlane. I'll keep watching for now.

A lot better than I expected it to be after it got trashed by the critics.

It made me feel like a kid again, like I was watching TNG and I hope it continues to deliver that same feeling.

well I did expect to laugh more than what I did but what the hell it was a ok show and I probably will keep it around for awhile

@Chrisman28 said:

well I did expect to laugh more than what I did but what the hell it was a ok show and I probably will keep it around for awhile

That's funny. I expected to laugh a lot less than I did. Being such a Trekkie I think a part of me wanted to hate the show and find it stupid, but I think I've been so desperate for so many years for something Trek-like (and Paramount has truly lost its mind if they really think hard core Trekkies are buying into the crap they're putting out. That is NOT Trek!) that I found myself really liking this show.

It's definitely a spoof, but it's so far really well done. Yes, some of the humor is very childish but I can overlook that. There's enough solid writing and acting that I think with a few more episodes under their belts, they'll all find their niche and this show will succeed.

@Remington Steele: I missed that reference, but I wasn't really paying attention to the names of the characters. I'll be watching that character a bit more closely now, but maybe the writers are Trekkies too (specifically TNG fans) and are trying to pay homage to a favorite character?

As much as I don't like Fox in general, I'm rather glad this show is on Fox and not a really big network (like the original big 3) because Fox tends to let shows do their thing without trying to flex their muscles and act like they know better than the viewers what the viewers want to see CoughNBCCough and that's why shows like this have a better chance on Fox. They're the ones who let the Simpsons and Married with Children be what they were going to be and accepted that they should keep their nose out of it at a time when any other network would have scolded the producers/writers of those shows for not doing the "status quo" format and being "too daring and different" and would have yanked the shows.

@JarekReanimated: I never pay attention to critics. Most of the time they don't know what they're talking about. They're just overpaid windbags. Siskel and Ebert were the only exceptions for me.

@Satai Delenn said:

@JarekReanimated: I never pay attention to critics. Most of the time they don't know what they're talking about. They're just overpaid windbags. Siskel and Ebert were the only exceptions for me.

Those who can, make entertainment. Those that can't, critique it..

I am who I am. I like what I like. I dislike what I dislike. There is nothing a critic can say that will alter my enjoyment or lack thereof of any form of media be it tv, film, or music.

And while S&E could be entertaining, how could two skilled "critics" have a polar opposite opinion of a film? If they're professional critics, they should agree on everything... unless perhaps everyone likes what they like...

I though it was OK. It is the first episode! It is not going to stay like that forever. Sci-fi is a strange beast. It needs time to get going. I cannot think of any shows which started out as absolutely great with no problems. Even LOST had some ropey first season issues. I thought LOST peaked second half of Season 2 and maybe peaked again end of Season 3.

to@ satia deleen I guess what I meant is with the creator being who it is I thought there would be more humor involved lol that's all I do get I need to give it time and some jokes may have went over my head' I'm not a diehard trekie just a fan' so you probably caught things I didn't lol

@strntz said:

@Satai Delenn said:

And while S&E could be entertaining, how could two skilled "critics" have a polar opposite opinion of a film? If they're professional critics, they should agree on everything... unless perhaps everyone likes what they like...

How does that follow? They're human beings first and critics second. I'd argue that if a critic is found to agree with his peers 100% of the time they aren't independent-minded enough to be an effective critic. We all bring certain expectations to our entertainment and while many of us broadly agree on certain things, our individual experiences might lead us to different opinions of the final product.

I'll use The Force Awakens as a crude example. Many, many critics loved the film and it was competently made. Yet some critics were unable to see past their genre fatigue and found flaws in the film that spoiled their enjoyment of it. Reviews were not universally good. (They rarely are.) Were S&E i'd have wondered what their takes might be. Ebert was a master of seeing films with fresh eyes as well as a sense of history. I saw Siskel as more of a technical critic. That balance was why I so thoroughly enjoyed their back-and-forth.

