A little context for this one: Dr. Angela Collier (previously on Tildes here and here) is a working astrophysicist and one of my favorite science communicators today. Typically her content is...
A little context for this one: Dr. Angela Collier (previously on Tildes here and here) is a working astrophysicist and one of my favorite science communicators today. Typically her content is math-heavy and academic; she does great deep-dives into physics and occasionally brings up pop culture stuff she's into. I certainly wasn't expecting her to drop a nearly 4-hour dissection of why "NuTrek" sucks so much. If you're into Star Trek and/or love Jenny Nicholson's exhaustive media criticism (previously on Tildes here and here), you might enjoy this.
It was also a pleasant surprise to see Captain Disillusion pop into the comments section, I recommend his channel for VFX forensics and hoax debunking. (Previously on Tildes here, here, here, and here.)
It was funny coincidence for me seeing this after recently watching RedLetterMedia's criticism of Picard (they do also have positive content on tng,tos if that's more your thing)
It was funny coincidence for me seeing this after recently watching RedLetterMedia's criticism of Picard (they do also have positive content on tng,tos if that's more your thing)
What I like about their take on Picard, is that it gets why it's such a nightmare. It's not just about "hey this is bad writing or breaking the lore" it understands that it's literally destroying...
What I like about their take on Picard, is that it gets why it's such a nightmare. It's not just about "hey this is bad writing or breaking the lore" it understands that it's literally destroying the tone/reason people watched Trek to begin with.
Unfortunately Discovery already did that. Star Trek was an optimistic look at what humanity could be if we all put aside our differences, respected each other and worked together. It's virtually...
Unfortunately Discovery already did that.
Star Trek was an optimistic look at what humanity could be if we all put aside our differences, respected each other and worked together.
It's virtually the only Sci Fi series to do that, and certainly the most popular.
Discovery decided that it would be better if it were reimagined as a moody, dark action show where the characters all hate/distrust each other, conflict comes from assuming the worst in people and miscommunicating, and problems are mostly solved by shooting your way out of them, you know, like virtually every other Sci Fi show that's ever been on TV.
It's like the writers on both shoes just hated Star Trek and wanted to turn it into some other show.
That same thing is probably the thing that bothered me the most about The Orville - and the reason why I'm not at all interested in watching any of the weird Star Trek comedies that have come out...
That same thing is probably the thing that bothered me the most about The Orville - and the reason why I'm not at all interested in watching any of the weird Star Trek comedies that have come out in recent years. Getting rid of that sense of optimism just fundamentally breaks it away from the core thing that made Star Trek what it was.
But that's coming from someone who has been avoiding all of the newer Star Trek. Sure, most of it was not wanting to pay for another streaming service just to watch one IP, but I just plain don't have confidence in any major media company being able to reproduce those feelings.
Don’t sleep on Lower Decks just because it’s a comedy or because it’s animated. It understands the tone of Trek and the sense of optimism and comes closest of the newer shows to “getting it” in my...
Don’t sleep on Lower Decks just because it’s a comedy or because it’s animated. It understands the tone of Trek and the sense of optimism and comes closest of the newer shows to “getting it” in my opinion. Your mileage may vary with the way it pokes fun at Trek as well, but I think it’s clearly done with nothing but aftection, it’s not looking to roast the classics, it it does recognize the silliness of some of it
Why you got to make me lose 4 hours like that? I haven't watched this video yet, obviously and I never finished Picard although I kept trying. It honestly turned me off from all new Trek. TNG is...
Why you got to make me lose 4 hours like that?
I haven't watched this video yet, obviously and I never finished Picard although I kept trying.
It honestly turned me off from all new Trek. TNG is my favourite. Picard is my favourite captain. I was skeptical when I heard they were coming out with Picard, but Stewart said he read the script and thought it was good.
I know it's a hot take and all, but man I don't know if I could have been more disappointed with Picard. I look forward to watching this video and agreeing with stuff I never thought of, then complaining about it to my wife like I was the one who came up with the criticisms.
Inferring from this that you have not seen Strange New Worlds. I'm going to go ahead and highly recommend that to you. Picard and Discovery are quite a bit different.
