After "Strange New Worlds" was better than it had any right to be I thought they finally managed to figure out how to do star trek again. Obviously I was sorely mistaken because this looks as bad...
After "Strange New Worlds" was better than it had any right to be I thought they finally managed to figure out how to do star trek again. Obviously I was sorely mistaken because this looks as bad as discovery judging by the trailer.
I try not to assume the quality of a movie/show based off of trailers and marketing, but the tone of it seems very odd for Star Trek!? And strictly commenting on the trailer itself... this is the...
I try not to assume the quality of a movie/show based off of trailers and marketing, but the tone of it seems very odd for Star Trek!?
And strictly commenting on the trailer itself... this is the worst trailer I have ever seen for anything, ever. What the hell is were they thinking? lol
This is a spin-off of Discovery, which is ... an experience. It's the only Star Trek show in my book that would improve at least 42% by getting rid of the "main" character. Pretty much every...
This is a spin-off of Discovery, which is ... an experience.
It's the only Star Trek show in my book that would improve at least 42% by getting rid of the "main" character. Pretty much every single one of the other crew members is more interesting to follow.
It's the only Star Trek show that actually has a main character, and I think that's the problem. You could argue that each of the captains are the main characters, but they have a supporting cast...
It's the only Star Trek show that actually has a main character, and I think that's the problem. You could argue that each of the captains are the main characters, but they have a supporting cast each with nearly as much screen time and often more importance.
Timeline of my thoughts from seeing this post to the end of the trailer: Oh neat, Section 31 Trek stuff. Prolly a bit dark, but whatever. If they manage to do this well, it can be really good....
Timeline of my thoughts from seeing this post to the end of the trailer:
Oh neat, Section 31 Trek stuff. Prolly a bit dark, but whatever. If they manage to do this well, it can be really good.
What a strange bit of opening music. Did they clip this in from some sort of a preview reel with annoying music in between the trailers?
Let's pause... oh, little trekky content warnings. Neat.
Oh, it's that mirror universe emperor lady. She was a bit annoying, but... maybe?
Wait, the annoying music is back. Why is it back? The trailer is still running.
I'm sure she knows her stuff but these 4 hour Youtube videos that as long as the piece of media they are analyzing... it's rarely worth the time in my opinion. The ones I did watch most often have...
I'm sure she knows her stuff but these 4 hour Youtube videos that as long as the piece of media they are analyzing... it's rarely worth the time in my opinion. The ones I did watch most often have a lot of redundant parts so the persons had no business making such long videos. There are only a few very rare exceptions to me
Watching her video was cathartic, because she properly verbalized all the things that I felt were wrong with Picard. But I didn't get any enjoyment out of being right. It was just kind of like...
Watching her video was cathartic, because she properly verbalized all the things that I felt were wrong with Picard. But I didn't get any enjoyment out of being right.
IIRC this was not from one of the proper Discover episodes but from some shorts that came out between seasons or something (I haven't seen it), which I guess makes it marginally less bad. But it...
IIRC this was not from one of the proper Discover episodes but from some shorts that came out between seasons or something (I haven't seen it), which I guess makes it marginally less bad. But it is still terrible, what the hell were they even thinking.
Sadly I see traces of this in Strange New Worlds as well, so for me Trek effectively died after Enterprise. Which is still something like 660 episodes or so, really a lot more than most shows.
Looking back on the history of Star Trek I think it "dies" for people with each iteration. There are some who never accepted TNG, some who never liked Deep Space 9, I remember the Voyager and...
Looking back on the history of Star Trek I think it "dies" for people with each iteration. There are some who never accepted TNG, some who never liked Deep Space 9, I remember the Voyager and Enterprise hate keenly.
