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.
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.
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
I can watch it for free, and have watched Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks, most of Prodigy, and Picard, and this one holds absolutely no interest for me.
I can watch it for free, and have watched Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks, most of Prodigy, and Picard, and this one holds absolutely no interest for me.
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.
That's what I always say about these shows (and now film). If you just pretend it's Marvel in space they're actually quite enjoyable as lowbrow entertainment. And I'm not talking Movie Marvel, not...
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.
That's what I always say about these shows (and now film). If you just pretend it's Marvel in space they're actually quite enjoyable as lowbrow entertainment. And I'm not talking Movie Marvel, not even Daredevil Marvel. I'm talking about enjoyable crap like Marvel Agents of Shield... Which also had Michelle Yeoh.
The whole DISCO subverse is generic unremarkable science fiction. I like generic science fiction. Just don't call it Star Trek!
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.
I'm seeing some of those people saying "in retrospect Voyager/Enterprise/whatever was pretty decent, compared to what we have now" with regularity, so let's hope this trend does not continue.
Looking back on the history of Star Trek I think it "dies" for people with each iteration.
I'm seeing some of those people saying "in retrospect Voyager/Enterprise/whatever was pretty decent, compared to what we have now" with regularity, so let's hope this trend does not continue.
I mean, my generation hated Enterprise, so you're already continuing it! (I love the theme song, people need to chill or be forced to listen to the original lyrics Roddenberry wrote to the TOS...
I mean, my generation hated Enterprise, so you're already continuing it! (I love the theme song, people need to chill or be forced to listen to the original lyrics Roddenberry wrote to the TOS theme so he could get paid. I didn't love the prequel aspect.)
But I'm seeing people here love and hate all the different things. Sometimes we just gotta chill and enjoy (or not watch) things. Except Star Trek V.
cc: @V17 Star Trek shows age like wine or Doctor Whos. First, they're completely unnecessary and a deep misunderstanding of everything that came before. Three-four years in, they hit their stride...
Star Trek shows age like wine or Doctor Whos. First, they're completely unnecessary and a deep misunderstanding of everything that came before. Three-four years in, they hit their stride and get their own audience, and somewhere between the airing of their final season or years down the line, the shows are an integral part of the canon, ahead of their time and irreplaceable compared to whatever new trash that they're pumping out.
This can have multiple causes. One is that the series is actually slightly weak and unfocused in the beginning, which to some degree was true for all TNG era Trek. The other is that when you make...
This can have multiple causes. One is that the series is actually slightly weak and unfocused in the beginning, which to some degree was true for all TNG era Trek.
The other is that when you make a sci-fi show aimed at a new generation of mainstream scif-fi audience, you will get a new wave of fans, most of whom do not care about the old installments or understand what made them appreciated in the first place, and if the genre got more popular in general during that time, the new fans will outnumber the old fans. See Fallout games for probably the most obvious example of this.
The second cause has no relation whatsoever to whether the new content is good or not.
As I said above, nothing like what's in the video linked by ZeroGee happened in Enterprise. Or what's in SNW: there's a scene where a crewmember is standing in a hallway obviously distressed, staring into a light, either under the influence of something or ill, not making any sense when asked a normal question by a lieutenant helmsman, and said lieutenant replies "Whatever tweaks your freak!" and walks off. I can only compare it to the very worst episodes of ENT and VOY, but those were absurd in their "sci-fi" premise and still included relatively reasonable dialogues.
Saying "it's a cycle, it always happens" only gives you a very small part of the picture and doesn't in any way deny (or confirm) real reasons why it happens.
Not really. The people I saw acknowledge that Enterprise was a clear step down in quality especially at the beginning (and then again later at the end), which is when most of the hate happened,...
I mean, my generation hated Enterprise, so you're already continuing it!
Not really. The people I saw acknowledge that Enterprise was a clear step down in quality especially at the beginning (and then again later at the end), which is when most of the hate happened, they only say that it's still not as bad as what we have now and that it has good parts in the middle. Nothing in ENT was as bad as the video linked by ZeroGee.
So after our back and forth, I googled. The clip from Discovery is actually a comedy video short. This would have been useful information when I was being asked to watch it. Plus in universe she's...