Inferring from this that you have not seen Strange New Worlds. I'm going to go ahead and highly recommend that to you. Picard and Discovery are quite a bit different.
I also liked Strange New Worlds. The Picard show was generally a huge disservice to a beloved character and role model, and offensive to Roddenberry's vision. That said...the last season was at...
I also liked Strange New Worlds.
The Picard show was generally a huge disservice to a beloved character and role model, and offensive to Roddenberry's vision. That said...the last season was at least a more fitting send-off for the TNG crew than Nemesis. It feels like a continuation of the movies, which were themselves failures at living up to the spirit of the show at best.
I was hoping that somebody would chime in about the final season. Where the first season felt like a bad Quantum Leap/Power Rangers mashup and the second season was -- well, I intentionally didn't...
I was hoping that somebody would chime in about the final season. Where the first season felt like a bad Quantum Leap/Power Rangers mashup and the second season was -- well, I intentionally didn't watch it -- the third season was good tv. Not incredible, but it hit the notes that I wanted from that group.
It suffers from the Moffat Doctor Who problem: a flimsy premise tying together a show that's episodic, but desperately wants to have an overarching story, and ends up just repeatedly teasing some...
It suffers from the Moffat Doctor Who problem: a flimsy premise tying together a show that's episodic, but desperately wants to have an overarching story, and ends up just repeatedly teasing some dumb mystery in each unsatisfying episode, until an anticlimactic "surprise" that had insufficient buildup...despite literally trying to build up to it in a shoehorned way in every almost-standalone episode. Its impressive to be neither fully episodic nor serial yet simultaneously bad at both.
I'm going to be the one negative complainer and say that for me SNW feels like Star Trek cargo cult at best that does not really get it and includes many annoying and nonsensical parts. It wasn't...
I'm going to be the one negative complainer and say that for me SNW feels like Star Trek cargo cult at best that does not really get it and includes many annoying and nonsensical parts. It wasn't straight up offensive, but I did not finish it and second and third seasons of The Orville felt like a better Star Trek than SNW to me.
Well, new internet friend, even though The Orville definitely has some semblance to Star Trek, most of all TNG, our opinions do not align. But I do look forward to season 4 of The Orville. If it...
Well, new internet friend, even though The Orville definitely has some semblance to Star Trek, most of all TNG, our opinions do not align. But I do look forward to season 4 of The Orville. If it actually happens.
You’re not alone. It’s like 2009 star trek movie. It has the window dressing, but it isn’t the same store. The orville is closer but suffers from Seth McFarlane as captain
You’re not alone. It’s like 2009 star trek movie. It has the window dressing, but it isn’t the same store.
The orville is closer but suffers from Seth McFarlane as captain and also the fact that it’s a for-profit corporate venture (the in universe mission).
Wait, what? There's a whole episode about how they don't use money. Can you elaborate on this?
The orville is closer but suffers from Seth McFarlane as captain, and also the fact that it’s a for-profit corporate venture (the in universe mission).
Wait, what? There's a whole episode about how they don't use money. Can you elaborate on this?
I don't have any recollection of that either so I looked up the fandom wiki page on the Planetary Union and found no reference to profit or dues or anything related to finances. It really just...
I don't have any recollection of that either so I looked up the fandom wiki page on the Planetary Union and found no reference to profit or dues or anything related to finances. It really just appears to be a copy and paste of Star Trek's United Federation of Planets.
The Union is just like the Federation in Star Trek, a government entity. They even do a whole episode about how a comparable-to-now earth-like planet gets Trek level tech gifted to them and they...
Thanks to this thread I started watching Strange New Worlds this week. I'm really enjoying it so far! I don't think it will surpass Voyager or TNG in my mental list of favorites, but it definitely...
Thanks to this thread I started watching Strange New Worlds this week. I'm really enjoying it so far! I don't think it will surpass Voyager or TNG in my mental list of favorites, but it definitely "feels" like a Star Trek show should.
As a SNW hater, imo if you come at it with mild expectations and you don't hate various trends and tropes present in current TV shows in general (many are present, it is quite a "current day"...