Even in this comment section there are people that love Discovery and hate it, who love Lower Decks and hate it, etc.
it's honestly surprising that these shows have gotten this far under the careful hand of..... the writer of amazing spiderman 2.... and the mummy (2017) counting only full-on tv series, alex...
it's honestly surprising that these shows have gotten this far under the careful hand of..... the writer of amazing spiderman 2.... and the mummy (2017)
counting only full-on tv series, alex kurtzman has created an equal number of series as there were from tos to enterprise
Yeah, I agree in principle, I haven't watched the Picard video in full neither. But what I've seen from it was definitely more entertaining and interesting than Picard S01 and S02. So I'd rather...
Yeah, I agree in principle, I haven't watched the Picard video in full neither.
But what I've seen from it was definitely more entertaining and interesting than Picard S01 and S02. So I'd rather watch that than a bad Star Trek movie. 🙂
Wow. What an absolute dumpster fire. Now, don't get me wrong - if this WASN'T STAR TREK it could be a fun show. But it IS being portrayed as Star Trek. Star Trek has rather specific thematic and...
Wow. What an absolute dumpster fire.
Now, don't get me wrong - if this WASN'T STAR TREK it could be a fun show. But it IS being portrayed as Star Trek.
Star Trek has rather specific thematic and philosophical underpinnings about a hopeful view of the future of humanity and the exploration of the challenges and failing in our societies and world.
This? This is Fast and Furious and Suicide Squad shoved into a garbage disposal, and then branded as Star Trek. I'm rather sad and disappointed. I grew up on ST:TNG and it really shaped my love for both SciFi and STEM. Between TNG and MacGyver I grew up interested in technology and science, and developed skillsets in that theme. It inspired me. This does not.
This is the new age of bastardizing the Star Trek IP for mass appeal and profit: take an existing popular formula but give it a Star Trek cosmetic makeover.
This is the new age of bastardizing the Star Trek IP for mass appeal and profit: take an existing popular formula but give it a Star Trek cosmetic makeover.
The title already had me assuming this would be bad since section 31 is barely trek to begin with, and the heart of everything wrong with nu trek. And then it got FANTASTICALLY worse.
The title already had me assuming this would be bad since section 31 is barely trek to begin with, and the heart of everything wrong with nu trek.
I'd put it even more strongly, that Section 31 goes against everything Star Trek is supposed to stand for. The idea of a gritty black ops branch of Starfleet that does whatever it takes to get the...
section 31 is barely trek to begin with
I'd put it even more strongly, that Section 31 goes against everything Star Trek is supposed to stand for. The idea of a gritty black ops branch of Starfleet that does whatever it takes to get the job done, no matter how dirty, runs exactly contrary to Gene Roddenberry's optimistic view of the future.
I think it worked ok in DS9 where the whole point was that they were an abomination, and had gone rogue, and were to be dealt with (roughly. I know that gets weird). The issue is that of course...
I think it worked ok in DS9 where the whole point was that they were an abomination, and had gone rogue, and were to be dealt with (roughly. I know that gets weird).
The issue is that of course they keep bringing them back because "ooh it's dark and gritty and subverting the utopia" when that's the whole damn point of trek. If I want to watch "oh god the only thing the future brings is better tech to kill each other with" I have a PLENTY of options. Moving trek into it is just dumb multiple times over.
I feel like you could still occasionally bring up Section 31 (much like the borg or any other reoccurring enemy) but they have to BE that. Not the secret protagonists who're "making the hard choices" or whatever nonsense.
Section 31 worked well story wise, when it did work, as a foil to Trek protagonists. "This is what we could do if we were less moral and used violence instead of diplomacy." Section 31 as Trek...
Section 31 worked well story wise, when it did work, as a foil to Trek protagonists. "This is what we could do if we were less moral and used violence instead of diplomacy."
Section 31 as Trek protagonists is missing the point that they're also bad guys, just bad guys that think they're good because of who they claim to be working in favor of.
Agreed. Everyone I know who likes Star Trek likes it because of the utopian future it presents. It feels like nu trek is trying to undermine that at every turn and their obsession with Section 31...
Agreed. Everyone I know who likes Star Trek likes it because of the utopian future it presents. It feels like nu trek is trying to undermine that at every turn and their obsession with Section 31 is the worst of it.