So after our back and forth, I googled. The clip from Discovery is actually a comedy video short. This would have been useful information when I was being asked to watch it.
Plus in universe she's a new captain of a small vessel, not the seasoned captain of the flagship. (Plus that guy was apparently an ass on top of it, her choice of how to shut him down in a comedy bit, not withstanding, she seems to have been right to do so and not out of line with other abrupt conversation ends.)
Omitting that information, particularly "it's from a comedic short" was disingenuous and did a disservice to any argument you had.
You don't have to like comedic Trek, but I'm not the slightest bit upset about a new, young, captain of a small ship using "modern" slang in the same way I'm not upset about a British Shakespearean actor pretending to be a French military officer.
There are so many bad episodes from so many of the series and I'm gonna say Star Trek V one more time to cap it off. (But IV? doing too much LDS in the sixties? Double dumbass on you?) I...
There are so many bad episodes from so many of the series and I'm gonna say Star Trek V one more time to cap it off. (But IV? doing too much LDS in the sixties? Double dumbass on you?)
I absolutely remember the giant backlash against Enterprise. And the non-stop criticism of Voyager and DS9. It was just quieter with a less populated, less video/clickbait internet. But Usenet, and AOL groups and the chat rooms....
I don't have time to watch the video you're linking. I am sure there's modern bad shit, just as there was past bad shit - space hippies, Spock's Brain, how everyone felt about how Wesley was written?, the cross dressing episode of DS9? Super evolved space slug sex?
Etc.
You should watch the linked video. It’s short, and it’s a quite effective demonstration of how newer Star Trek is bad in a different way from the bad parts of the older series.
You should watch the linked video. It’s short, and it’s a quite effective demonstration of how newer Star Trek is bad in a different way from the bad parts of the older series.
I have a sort of personal rule about how invested I have to be to watch videos about an online discussion/argument. I watched it despite that, and did not come to the same conclusion you did from...
I have a sort of personal rule about how invested I have to be to watch videos about an online discussion/argument. I watched it despite that, and did not come to the same conclusion you did from 30 seconds of Broccoli discourse followed by 30 seconds of modern quippy dialogue.
I think the video two episodes of two different shows around 35 years apart. I have zero context for the scene or the characters. But I am not surprised that they are using a modern tone for the series. I don't have enough info to know if I'd find this annoying in context or not but I think it's been cut to be peak annoying on purpose. So I don't really trust its portrayal. Going for a different tone in a series is an intentional choice.
Voyager did an entire episode about how an apparent assault victim's repressed memories were just in her mind. There are still posts in the Star Trek subreddit in 2024 saying "we get it, you hate Voyager, stop already." I see the same for SNW. People love it, other people decry it as the downfall of Star Trek. It will repeat again in the future.
I don't think either of those are in a similar category as the Discovery scene, in or out of context. This may be true, I just don't see a reason to think this signifies anything about the quality...
Kirk out of context is weird too. If I cut that with Benjamin Sisko being serious during Past Tense airing about 27 years apart, that wouldn't really tell you anything about either show.
I don't think either of those are in a similar category as the Discovery scene, in or out of context.
I see the same for SNW. People love it, other people decry it as the downfall of Star Trek. It will repeat again in the future.
This may be true, I just don't see a reason to think this signifies anything about the quality of the shows actually being good or bad. As with say Fallout, those things are mostly unrelated.
Maybe, but I spent about two minutes finding those - and to be clear the DS9 scene was more comparable to the TNG scene in the clip. I don't think the video proved anything. I think it's not the...
I don't think either of those are in a similar category as the Discovery scene, in or out of context.
Maybe, but I spent about two minutes finding those - and to be clear the DS9 scene was more comparable to the TNG scene in the clip. I don't think the video proved anything. I think it's not the end of the world and I'd need way more context on the scene and characters to say what it says about Discovery or SNW. I didn't even know which show it was. I also don't think that Kirk's bizarre behavior is actually that different but YMMV.
This may be true, I just don't see a reason to think this signifies anything about the quality of the shows actually being good or bad. As with say Fallout, those things are mostly unrelated.