As a SNW hater, imo if you come at it with mild expectations and you don't hate various trends and tropes present in current TV shows in general (many are present, it is quite a "current day" show), you should be only a little disappointed at worst, with a few exceptions here and there.
TNG/DS9/VOY are my comfort food TV shows. For the last 10 years, I've watched an episode (or two) every night at bedtime to unwind and relax. SNW is solid and I'd really recommend giving it a...
TNG/DS9/VOY are my comfort food TV shows. For the last 10 years, I've watched an episode (or two) every night at bedtime to unwind and relax.
SNW is solid and I'd really recommend giving it a watch. There are plenty of things to like about SNW. But, if you want to hate something, you'll always find plenty of things to hate.
I've been the same way with TNG, DS9, and VOY since they hit Netflix streaming about 15 years ago. Especially TNG and DS9. I also grew up watching Star Trek, but I just rented the movies, saw some...
I've been the same way with TNG, DS9, and VOY since they hit Netflix streaming about 15 years ago. Especially TNG and DS9. I also grew up watching Star Trek, but I just rented the movies, saw some in the theaters, and stayed on the channel if an episode was on TV, since streaming wasn't a thing yet.
Discovery and Picard simply do not measure up. That's me being nice about it. But, so far, I love SNW.
I haven't seen it all yet, but the first 20 minutes or so really sums up most of the issues I also have with the new trek. It has left behind the positive utopian outlook of the future. The...
I haven't seen it all yet, but the first 20 minutes or so really sums up most of the issues I also have with the new trek. It has left behind the positive utopian outlook of the future. The inspiration is gone. As she also goes into, there are tons of people who got into engineering, medical science, astronomy or similar fields because they watched Star Trek growing up. It has been a massive inspiration for many people in their life choices. While it is likely to early to conclude, it doesn't really seem like the newer Trek stuff will have that kind of influence. Would love to be proven wrong, but it doesn't set itself apart from similar action oriented pure entertainment shows anymore.
She also goes over how much of the joy of watching Star Trek is how we mostly see competent people acting responsible and making good decisions. Not that they have everything figured out, but most characters gave an impression of having a level of maturity that current society doesn't have. Modern Trek has gone a different route by showing people to be much more vulnerable, dealing with various levels of mental stress and issues, which of course will resonate more with how many feel in our current society. But it also hampers the hopeful outlook for the future. That is a radical different approach, that I think is at the core of where fans differ in terms of which generation of Star Trek they prefer.
I really like Dr. Collier, and her content is top notch - I liked most of this video, it's really well put together and doesn't feel like it slows down across its hour long runtime. I will say...
I really like Dr. Collier, and her content is top notch - I liked most of this video, it's really well put together and doesn't feel like it slows down across its hour long runtime. I will say however that the point of "Starfleet is the bad guys now and that sucks" is - in my opinion - a very weak one. Why does Starfleet need to be the government equivalent of a Mary Sue? Yes, TNG, TOS, SNW, (some parts of) DIS, LD and ENT have proven that that can be fun and is definitely a winning formula, but I'm just thinking... why not? Why not have Starfleet be a little corrupt? They're all just human (and vulcan, andorian, denobulan, sometimes klingon etc). If anything, it's a little strange that everyone at Starfleet is perfectly loyal, on-message and hypercompetent (with the occasional Reg Barclay). I welcome a change of pace, and I think it was kind of cool as an idea. Of course, Picard wasn't that good and I really can't argue with most of the other points that she brings up. Yes, it's a bit of a bad show, but saying "Starfleet being evil isn't good storytelling" is a little too blunt for me.
"The Institution works and is populated by competent, well-intentioned people" is such a core part of the setting because it's both aspirational and very nearly unique. Nearly every other sci fi...
"The Institution works and is populated by competent, well-intentioned people" is such a core part of the setting because it's both aspirational and very nearly unique. Nearly every other sci fi franchise out there is dominated by government institutions which fall somewhere on the spectrum of inept to outright evil, where their circumvention or outright destruction are portrayed as the only viable routes for doing good. As best I can tell this happens not from some universal understanding that institutions are evil, but because it's much harder to write good stories about powerful entities who solve problems instead of creating them. Starfleet/The Federation are (or at least were) the special exception, and dragging them back into the pack of what every other franchise does feels painful.