This teaser doesn't give much hope to be honest. It looks pretty bland and without a few shots of a bridge, has nothing that looks or feels like it is even related to Star Trek.
This teaser doesn't give much hope to be honest. It looks pretty bland and without a few shots of a bridge, has nothing that looks or feels like it is even related to Star Trek.
You shocked my brain back to childhood with that one. I had completely forgotten about that book until now. Tbh I was pretty young when I read it, so I didn't have much critical engagement, I was...
You shocked my brain back to childhood with that one. I had completely forgotten about that book until now. Tbh I was pretty young when I read it, so I didn't have much critical engagement, I was just cranking through whatever the library has to offer.
yeah, those two are great. I just feel so burned from hug-it-out Disco and whatever Picard turned into. Both were so promising at first and even had their moments... but I just don't want to...
yeah, those two are great. I just feel so burned from hug-it-out Disco and whatever Picard turned into. Both were so promising at first and even had their moments... but I just don't want to experience that heartache again.
People keep insisting lower decks is good and I'm left wondering if we are watching the same show because it is just as cringe inducing as Discovery/ Picard in my opinion. I just don't find any of...
People keep insisting lower decks is good and I'm left wondering if we are watching the same show because it is just as cringe inducing as Discovery/ Picard in my opinion. I just don't find any of it funny, I have laughed more watching DS9. That experience made me extremely reluctant to watch Strange New Worlds, I am glad I did because its great but I still can't figure out the appeal of The Lower Decks.
Just make it past the first four episodes, it was a Trojan horse to get Fox to make a Star Trek, and he billed it as a comedy (considering he's the "family guy" guy and makes them so much). After...
Just make it past the first four episodes, it was a Trojan horse to get Fox to make a Star Trek, and he billed it as a comedy (considering he's the "family guy" guy and makes them so much).
After the first four episodes it does a quick 180. Then S02 comes and they dispense with most of the comedy entirely.
The thing about Lower Decks is that it's less a Star Trek Show and more of a Trek-themed Simpsons. I love both of those elements, so I ended up loving Lower Decks, because it deliberately doesn't...
The thing about Lower Decks is that it's less a Star Trek Show and more of a Trek-themed Simpsons. I love both of those elements, so I ended up loving Lower Decks, because it deliberately doesn't take itself as seriously as most mainline ST shows do, historically. If you're an ST purist, I could see why it might not appeal to you, and that's fine. To each, their own Trek!
The thing j like about it is that even as a lifelong fan, I can admit that star Trek is a pretty goofy show, and it's goofy in ways beyond the normal, mainstream "haha low budget 60s guy in suit...
The thing j like about it is that even as a lifelong fan, I can admit that star Trek is a pretty goofy show, and it's goofy in ways beyond the normal, mainstream "haha low budget 60s guy in suit guy with bad choreography" that most people poke fun at Star Trek about.
Those things are really only recognizable, or funny to other Star Trek fans, and lower decks is very good at poking fun of those things. Tropes like "computer takes over society and is worshiped as a god", or "society takes the shape of some inconsequential object they happen to find" or "guy gains a bunch of power, and almost immediately becomes an megalomaniac" are all plotlines that were developed in TOS, and writers of the various shows have gone back to those wells many times, but you wouldn't know that unless you've seen a lot of Star Trek, and lower decks makes very esoteric jokes that appeal to that audience.
The idea that Starfleet has a facility specifically for storing evil supercomputers is a funny concept, for instance.
It does that while still respecting the core of Star Trek's message, and somewhat adhering to established canon, which I really appreciate.
Funnily I am the opposite. People kept insisting Strange New Worlds is good, so I tried it, left disappointed and now I'm very reluctant to watch Lower Decks.
Funnily I am the opposite. People kept insisting Strange New Worlds is good, so I tried it, left disappointed and now I'm very reluctant to watch Lower Decks.