The complaints are generally about the quality of the shows. I've definitely changed my opinion on say, Voyager over time, and I liked Enterprise as a whole (i dislike a lot of prequel 'explains how X happened' stuff) but I never finished it due to access to UPN at the time.
There are fans of Discovery in this thread. (I've even seen people in this thread love/hate exact opposite seasons) I haven't watched enough new Trek to have formed an opinion about it. I'm just not swayed by the doom because I've lived through it before multiple times. Discovery will be some folks favorite Trek and they won't think it's all trash.
I'm not swayable by a 30 second clip and a "no really it's different." I hope to get the time to watch more and form my own opinion over whether I like them or not, but I hope I'm past feeling like they're the worst Trek show ever made because they're different.
No arguments from me here. It just has nothing to do with the quality of the show and I don't really care what the mainstream audience thinks. The criticisms of Voyager and Enterprise were also...
Discovery will be some folks favorite Trek and they won't think it's all trash.
No arguments from me here. It just has nothing to do with the quality of the show and I don't really care what the mainstream audience thinks.
The criticisms of Voyager and Enterprise were also legitimate. Voyager is pretty weak in places compared to previous Treks in terms of both story and characters despite having a couple characters that are well written and cast, and Enterprise also was a step down in quality in the beginning. It just wasn't as bad as now, and both shows somewhat redeemed themselves around the middle, which hasn't happened here yet either. DS9 was also kind of unfocused in the beginning and while it features probably the best writing in all of Trek, some people disliked the shift in tone, which I respect as a complaint about a real thing (even though I personally don't mind, just like here my problem is not that the show is different but that it's badly written).
If you don't see a bigger or smaller decline in quality in all of those cases, then congratulations, you can still enjoy Star Trek. I, unfortunately, have to look elsewhere.
I think the disingenuous use of the clip you shared out of the context I sought out myself has soured me on the conversation. Those are indeed all valuable conversations to have about those...
I think the disingenuous use of the clip you shared out of the context I sought out myself has soured me on the conversation.
Those are indeed all valuable conversations to have about those series, but those were not the substantive conversations being had at the time. You said Star Trek "died" for you after Enterprise, I welcome you into the time honored tradition of "the star Trek after my preferred time range is dead.". I'm sure there are ups and downs in quality, I said as much. People here have called those ups and downs in discovery literally opposite of each other based on what appeals to them. I also said I hadn't watched enough new Trek to have formed my own opinion yet. However, I don't believe Trek is Dead objectively when there are multiple shows ongoing (or just finished). And plenty of people find they capture what they look for.
But you presented an explicit, outside of the series proper, comedy bit as demonstrative of this whole thing and having to find that out myself was frankly really irritating and means I don't feel I can trust the conversation being genuine.
ETA People didn't watch TOS for the quality props, or groundbreaking alien makeup, or the Shatnerian delivery (or maybe they did there). They watched because the stories spoke to them. Even if all of Discovery was written like that, and it's not, if it speaks to folks today, cool, Trek lives
Okay, one last hopefully non-irritating thing, because this may be the core of the disagreement. I think this is the core of the disagreement. Personally I don't care if Star Trek shows or films...
Okay, one last hopefully non-irritating thing, because this may be the core of the disagreement.
Even if all of Discovery was written like that, and it's not, if it speaks to folks today, cool, Trek lives
I think this is the core of the disagreement. Personally I don't care if Star Trek shows or films keep being made at all. I care about the messages that they're saying. And the problem I have here is that Trek shows from TOS to Enterprise mostly sent the same messages and they were mostly well-written. Whereas current creators either do not understand those messages or don't care about them or they're unable to express them in a meaningful way (or more of those things at once).
In fact I believe this dilutes the overall message and it would be stronger if nothing after ENT was created at all. I don't care how many people like it, I care about its quality, its message and what the brand represents. Those things are not related to popularity.
This "bought the brand, handed it off to someone else who believes they're as capable as the original authors or more and decides to do their own reimagining" annoys me in all contexts. It is commonly done with movies and video games, but imagine how absurd it would be if Kanye West at the peak of his popularity bought the Pink Floyd brand for 2 billion dollars, declared that his music is now Pink Floyd music and the sheer number of his fans completely outnumbered the online presence of the fans of actual Pink Floyd music, so his statement gradually became the de facto reality.