Also: Is a government that largely works really so wildly outlandish as to earn the "Mary Sue" tag? It's not like nothing ever went wrong in the older shows, only that what did go wrong was recognized and eventually (with effort) dealt with.
I think that for many people governments that actually work are mundane and therefore fairly invisible to them. Or in other words, people only notice them when they do things particularly badly or...
Also: Is a government that largely works really so wildly outlandish as to earn the "Mary Sue" tag?
I think that for many people governments that actually work are mundane and therefore fairly invisible to them. Or in other words, people only notice them when they do things particularly badly or if they do bad things. At the same time, more recent years has seen the rise of conservative leadership across the globe, so people are seeing their governments being starved for resources and doing things badly, so they have the impression of government as being incompetent or malicious.
I haven’t yet watched the video, but I think that what might be throwing some people off is Starfleet as a whole being bad lacks nuance. Some might even consider it bad writing. TNG, DS9, and VOY...
I haven’t yet watched the video, but I think that what might be throwing some people off is Starfleet as a whole being bad lacks nuance. Some might even consider it bad writing.
TNG, DS9, and VOY all had stories of corruption on the individual/small group level and/or divisive and abrasive powerful figures within Starfleet, with the latter happening often enough that the community coined the term “badmirals”.
I think that’s the sort of corruption stories fans expect to see.
Something else that crosses my mind is that a lot of fans got hooked on the franchise for its message of forward-looking hope, something that’s increasingly rare in modern media, and it’s difficult to find much hope in a Starfleet that’s bad as a whole, which a small cast of “good guy” characters don’t realistically have a chance of going up against without some contorted plot twists.
A realization came to me while thinking about all of this during lunch. Though it may not be intentional, writing baddies inside Starfleet as isolated incidents that get resolved in an episode or...
A realization came to me while thinking about all of this during lunch.
Though it may not be intentional, writing baddies inside Starfleet as isolated incidents that get resolved in an episode or two makes a powerful statement that constant vigilance is a must and that corruption, furthering of self-interest at the cost of others, and overbearing egotism cannot be tolerated lest the sparks become an unstoppable wildfire. It's a message of action over indifference that is perhaps more relevant today than it's ever been.
That's a good observation, and although I doubt the overall pattern is deliberately designed for that effect, the significance of vigilance against corruption is pretty explicitly harped on at...
That's a good observation, and although I doubt the overall pattern is deliberately designed for that effect, the significance of vigilance against corruption is pretty explicitly harped on at various points. The end of TNG's The Drumhead is probably the most notable example:
PICARD: We think we've come so far. The torture of heretics, the burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then, before you can blink an eye, it suddenly threatens to start all over again.
WORF: I believed her. I helped her. I did not see what she was.
PICARD: Mister Worf, villains who wear twirl their moustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged.
WORF: I think after yesterday, people will not be as ready to trust her.
PICARD: Maybe. But she, or someone like her, will always be with us, waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness. Vigilance, Mister Worf, that is the price we have to continually pay.
Yes exactly! IMO Star Trek isn't just a utopia where we sail around doing science. It's about the struggle necessary to maintain utopia. Peace and equality when achieved is a tenuous balance that...
Yes exactly! IMO Star Trek isn't just a utopia where we sail around doing science. It's about the struggle necessary to maintain utopia. Peace and equality when achieved is a tenuous balance that must be actively defended.
Starfleet as the badguy sucks for a few reasons. As others have mentioned, a core part of the Trek universe is optimism, not cynicism. They've messed with the "corrupt starfleet" before, but...
Starfleet as the badguy sucks for a few reasons.
As others have mentioned, a core part of the Trek universe is optimism, not cynicism. They've messed with the "corrupt starfleet" before, but there's literally a lower decks episode making fun of some writers seeming to forget that the whole point is that starfleet is mostly good(a character goes off to prove someone's innocence only to realize that they actually didn't need to because trusting in the system WORKS in their universe and that's half the fucking point of it).
It has been done, in trek, before, and was done better. It understood its universe, understood how to do something like this, and understood the limitations of it.