Cool... :\ ...I am trying to guess where "star trek" fits into this. Maybe it's just me getting bitter but all these movies look a lot like a clone of each other. Strong girl at the lead... check....
Cool... :\ ...I am trying to guess where "star trek" fits into this.
Maybe it's just me getting bitter but all these movies look a lot like a clone of each other.
Strong girl at the lead... check.
Shrewd jokes... check.
Soft dystopian worlds... check.
Flickering lights... check.
Punches against laser guns... check.
Optimistic, but worried. The difference between "good" Star Trek and bad Star Trek is how much the writers enjoy fantasy, and how much the writers prefer hard (military) sci-fi. And, sadly, most...
Optimistic, but worried.
The difference between "good" Star Trek and bad Star Trek is how much the writers enjoy fantasy, and how much the writers prefer hard (military) sci-fi.
And, sadly, most nu-trek has been taken over by the latter.
Note: Discovery gets more "fantasy" inspired and enjoyable starting with season 3 has some some of my favorite of the entire franchise, especially the last season which was fantastic, before that, it's rough.
Edit: Yeah, this didn't get taken the way that I wanted it to.
I adore hard science fiction, even military sci-fi, but Star Trek, the ones we all rather enjoyed, were based on the concept of "Fantasy, but in space". Military SciFi tends to be more dark, more brooding, less approachable of the curiousity of the world around them outside of the political intrigue. Space Operas usually are right in the middle, but Star Trek doesn't quite fit in that crowd either.
TOS and TNG understood and were heavy on the "fantasy, but in space" bits.
Star Trek is better (imo) when it's more fantastical, strange, and productive, than when it's a hardline Expanse or other military-focused endeavor. That's the problem that sucks the fun out of the air with the newest renditions, outside of SNW.
Not sure I agree with that, but I think it might just be your definitions of "fantasy" and "hard (military) sci-fi." Typically "hard sci-fi" is grounded in plausible science and realism, whereas...
Not sure I agree with that, but I think it might just be your definitions of "fantasy" and "hard (military) sci-fi."
Typically "hard sci-fi" is grounded in plausible science and realism, whereas "soft sci-fi" is a lot more content to handwave away technical details in pursuit of a good story. Star Trek was conceived as a soft sci-fi mirror for humanity. At its core, it tells parables to teach us lessons about who we are and (as it fundamentally optimistic) what we should strive to become. The technobabble-filled, galaxy-roving setting is really just a backdrop for morality plays in most cases. I wonder if this is what you mean by "fantasy."
I wouldn't say the franchise has moved toward harder sci-fi, or more militaristic sci-fi. It's certainly become dystopian and grimdark. Honestly the setting feels even more like window dressing to me now than it used to... instead of working as a team, characters are constantly suspicious of one another and have ulterior motives for everything. Instead of emphasizing diplomacy or resourcefulness, characters are more likely to solve their problems through violence. Some of the best moments in classic Trek emphasized the hierarchical paramilitary aspects of Starfleet, but the amount of indiscipline and insubordination on display in nuTrek is off the charts by comparison. Sure, maybe they spend more time fighting now but that doesn't make them more "military" in my book.
If I had to label a spectrum from old (good) Trek to new (bad) Trek, I think it might be "optimistic humanism" vs. "impulsive opportunism" or something to that effect.
The direction that star Trek has taken has nothing to do with the hardness or softness of it's Sci Fi, and it doesn't really have anything to do with the militarism of the show either. TOS was a...
The direction that star Trek has taken has nothing to do with the hardness or softness of it's Sci Fi, and it doesn't really have anything to do with the militarism of the show either.
TOS was a very heavily military inspired show. The rank structure is hierarchial, the captains word was law, you stood at attention when talking to him and so forth.
Compare that to Discovery, where the main character comits munity on the very first episode.
Militaries typically work together as a team, and members of that team are close knit, and trust each other implicitly with their lives. Its the nature of doing very dangerous work. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy may have had disagreements from time to time, but any of them would (and some of them have) laid down their lives for one another, and they understand that any of them would do the same if the situation called for it. They don't scheme or plot against each other. Same goes for Picard, Riker and Data.