That is an extreme hypothetical, what happened with Kurtzman Trek is not close to that, but it is broadly the same in principle. The 90s Trek situation was different because there was always some continuity in the handoffs, which were more gradual.
I think the disingenuous use of the clip you shared out of the context I sought out myself has soured me on the conversation.
The clip is not disingenuous, it's a pretty good representation of the writing quality in Discovery and Picard regardless of its source, and it is still bad in context. It's a shortcut since you don't want to watch anything longer (which I very much understand, though why debate the quality of NuTrek at all then) and this was on hand.
I understand that argument, I haven't seen evidence of that being the case -that Discovery onwards doesn't understand the core messages of Trek - especially as I've seen multiple people disagree...
I think this is the core of the disagreement. Personally I don't care if Star Trek shows or films keep being made at all. I care about the messages that they're saying. And the problem I have here is that Trek shows from TOS to Enterprise mostly sent the same messages and they were mostly well-written. Whereas current creators either do not understand those messages or don't care about them or they're unable to express them in a meaningful way (or more of those things at once).
I understand that argument, I haven't seen evidence of that being the case -that Discovery onwards doesn't understand the core messages of Trek - especially as I've seen multiple people disagree with that. It think it's a reasonable thing to disagree on, whether the newer shows get that. However I also heard the same complaint about DS9, for example, as it was no longer about exploration and optimism. The message of Trek did shift with DS9, especially as stories became more serialized. Was that shift too fundamental at its core for it to remain Trek? Some people thought so.
In fact I believe this dilutes the overall message and it would be stronger if nothing after ENT was created at all. I don't care how many people like it, I care about its quality, its message and what the brand represents. Those things are not related to popularity.
Yes but there are fundamental disagreements about what those things are. And I spoke from a space of having heard these same arguments made - that new Trek is fundamentally different and misses the heart of old Trek and who is this old British captain who follows the rules all the time - for decades.
This "bought the brand, handed it off to someone else who believes they're as capable as the original authors or more and decides to do their own reimagining" annoys me in all contexts. It is commonly done with movies and video games, but imagine how absurd it would be if Kanye West at the peak of his popularity bought the Pink Floyd brand for 2 billion dollars, declared that his music is now Pink Floyd music and the sheer number of his fans completely outnumbered the online presence of the fans of actual Pink Floyd music, so his statement gradually became the de facto reality.
By that logic I am not sure why Enterprise is your cutoff. Roddenberry died in 91, most of TNG wasn't under his leadership/guidance. It sounds like you really like Rick Berman led Trek, but he's absolutely the guy who got the football in the handoff, not the OG. I bring up DS9 because as people got used to TNG it was the real "this isn't Star Trek" anymore lightning rod because it was different. (And I'm sure because Avery Brooks isn't white, in the same way that Janeway gets criticism for being a woman) What do you mean you're running "F-Troop by the Wormhole®" instead of the Wagon Train to the Stars™?
That is an extreme hypothetical, what happened with Kurtzman Trek is not close to that, but it is broadly the same in principle. The 90s Trek situation was different because there was always some continuity in the handoffs, which were more gradual.
I think you're giving yourself an exception when you just said you always hate the handoff. Berman did a lot of shitty stuff to Wil Wheaton and around the topic of queer people that made me personally quite happy he was gone, personally. And I enjoyed what I watched of Discovery except for the long scenes in Klingon by people who weren't comfortable speaking it. (Or were poorly directed, idk which)
The clip is not disingenuous, it's a pretty good representation of the writing quality in Discovery and Picard regardless of its source, and it is still bad in context. It's a shortcut since you don't want to watch anything longer (which I very much understand, though why debate the quality of NuTrek at all then) and this was on hand.
I found it disingenuous for comparing a comedy short to a clip from a drama without any context for that. If Discovery always scripts like that (they didn't in what I have watched from the show) it'd be easy enough to share something from the main show. It's only a "shortcut" because you already agree with your point. It would be like me telling you how stupid they write Kirk all the time and sending the clip I shared where he's doing a character bit. That's not representative of the work.