If you WANT cynical sci fi, there's plenty of other options out there (expanse comes to mind).
Perhaps most importantly of all, it's not even good writing in regards to "evil starfleet". It's just "oh yeah they let an entire planet die because reasons, politics am I right?" right out of the gate. This is very clearly someone dusting off a copy paste script and then just laying the star trek setting over it, even though it doesn't fit at all. If you ripped the trek name off this project, it'd STILL be a shitty plot with a whole bunch of "evil cuz evil" logic.
Everyone at Starfleet isn't perfectly loyal or hyper competent and never has been on any star trek show. There are tons of episodes that specifically deal with immorality, abuse of power, and...
If anything, it's a little strange that everyone at Starfleet is perfectly loyal, on-message and hypercompetent (with the occasional Reg Barclay).
Everyone at Starfleet isn't perfectly loyal or hyper competent and never has been on any star trek show. There are tons of episodes that specifically deal with immorality, abuse of power, and incompetance within starfleet, so much so that it's a running trope that every Starfleet admiral is evil.
Most federation citizens, and most Starfleet officers however, are not immoral, and Starfleet as a whole isn't. The whole point of star trek is that the federation is a force for good. Seeing how they apply their morality to various situations when pressed is the main point of the show.
Sure, you could make the federation a greedy, self centered, paranoid assholes, but at that point why not just watch takes in long breath Star wars, The Expanse, Battlestar Galactica, Farscape, Firefly, Alien, Starship Troopers, Avatar, Interstellar, or the literally every single other Sci Fi setting where the authorities are corrupt and evil?
It's just boring. The federation being an idealistic look at humanity's potential is the one thing that makes Star Trek really unique.
Flipping everything around and saying "actually, what if federation bad" isn't some sort of unique, interesting idea. It's just lazy, cheap writing that makes Star Trek into every other Sci Fi show.
Now, if you want to do a story about what happens when the federation's benevolence runs up against the harsh realities of the universe at a massive scale, you could do that, but Deep Space Nine already did that better than I trust any modern writing team to do.
I disagree on this point. It's a powerful fantasy to have a system that individuals believe in and expend effort to maintain. In fact I would argue that a recurring source of tension is the...
I will say however that the point of "Starfleet is the bad guys now and that sucks" is - in my opinion - a very weak one.
I disagree on this point. It's a powerful fantasy to have a system that individuals believe in and expend effort to maintain. In fact I would argue that a recurring source of tension is the efforts of individuals to root out rogue agents, infiltration, or groups within leadership who threaten to undermine the principles of Starfleet.
Starfleet is a composed of individuals with their own motivations. The fantasy is that with effort we can maintain an altruistic organization for the betterment of all. Nu-Trek throws that away for drama because it's easier to write and "the world sucks except for a couple anti-heroes" is in vogue.
I think a more optimistic vision could sell now. The Harris campaign is showing that people want aspirational vision. I'd like to see it represented in media.
I've never watched this person's videos before but this was surprisingly delightful given the tone and content. The only other coverage I've seen on Picard has been the RLM videos but they're a...
I've never watched this person's videos before but this was surprisingly delightful given the tone and content. The only other coverage I've seen on Picard has been the RLM videos but they're a lot more direct and reactive since they did it as the show was airing, and approached the entire thing from a more emotionally attached place.
As a sidenote, I had a lot of this on in the background and I found I had to remind myself that this wasn't a Jenny Nicholson video. The voice is so similar, and a very similar camera angle completes the picture.
I thought I was going crazy because their mannerisms are very similar down to the details of their facial expression and the way they talk. I suppose two people can be alike, there's nothing wrong...
Jenny Nicholson
I thought I was going crazy because their mannerisms are very similar down to the details of their facial expression and the way they talk. I suppose two people can be alike, there's nothing wrong with that.
I really like the video. It is comprehensive, well-informed, and it's nice to watch people talking passionately about stuff they love. And now I don't have to watch Picard, which is a plus. The...
I really like the video. It is comprehensive, well-informed, and it's nice to watch people talking passionately about stuff they love. And now I don't have to watch Picard, which is a plus. The only thing I would say in terms of criticism is that, in regards to the dynamic of comparing new vs old, a lot of the criticism of Star Trek Picard's inconsistencies could be made about the old shows as well.