In Discovery, everyone seems to spend most of their time questioning the motives of everyone else, plotting to stab someone in the back, or launching investigations into other people on the ship. The only militaries that operate like that are extremely dysfunctional ones in failed countries. If feels more like middle school than an elite military unit.
On the subject of sci Fi hardness, the main method of faster than light travel in every star Trek show to date has been the warp drive, something impossible with our current technology, but alcubberie drives, which are based on similar principles, may be achievable within physics.
Discovery travels on a system of mushrooms that only exist in another dimension, and require the ship to spin one of its rings around and then do a series of barrel rolls.
Every other Star Trek show depicts phasers, a directed energy weapon, as a solid beam of light extending from the emitters to the target. Discovery depicts them as red bullets for some reason.
I could go on and on, but Discovery being dark, depressing and violent is independent of it being hard/soft Sci Fi, and is even independent of it being militaristic. It's just dark depressing, emotional and violent on its own, without taking hardness into consideration.
Do you mean "space opera"? Space battles, etc? What does "military" have to do with hard science fiction? My understanding of hard science fiction is that the story is firmly planted in real...
The difference between "good" Star Trek and bad Star Trek is how much the writers enjoy fantasy, and how much the writers prefer hard (military) sci-fi.
Do you mean "space opera"? Space battles, etc?
What does "military" have to do with hard science fiction? My understanding of hard science fiction is that the story is firmly planted in real science before the plot (what if) is extrapolated from that.
In regards to all of the comments about doing Star Trek right I thought Prelude To Axanar was the way to go for reviving Star Trek. Sadly, I think CBS sent them a cease and desist when CBS should...
In regards to all of the comments about doing Star Trek right I thought Prelude To Axanar was the way to go for reviving Star Trek. Sadly, I think CBS sent them a cease and desist when CBS should have funded them.
This looks awful, and I am somewhat angry at Michelle Yeoh for agreeing to/continuing with it after how terrible Discovery was. At least the comments are hilarious like that Aussie Office trailer.
This looks awful, and I am somewhat angry at Michelle Yeoh for agreeing to/continuing with it after how terrible Discovery was.
At least the comments are hilarious like that Aussie Office trailer.
Okay, this is indeed the terrible trailer I watched 2 months ago. I don't know who wants this garbage movie but I think this is a perfect example of streaming service bloat.
Okay, this is indeed the terrible trailer I watched 2 months ago. I don't know who wants this garbage movie but I think this is a perfect example of streaming service bloat.
After "Strange New Worlds" was better than it had any right to be I thought they finally managed to figure out how to do star trek again. Obviously I was sorely mistaken because this looks as bad as discovery judging by the trailer.
I try not to assume the quality of a movie/show based off of trailers and marketing, but the tone of it seems very odd for Star Trek!?
And strictly commenting on the trailer itself... this is the worst trailer I have ever seen for anything, ever. What the hell is were they thinking? lol
Yeah, this is 100% not for me. I might give it a shot, but this does not look like what I'm looking for in a Star Trek property.
This is a spin-off of Discovery, which is ... an experience.
It's the only Star Trek show in my book that would improve at least 42% by getting rid of the "main" character. Pretty much every single one of the other crew members is more interesting to follow.
It's the only Star Trek show that actually has a main character, and I think that's the problem. You could argue that each of the captains are the main characters, but they have a supporting cast each with nearly as much screen time and often more importance.
Timeline of my thoughts from seeing this post to the end of the trailer:
Maybe Angela Collier makes a video about this, I'll watch that instead. 🙂
I'm sure she knows her stuff but these 4 hour Youtube videos that as long as the piece of media they are analyzing... it's rarely worth the time in my opinion. The ones I did watch most often have a lot of redundant parts so the persons had no business making such long videos. There are only a few very rare exceptions to me
Watching her video was cathartic, because she properly verbalized all the things that I felt were wrong with Picard. But I didn't get any enjoyment out of being right.