My rule isn't about watching anything longer, I do actually want to watch (more of) the shows in question, it's about being told to watch a video to provide the internet argument for someone else when I wasn't really that invested in the quality of Discovery. And this experience is why I have that rule. I felt like you omitted mentioning it was a comedy short because it served your point.
My argument was not inherently about the quality of NuTrek, it was that this is the same debate with every series. I'm not convinced by you simply saying "no really, this time it's different, it's bad now" and sharing what I think was a dumb comparison clip. And that's ok, you don't need to convince me. I was sharing my experience as a fan of Trek since TNG (but also of TOS and TAS and the OG movies) and why I don't believe the sky is falling. Certainly not because they did the equivalent of canon Children in Need skits. (Especially when people praise The Orville for being Trek in spirit which I do agree with in many ways, but it could absolutely have had this exact conversation IMO).
Anyway, we don't agree, and that's fine, I enjoy talking about Trek in general, but I don't like being mislead, and I feel like presenting that clip out of context, especially as a persuasive argument rather than a shared injoke among haters, is misleading, even if I had agreed with your position.
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. 🙂
I'm with ZeroGee on this one, this video is actually worth the length, she doesn't just go off on an angry tirade for 4 hours she actually manages to articulate her points well and shes a bit...
I'm with ZeroGee on this one, this video is actually worth the length, she doesn't just go off on an angry tirade for 4 hours she actually manages to articulate her points well and shes a bit silly so it's quite entertaining to watch.
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.
Well maybe you will like it, different strokes and all. I didn't find the lower decks to be offensively bad but it has the same cringey writing as dicovery/picard, I just found it to be boring and...
Well maybe you will like it, different strokes and all. I didn't find the lower decks to be offensively bad but it has the same cringey writing as dicovery/picard, I just found it to be boring and unfunny.
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.
The main issue I have with this is that I can't stand the character. Prime, non-mirror universe, or whatever they call it, Georgiou was great. This Georgiou is just annoying. The trailer did not...
The main issue I have with this is that I can't stand the character. Prime, non-mirror universe, or whatever they call it, Georgiou was great. This Georgiou is just annoying. The trailer did not make the case for an open mind from me. I'll probably try to watch it one day, but I'm in no rush and my expectations couldn't be much lower.
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.
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.
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
I'm gunna have to disagree this would be my vote for worst trailer of all time but the "section 31" trailer is a close second.
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.
Yeah I'll wait until I can watch if for free and if I can't I'll likely never care.
I can watch it for free, and have watched Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks, most of Prodigy, and Picard, and this one holds absolutely no interest for me.
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.
That's what I always say about these shows (and now film). If you just pretend it's Marvel in space they're actually quite enjoyable as lowbrow entertainment. And I'm not talking Movie Marvel, not even Daredevil Marvel. I'm talking about enjoyable crap like Marvel Agents of Shield... Which also had Michelle Yeoh.
The whole DISCO subverse is generic unremarkable science fiction. I like generic science fiction. Just don't call it Star Trek!
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.
I'm seeing some of those people saying "in retrospect Voyager/Enterprise/whatever was pretty decent, compared to what we have now" with regularity, so let's hope this trend does not continue.
I mean, my generation hated Enterprise, so you're already continuing it! (I love the theme song, people need to chill or be forced to listen to the original lyrics Roddenberry wrote to the TOS theme so he could get paid. I didn't love the prequel aspect.)
But I'm seeing people here love and hate all the different things. Sometimes we just gotta chill and enjoy (or not watch) things. Except Star Trek V.
cc: @V17
Star Trek shows age like wine or Doctor Whos. First, they're completely unnecessary and a deep misunderstanding of everything that came before. Three-four years in, they hit their stride and get their own audience, and somewhere between the airing of their final season or years down the line, the shows are an integral part of the canon, ahead of their time and irreplaceable compared to whatever new trash that they're pumping out.
This can have multiple causes. One is that the series is actually slightly weak and unfocused in the beginning, which to some degree was true for all TNG era Trek.