Very much agree. It's important to avoid viewing the older shows through rose colored glasses due to nostalgia or other factors. I grew up on TNG and there are a fair few episodes that I feel...
a lot of the criticism of Star Trek Picard's inconsistencies could be made about the old shows as well
Very much agree. It's important to avoid viewing the older shows through rose colored glasses due to nostalgia or other factors. I grew up on TNG and there are a fair few episodes that I feel contributed to my moral compass, but I also remember several episodes (especially in early seasons) that would be considered problematic today.
I'm 100% in agreement with Angela's assertion that the general darker, grittier "tone" of the newer Trek shows is a mistake though.
A little context for this one: Dr. Angela Collier (previously on Tildes here and here) is a working astrophysicist and one of my favorite science communicators today. Typically her content is math-heavy and academic; she does great deep-dives into physics and occasionally brings up pop culture stuff she's into. I certainly wasn't expecting her to drop a nearly 4-hour dissection of why "NuTrek" sucks so much. If you're into Star Trek and/or love Jenny Nicholson's exhaustive media criticism (previously on Tildes here and here), you might enjoy this.
It was also a pleasant surprise to see Captain Disillusion pop into the comments section, I recommend his channel for VFX forensics and hoax debunking. (Previously on Tildes here, here, here, and here.)
It was funny coincidence for me seeing this after recently watching RedLetterMedia's criticism of Picard (they do also have positive content on tng,tos if that's more your thing)
What I like about their take on Picard, is that it gets why it's such a nightmare. It's not just about "hey this is bad writing or breaking the lore" it understands that it's literally destroying the tone/reason people watched Trek to begin with.
Unfortunately Discovery already did that.
Star Trek was an optimistic look at what humanity could be if we all put aside our differences, respected each other and worked together.
It's virtually the only Sci Fi series to do that, and certainly the most popular.
Discovery decided that it would be better if it were reimagined as a moody, dark action show where the characters all hate/distrust each other, conflict comes from assuming the worst in people and miscommunicating, and problems are mostly solved by shooting your way out of them, you know, like virtually every other Sci Fi show that's ever been on TV.
It's like the writers on both shoes just hated Star Trek and wanted to turn it into some other show.
That same thing is probably the thing that bothered me the most about The Orville - and the reason why I'm not at all interested in watching any of the weird Star Trek comedies that have come out in recent years. Getting rid of that sense of optimism just fundamentally breaks it away from the core thing that made Star Trek what it was.
But that's coming from someone who has been avoiding all of the newer Star Trek. Sure, most of it was not wanting to pay for another streaming service just to watch one IP, but I just plain don't have confidence in any major media company being able to reproduce those feelings.
Don’t sleep on Lower Decks just because it’s a comedy or because it’s animated. It understands the tone of Trek and the sense of optimism and comes closest of the newer shows to “getting it” in my opinion. Your mileage may vary with the way it pokes fun at Trek as well, but I think it’s clearly done with nothing but aftection, it’s not looking to roast the classics, it it does recognize the silliness of some of it
RedLetter's 70 minute roast of The Phantom Menace, half as long as the movie itself, will forever hold a special place in my heart.
Why you got to make me lose 4 hours like that?
I haven't watched this video yet, obviously and I never finished Picard although I kept trying.
It honestly turned me off from all new Trek. TNG is my favourite. Picard is my favourite captain. I was skeptical when I heard they were coming out with Picard, but Stewart said he read the script and thought it was good.
I know it's a hot take and all, but man I don't know if I could have been more disappointed with Picard. I look forward to watching this video and agreeing with stuff I never thought of, then complaining about it to my wife like I was the one who came up with the criticisms.
Inferring from this that you have not seen Strange New Worlds. I'm going to go ahead and highly recommend that to you. Picard and Discovery are quite a bit different.
Just throwing my endorsement behind SNW as well. I hated Picard as well, but SNW is a true return to form, well worth a watch.
I also liked Strange New Worlds.