It was just kind of like this feeling, but stretched out longer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnlxugk3Qb0
IIRC this was not from one of the proper Discover episodes but from some shorts that came out between seasons or something (I haven't seen it), which I guess makes it marginally less bad. But it is still terrible, what the hell were they even thinking.
Sadly I see traces of this in Strange New Worlds as well, so for me Trek effectively died after Enterprise. Which is still something like 660 episodes or so, really a lot more than most shows.
Looking back on the history of Star Trek I think it "dies" for people with each iteration. There are some who never accepted TNG, some who never liked Deep Space 9, I remember the Voyager and Enterprise hate keenly.
Even in this comment section there are people that love Discovery and hate it, who love Lower Decks and hate it, etc.
That is uh, unfortunate.
Safe to say this franchise has become something completely different from what it was.
it's honestly surprising that these shows have gotten this far under the careful hand of..... the writer of amazing spiderman 2.... and the mummy (2017)
counting only full-on tv series, alex kurtzman has created an equal number of series as there were from tos to enterprise
Yeah, I agree in principle, I haven't watched the Picard video in full neither.
But what I've seen from it was definitely more entertaining and interesting than Picard S01 and S02. So I'd rather watch that than a bad Star Trek movie. 🙂
Wow. What an absolute dumpster fire.
Now, don't get me wrong - if this WASN'T STAR TREK it could be a fun show. But it IS being portrayed as Star Trek.
Star Trek has rather specific thematic and philosophical underpinnings about a hopeful view of the future of humanity and the exploration of the challenges and failing in our societies and world.
This? This is Fast and Furious and Suicide Squad shoved into a garbage disposal, and then branded as Star Trek. I'm rather sad and disappointed. I grew up on ST:TNG and it really shaped my love for both SciFi and STEM. Between TNG and MacGyver I grew up interested in technology and science, and developed skillsets in that theme. It inspired me. This does not.
This is the new age of bastardizing the Star Trek IP for mass appeal and profit: take an existing popular formula but give it a Star Trek cosmetic makeover.
The title already had me assuming this would be bad since section 31 is barely trek to begin with, and the heart of everything wrong with nu trek.
And then it got FANTASTICALLY worse.
I'd put it even more strongly, that Section 31 goes against everything Star Trek is supposed to stand for. The idea of a gritty black ops branch of Starfleet that does whatever it takes to get the job done, no matter how dirty, runs exactly contrary to Gene Roddenberry's optimistic view of the future.
I think it worked ok in DS9 where the whole point was that they were an abomination, and had gone rogue, and were to be dealt with (roughly. I know that gets weird).
The issue is that of course they keep bringing them back because "ooh it's dark and gritty and subverting the utopia" when that's the whole damn point of trek. If I want to watch "oh god the only thing the future brings is better tech to kill each other with" I have a PLENTY of options. Moving trek into it is just dumb multiple times over.
I feel like you could still occasionally bring up Section 31 (much like the borg or any other reoccurring enemy) but they have to BE that. Not the secret protagonists who're "making the hard choices" or whatever nonsense.
Section 31 worked well story wise, when it did work, as a foil to Trek protagonists. "This is what we could do if we were less moral and used violence instead of diplomacy."
Section 31 as Trek protagonists is missing the point that they're also bad guys, just bad guys that think they're good because of who they claim to be working in favor of.
Agreed. Everyone I know who likes Star Trek likes it because of the utopian future it presents. It feels like nu trek is trying to undermine that at every turn and their obsession with Section 31 is the worst of it.
If they mess this up, I'm giving up on Trek. No excuses with this one.
This teaser doesn't give much hope to be honest. It looks pretty bland and without a few shots of a bridge, has nothing that looks or feels like it is even related to Star Trek.
nooooo!!!!! but yes, that's what I'm fearing. They might as well make Imzadi if they're going to half-ass it.