The other is that when you make a sci-fi show aimed at a new generation of mainstream scif-fi audience, you will get a new wave of fans, most of whom do not care about the old installments or understand what made them appreciated in the first place, and if the genre got more popular in general during that time, the new fans will outnumber the old fans. See Fallout games for probably the most obvious example of this.
The second cause has no relation whatsoever to whether the new content is good or not.
As I said above, nothing like what's in the video linked by ZeroGee happened in Enterprise. Or what's in SNW: there's a scene where a crewmember is standing in a hallway obviously distressed, staring into a light, either under the influence of something or ill, not making any sense when asked a normal question by a lieutenant helmsman, and said lieutenant replies "Whatever tweaks your freak!" and walks off. I can only compare it to the very worst episodes of ENT and VOY, but those were absurd in their "sci-fi" premise and still included relatively reasonable dialogues.
Saying "it's a cycle, it always happens" only gives you a very small part of the picture and doesn't in any way deny (or confirm) real reasons why it happens.
Right, it's the circle of Shatner.
I maintain my opinions about Star Trek V though
Not really. The people I saw acknowledge that Enterprise was a clear step down in quality especially at the beginning (and then again later at the end), which is when most of the hate happened, they only say that it's still not as bad as what we have now and that it has good parts in the middle. Nothing in ENT was as bad as the video linked by ZeroGee.
So after our back and forth, I googled. The clip from Discovery is actually a comedy video short. This would have been useful information when I was being asked to watch it.
Plus in universe she's a new captain of a small vessel, not the seasoned captain of the flagship. (Plus that guy was apparently an ass on top of it, her choice of how to shut him down in a comedy bit, not withstanding, she seems to have been right to do so and not out of line with other abrupt conversation ends.)
Omitting that information, particularly "it's from a comedic short" was disingenuous and did a disservice to any argument you had.
You don't have to like comedic Trek, but I'm not the slightest bit upset about a new, young, captain of a small ship using "modern" slang in the same way I'm not upset about a British Shakespearean actor pretending to be a French military officer.
There are so many bad episodes from so many of the series and I'm gonna say Star Trek V one more time to cap it off. (But IV? doing too much LDS in the sixties? Double dumbass on you?)
I absolutely remember the giant backlash against Enterprise. And the non-stop criticism of Voyager and DS9. It was just quieter with a less populated, less video/clickbait internet. But Usenet, and AOL groups and the chat rooms....
I don't have time to watch the video you're linking. I am sure there's modern bad shit, just as there was past bad shit - space hippies, Spock's Brain, how everyone felt about how Wesley was written?, the cross dressing episode of DS9? Super evolved space slug sex?
Etc.
You should watch the linked video. It’s short, and it’s a quite effective demonstration of how newer Star Trek is bad in a different way from the bad parts of the older series.
I have a sort of personal rule about how invested I have to be to watch videos about an online discussion/argument. I watched it despite that, and did not come to the same conclusion you did from 30 seconds of Broccoli discourse followed by 30 seconds of modern quippy dialogue.
I think the video two episodes of two different shows around 35 years apart. I have zero context for the scene or the characters. But I am not surprised that they are using a modern tone for the series. I don't have enough info to know if I'd find this annoying in context or not but I think it's been cut to be peak annoying on purpose. So I don't really trust its portrayal. Going for a different tone in a series is an intentional choice.
Kirk out of context is weird too. If I cut that with Benjamin Sisko being serious during Past Tense airing about 27 years apart, that wouldn't really tell you anything about either show.
Voyager did an entire episode about how an apparent assault victim's repressed memories were just in her mind. There are still posts in the Star Trek subreddit in 2024 saying "we get it, you hate Voyager, stop already." I see the same for SNW. People love it, other people decry it as the downfall of Star Trek. It will repeat again in the future.
I don't think either of those are in a similar category as the Discovery scene, in or out of context.
This may be true, I just don't see a reason to think this signifies anything about the quality of the shows actually being good or bad. As with say Fallout, those things are mostly unrelated.
Maybe, but I spent about two minutes finding those - and to be clear the DS9 scene was more comparable to the TNG scene in the clip. I don't think the video proved anything. I think it's not the end of the world and I'd need way more context on the scene and characters to say what it says about Discovery or SNW. I didn't even know which show it was. I also don't think that Kirk's bizarre behavior is actually that different but YMMV.