@AlienFanatic said:

@strntz said:

And while S&E could be entertaining, how could two skilled "critics" have a polar opposite opinion of a film? If they're professional critics, they should agree on everything... unless perhaps everyone likes what they like...

How does that follow? They're human beings first and critics second. I'd argue that if a critic is found to agree with his peers 100% of the time they aren't independent-minded enough to be an effective critic. We all bring certain expectations to our entertainment and while many of us broadly agree on certain things, our individual experiences might lead us to different opinions of the final product.

I'll use The Force Awakens as a crude example. Many, many critics loved the film and it was competently made. Yet some critics were unable to see past their genre fatigue and found flaws in the film that spoiled their enjoyment of it. Reviews were not universally good. (They rarely are.) Were S&E i'd have wondered what their takes might be. Ebert was a master of seeing films with fresh eyes as well as a sense of history. I saw Siskel as more of a technical critic. That balance was why I so thoroughly enjoyed their back-and-forth.

You've pretty much argued my point for me..

My point is that critics, beyond any mindless entertainment value they might offer to viewers who might enjoy watching them fight over who's more sophisticated and intelligent, have no value in the real world. Everyone is different. I'm sure there isn't one critic on Earth who has the same exact taste in programming as I do. If I allowed critics to shape my viewing habits, I would have watched some wholly unsatisfying shows or movies and missed some wonderful ones (at least to me). Maybe in the future an AI box would know what I like and watch every program and movie ever made at digital speed, then report back to me in real time with a schedule of shows and movies I would love. But until sentience comes to man made creations, critics are valueless.

@strntz said:

@AlienFanatic said:

@strntz said:

And while S&E could be entertaining, how could two skilled "critics" have a polar opposite opinion of a film? If they're professional critics, they should agree on everything... unless perhaps everyone likes what they like...

How does that follow? They're human beings first and critics second. I'd argue that if a critic is found to agree with his peers 100% of the time they aren't independent-minded enough to be an effective critic. We all bring certain expectations to our entertainment and while many of us broadly agree on certain things, our individual experiences might lead us to different opinions of the final product.

I'll use The Force Awakens as a crude example. Many, many critics loved the film and it was competently made. Yet some critics were unable to see past their genre fatigue and found flaws in the film that spoiled their enjoyment of it. Reviews were not universally good. (They rarely are.) Were S&E i'd have wondered what their takes might be. Ebert was a master of seeing films with fresh eyes as well as a sense of history. I saw Siskel as more of a technical critic. That balance was why I so thoroughly enjoyed their back-and-forth.

You've pretty much argued my point for me..

My point is that critics, beyond any mindless entertainment value they might offer to viewers who might enjoy watching them fight over who's more sophisticated and intelligent, have no value in the real world. Everyone is different. I'm sure there isn't one critic on Earth who has the same exact taste in programming as I do. If I allowed critics to shape my viewing habits, I would have watched some wholly unsatisfying shows or movies and missed some wonderful ones (at least to me). Maybe in the future an AI box would know what I like and watch every program and movie ever made at digital speed, then report back to me in real time with a schedule of shows and movies I would love. But until sentience comes to man made creations, critics are valueless.

Not sure I follow, but I enjoyed watching them as entertainment to themselves. I used to read Ebert's columns less for their ability to persuade and instead for Ebert's singular outlook. I rarely read any of the critics referenced on RottenTomatoes, but I view the aggregate score as an average to gauge the quality of a film. If I choose to watch a movie it's generally because I'm interested in some aspect of its story or production. (I still bought, and disliked, Alien Covenant in spite of critical reviews I agreed with and positive reviews that didn't reflect my experience.)

In short, critics can still provide a service even if we ignore their (supposedly) primary function.

I'm on board too. It felt therapeutic to see some sterile Trek-style environment for a change. While I did enjoy much of the humor, I wish they'd trust the viewer a little more. Example: The dog licking its balls in the background was hilarious to me but then they had to have two characters mention it just in case you missed it.

I'll watch the entire first season if it stays at least this good. On the other side of the quantum coin, I might not even tune in to Discovery. Certainly not going to pay for it.