You shocked my brain back to childhood with that one. I had completely forgotten about that book until now. Tbh I was pretty young when I read it, so I didn't have much critical engagement, I was just cranking through whatever the library has to offer.
it has everything we want in a movie — gratuitous nudity, a crime, an adventure, more nudity… snacks!
I am willing to forgive some. Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds are pretty good.
yeah, those two are great. I just feel so burned from hug-it-out Disco and whatever Picard turned into. Both were so promising at first and even had their moments... but I just don't want to experience that heartache again.
People keep insisting lower decks is good and I'm left wondering if we are watching the same show because it is just as cringe inducing as Discovery/ Picard in my opinion. I just don't find any of it funny, I have laughed more watching DS9. That experience made me extremely reluctant to watch Strange New Worlds, I am glad I did because its great but I still can't figure out the appeal of The Lower Decks.
Just watch The Orville instead. It's a better Trek than Trek has been in many a year.
Just make it past the first four episodes, it was a Trojan horse to get Fox to make a Star Trek, and he billed it as a comedy (considering he's the "family guy" guy and makes them so much).
After the first four episodes it does a quick 180. Then S02 comes and they dispense with most of the comedy entirely.
The thing about Lower Decks is that it's less a Star Trek Show and more of a Trek-themed Simpsons. I love both of those elements, so I ended up loving Lower Decks, because it deliberately doesn't take itself as seriously as most mainline ST shows do, historically. If you're an ST purist, I could see why it might not appeal to you, and that's fine. To each, their own Trek!
The thing j like about it is that even as a lifelong fan, I can admit that star Trek is a pretty goofy show, and it's goofy in ways beyond the normal, mainstream "haha low budget 60s guy in suit guy with bad choreography" that most people poke fun at Star Trek about.
Those things are really only recognizable, or funny to other Star Trek fans, and lower decks is very good at poking fun of those things. Tropes like "computer takes over society and is worshiped as a god", or "society takes the shape of some inconsequential object they happen to find" or "guy gains a bunch of power, and almost immediately becomes an megalomaniac" are all plotlines that were developed in TOS, and writers of the various shows have gone back to those wells many times, but you wouldn't know that unless you've seen a lot of Star Trek, and lower decks makes very esoteric jokes that appeal to that audience.
The idea that Starfleet has a facility specifically for storing evil supercomputers is a funny concept, for instance.
It does that while still respecting the core of Star Trek's message, and somewhat adhering to established canon, which I really appreciate.
Funnily I am the opposite. People kept insisting Strange New Worlds is good, so I tried it, left disappointed and now I'm very reluctant to watch Lower Decks.
Cool... :\ ...I am trying to guess where "star trek" fits into this.
Maybe it's just me getting bitter but all these movies look a lot like a clone of each other.
Strong girl at the lead... check.
Shrewd jokes... check.
Soft dystopian worlds... check.
Flickering lights... check.
Punches against laser guns... check.
That will be an entertaining Red Letter Media review!
Optimistic, but worried.
The difference between "good" Star Trek and bad Star Trek is how much the writers enjoy fantasy, and how much the writers prefer hard (military) sci-fi.
And, sadly, most nu-trek has been taken over by the latter.
Note: Discovery gets more "fantasy" inspired and enjoyable starting with season 3 has some some of my favorite of the entire franchise, especially the last season which was fantastic, before that, it's rough.
Edit: Yeah, this didn't get taken the way that I wanted it to.
I adore hard science fiction, even military sci-fi, but Star Trek, the ones we all rather enjoyed, were based on the concept of "Fantasy, but in space". Military SciFi tends to be more dark, more brooding, less approachable of the curiousity of the world around them outside of the political intrigue. Space Operas usually are right in the middle, but Star Trek doesn't quite fit in that crowd either.
TOS and TNG understood and were heavy on the "fantasy, but in space" bits.
Star Trek is better (imo) when it's more fantastical, strange, and productive, than when it's a hardline Expanse or other military-focused endeavor. That's the problem that sucks the fun out of the air with the newest renditions, outside of SNW.