The complaints are generally about the quality of the shows. I've definitely changed my opinion on say, Voyager over time, and I liked Enterprise as a whole (i dislike a lot of prequel 'explains how X happened' stuff) but I never finished it due to access to UPN at the time.
There are fans of Discovery in this thread. (I've even seen people in this thread love/hate exact opposite seasons) I haven't watched enough new Trek to have formed an opinion about it. I'm just not swayed by the doom because I've lived through it before multiple times. Discovery will be some folks favorite Trek and they won't think it's all trash.
I'm not swayable by a 30 second clip and a "no really it's different." I hope to get the time to watch more and form my own opinion over whether I like them or not, but I hope I'm past feeling like they're the worst Trek show ever made because they're different.
No arguments from me here. It just has nothing to do with the quality of the show and I don't really care what the mainstream audience thinks.
The criticisms of Voyager and Enterprise were also legitimate. Voyager is pretty weak in places compared to previous Treks in terms of both story and characters despite having a couple characters that are well written and cast, and Enterprise also was a step down in quality in the beginning. It just wasn't as bad as now, and both shows somewhat redeemed themselves around the middle, which hasn't happened here yet either. DS9 was also kind of unfocused in the beginning and while it features probably the best writing in all of Trek, some people disliked the shift in tone, which I respect as a complaint about a real thing (even though I personally don't mind, just like here my problem is not that the show is different but that it's badly written).
If you don't see a bigger or smaller decline in quality in all of those cases, then congratulations, you can still enjoy Star Trek. I, unfortunately, have to look elsewhere.
I think the disingenuous use of the clip you shared out of the context I sought out myself has soured me on the conversation.
Those are indeed all valuable conversations to have about those series, but those were not the substantive conversations being had at the time. You said Star Trek "died" for you after Enterprise, I welcome you into the time honored tradition of "the star Trek after my preferred time range is dead.". I'm sure there are ups and downs in quality, I said as much. People here have called those ups and downs in discovery literally opposite of each other based on what appeals to them. I also said I hadn't watched enough new Trek to have formed my own opinion yet. However, I don't believe Trek is Dead objectively when there are multiple shows ongoing (or just finished). And plenty of people find they capture what they look for.
But you presented an explicit, outside of the series proper, comedy bit as demonstrative of this whole thing and having to find that out myself was frankly really irritating and means I don't feel I can trust the conversation being genuine.
ETA People didn't watch TOS for the quality props, or groundbreaking alien makeup, or the Shatnerian delivery (or maybe they did there). They watched because the stories spoke to them. Even if all of Discovery was written like that, and it's not, if it speaks to folks today, cool, Trek lives
Okay, one last hopefully non-irritating thing, because this may be the core of the disagreement.
I think this is the core of the disagreement. Personally I don't care if Star Trek shows or films keep being made at all. I care about the messages that they're saying. And the problem I have here is that Trek shows from TOS to Enterprise mostly sent the same messages and they were mostly well-written. Whereas current creators either do not understand those messages or don't care about them or they're unable to express them in a meaningful way (or more of those things at once).
In fact I believe this dilutes the overall message and it would be stronger if nothing after ENT was created at all. I don't care how many people like it, I care about its quality, its message and what the brand represents. Those things are not related to popularity.
This "bought the brand, handed it off to someone else who believes they're as capable as the original authors or more and decides to do their own reimagining" annoys me in all contexts. It is commonly done with movies and video games, but imagine how absurd it would be if Kanye West at the peak of his popularity bought the Pink Floyd brand for 2 billion dollars, declared that his music is now Pink Floyd music and the sheer number of his fans completely outnumbered the online presence of the fans of actual Pink Floyd music, so his statement gradually became the de facto reality.
That is an extreme hypothetical, what happened with Kurtzman Trek is not close to that, but it is broadly the same in principle. The 90s Trek situation was different because there was always some continuity in the handoffs, which were more gradual.
The clip is not disingenuous, it's a pretty good representation of the writing quality in Discovery and Picard regardless of its source, and it is still bad in context. It's a shortcut since you don't want to watch anything longer (which I very much understand, though why debate the quality of NuTrek at all then) and this was on hand.