Not sure I agree with that, but I think it might just be your definitions of "fantasy" and "hard (military) sci-fi."
Typically "hard sci-fi" is grounded in plausible science and realism, whereas "soft sci-fi" is a lot more content to handwave away technical details in pursuit of a good story. Star Trek was conceived as a soft sci-fi mirror for humanity. At its core, it tells parables to teach us lessons about who we are and (as it fundamentally optimistic) what we should strive to become. The technobabble-filled, galaxy-roving setting is really just a backdrop for morality plays in most cases. I wonder if this is what you mean by "fantasy."
I wouldn't say the franchise has moved toward harder sci-fi, or more militaristic sci-fi. It's certainly become dystopian and grimdark. Honestly the setting feels even more like window dressing to me now than it used to... instead of working as a team, characters are constantly suspicious of one another and have ulterior motives for everything. Instead of emphasizing diplomacy or resourcefulness, characters are more likely to solve their problems through violence. Some of the best moments in classic Trek emphasized the hierarchical paramilitary aspects of Starfleet, but the amount of indiscipline and insubordination on display in nuTrek is off the charts by comparison. Sure, maybe they spend more time fighting now but that doesn't make them more "military" in my book.
If I had to label a spectrum from old (good) Trek to new (bad) Trek, I think it might be "optimistic humanism" vs. "impulsive opportunism" or something to that effect.
The direction that star Trek has taken has nothing to do with the hardness or softness of it's Sci Fi, and it doesn't really have anything to do with the militarism of the show either.
TOS was a very heavily military inspired show. The rank structure is hierarchial, the captains word was law, you stood at attention when talking to him and so forth.
Compare that to Discovery, where the main character comits munity on the very first episode.
Militaries typically work together as a team, and members of that team are close knit, and trust each other implicitly with their lives. Its the nature of doing very dangerous work. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy may have had disagreements from time to time, but any of them would (and some of them have) laid down their lives for one another, and they understand that any of them would do the same if the situation called for it. They don't scheme or plot against each other. Same goes for Picard, Riker and Data.
In Discovery, everyone seems to spend most of their time questioning the motives of everyone else, plotting to stab someone in the back, or launching investigations into other people on the ship. The only militaries that operate like that are extremely dysfunctional ones in failed countries. If feels more like middle school than an elite military unit.
On the subject of sci Fi hardness, the main method of faster than light travel in every star Trek show to date has been the warp drive, something impossible with our current technology, but alcubberie drives, which are based on similar principles, may be achievable within physics.
Discovery travels on a system of mushrooms that only exist in another dimension, and require the ship to spin one of its rings around and then do a series of barrel rolls.
Every other Star Trek show depicts phasers, a directed energy weapon, as a solid beam of light extending from the emitters to the target. Discovery depicts them as red bullets for some reason.
I could go on and on, but Discovery being dark, depressing and violent is independent of it being hard/soft Sci Fi, and is even independent of it being militaristic. It's just dark depressing, emotional and violent on its own, without taking hardness into consideration.
Do you mean "space opera"? Space battles, etc?
What does "military" have to do with hard science fiction? My understanding of hard science fiction is that the story is firmly planted in real science before the plot (what if) is extrapolated from that.
Agreed - poor wording on my side. I was saying it's hard scifi with militaristic focus, not that hard sci-fi is militaristically focused.
What do you mean by a militaristic focus? Space battles?
In regards to all of the comments about doing Star Trek right I thought Prelude To Axanar was the way to go for reviving Star Trek. Sadly, I think CBS sent them a cease and desist when CBS should have funded them.
This looks awful, and I am somewhat angry at Michelle Yeoh for agreeing to/continuing with it after how terrible Discovery was.
At least the comments are hilarious like that Aussie Office trailer.
Okay, this is indeed the terrible trailer I watched 2 months ago. I don't know who wants this garbage movie but I think this is a perfect example of streaming service bloat.