I understand that argument, I haven't seen evidence of that being the case -that Discovery onwards doesn't understand the core messages of Trek - especially as I've seen multiple people disagree with that. It think it's a reasonable thing to disagree on, whether the newer shows get that. However I also heard the same complaint about DS9, for example, as it was no longer about exploration and optimism. The message of Trek did shift with DS9, especially as stories became more serialized. Was that shift too fundamental at its core for it to remain Trek? Some people thought so.
Yes but there are fundamental disagreements about what those things are. And I spoke from a space of having heard these same arguments made - that new Trek is fundamentally different and misses the heart of old Trek and who is this old British captain who follows the rules all the time - for decades.
By that logic I am not sure why Enterprise is your cutoff. Roddenberry died in 91, most of TNG wasn't under his leadership/guidance. It sounds like you really like Rick Berman led Trek, but he's absolutely the guy who got the football in the handoff, not the OG. I bring up DS9 because as people got used to TNG it was the real "this isn't Star Trek" anymore lightning rod because it was different. (And I'm sure because Avery Brooks isn't white, in the same way that Janeway gets criticism for being a woman) What do you mean you're running "F-Troop by the Wormhole®" instead of the Wagon Train to the Stars™?
I think you're giving yourself an exception when you just said you always hate the handoff. Berman did a lot of shitty stuff to Wil Wheaton and around the topic of queer people that made me personally quite happy he was gone, personally. And I enjoyed what I watched of Discovery except for the long scenes in Klingon by people who weren't comfortable speaking it. (Or were poorly directed, idk which)
I found it disingenuous for comparing a comedy short to a clip from a drama without any context for that. If Discovery always scripts like that (they didn't in what I have watched from the show) it'd be easy enough to share something from the main show. It's only a "shortcut" because you already agree with your point. It would be like me telling you how stupid they write Kirk all the time and sending the clip I shared where he's doing a character bit. That's not representative of the work.
My rule isn't about watching anything longer, I do actually want to watch (more of) the shows in question, it's about being told to watch a video to provide the internet argument for someone else when I wasn't really that invested in the quality of Discovery. And this experience is why I have that rule. I felt like you omitted mentioning it was a comedy short because it served your point.
My argument was not inherently about the quality of NuTrek, it was that this is the same debate with every series. I'm not convinced by you simply saying "no really, this time it's different, it's bad now" and sharing what I think was a dumb comparison clip. And that's ok, you don't need to convince me. I was sharing my experience as a fan of Trek since TNG (but also of TOS and TAS and the OG movies) and why I don't believe the sky is falling. Certainly not because they did the equivalent of canon Children in Need skits. (Especially when people praise The Orville for being Trek in spirit which I do agree with in many ways, but it could absolutely have had this exact conversation IMO).
Anyway, we don't agree, and that's fine, I enjoy talking about Trek in general, but I don't like being mislead, and I feel like presenting that clip out of context, especially as a persuasive argument rather than a shared injoke among haters, is misleading, even if I had agreed with your position.
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. 🙂
I'm with ZeroGee on this one, this video is actually worth the length, she doesn't just go off on an angry tirade for 4 hours she actually manages to articulate her points well and shes a bit silly so it's quite entertaining to watch.
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!
How dare you remind me of this book. I demand you bring me my breakfast of buttered scones with Moba jam and red leaf tea as recompense!
sure thing! you look cold, though. Would you like a Tholian silk scarf?
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.
Truer words were never spoken.
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.
I just don't find it funny. Its like watching your grandma try to quote rick and morty.
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.
Well maybe you will like it, different strokes and all. I didn't find the lower decks to be offensively bad but it has the same cringey writing as dicovery/picard, I just found it to be boring and unfunny.
That will be an entertaining Red Letter Media review!
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 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.
The main issue I have with this is that I can't stand the character. Prime, non-mirror universe, or whatever they call it, Georgiou was great. This Georgiou is just annoying. The trailer did not make the case for an open mind from me. I'll probably try to watch it one day, but I'm in no rush and my expectations couldn't be much lower.
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.