The Picard show was generally a huge disservice to a beloved character and role model, and offensive to Roddenberry's vision. That said...the last season was at least a more fitting send-off for the TNG crew than Nemesis. It feels like a continuation of the movies, which were themselves failures at living up to the spirit of the show at best.
I was hoping that somebody would chime in about the final season. Where the first season felt like a bad Quantum Leap/Power Rangers mashup and the second season was -- well, I intentionally didn't watch it -- the third season was good tv. Not incredible, but it hit the notes that I wanted from that group.
I always thought that each Picard season could have been a 90 minute special instead and would have lost nothing of substance.
It suffers from the Moffat Doctor Who problem: a flimsy premise tying together a show that's episodic, but desperately wants to have an overarching story, and ends up just repeatedly teasing some dumb mystery in each unsatisfying episode, until an anticlimactic "surprise" that had insufficient buildup...despite literally trying to build up to it in a shoehorned way in every almost-standalone episode. Its impressive to be neither fully episodic nor serial yet simultaneously bad at both.
It somehow pulls off being both full of pointless action and incredibly boring. Kind of impressive to be honest.
Totally agree
It's not perfect, but it is at least a true "Trek" show in my eyes.
I'm going to be the one negative complainer and say that for me SNW feels like Star Trek cargo cult at best that does not really get it and includes many annoying and nonsensical parts. It wasn't straight up offensive, but I did not finish it and second and third seasons of The Orville felt like a better Star Trek than SNW to me.
Well, new internet friend, even though The Orville definitely has some semblance to Star Trek, most of all TNG, our opinions do not align. But I do look forward to season 4 of The Orville. If it actually happens.
This is the thing that stops me from giving time to SNW.
You’re not alone. It’s like 2009 star trek movie. It has the window dressing, but it isn’t the same store.
The orville is closer but suffers from Seth McFarlane as captain
and also the fact that it’s a for-profit corporate venture (the in universe mission).Wait, what? There's a whole episode about how they don't use money. Can you elaborate on this?
It’s been a while since i watched, but if i recall the first episode mcfarlane talks to his boss about their corporate misson.
I don't have any recollection of that either so I looked up the fandom wiki page on the Planetary Union and found no reference to profit or dues or anything related to finances. It really just appears to be a copy and paste of Star Trek's United Federation of Planets.
So i got that detail wrong. Still couldn’t finish the season, would prefer to rewatch tos and tng.
The Union is just like the Federation in Star Trek, a government entity. They even do a whole episode about how a comparable-to-now earth-like planet gets Trek level tech gifted to them and they wiped themselves out fighting about it.
Thanks to this thread I started watching Strange New Worlds this week. I'm really enjoying it so far! I don't think it will surpass Voyager or TNG in my mental list of favorites, but it definitely "feels" like a Star Trek show should.
Awesome!
DS9 is my personal favorite. =^)
You infer correctly. I keep hearing that but I guess I'm afraid to be disappointed again. I guess I need to finally give it a shot.
As a SNW hater, imo if you come at it with mild expectations and you don't hate various trends and tropes present in current TV shows in general (many are present, it is quite a "current day" show), you should be only a little disappointed at worst, with a few exceptions here and there.
Haha, that definitely makes me want to run out and watch it. I'll probably just rewatch TNG for the millionth time.
TNG/DS9/VOY are my comfort food TV shows. For the last 10 years, I've watched an episode (or two) every night at bedtime to unwind and relax.
SNW is solid and I'd really recommend giving it a watch. There are plenty of things to like about SNW. But, if you want to hate something, you'll always find plenty of things to hate.
You sound like me. I know I will watch at some point. I just need to find the time.
I've been the same way with TNG, DS9, and VOY since they hit Netflix streaming about 15 years ago. Especially TNG and DS9. I also grew up watching Star Trek, but I just rented the movies, saw some in the theaters, and stayed on the channel if an episode was on TV, since streaming wasn't a thing yet.
Discovery and Picard simply do not measure up. That's me being nice about it. But, so far, I love SNW.
OK. Beating a dead horse here. I digress.
Half the fun of being a Trekkie is complaining about NuTrek.
You don't have to lose 4 hours to it. The clickbaity title plus the fact that it's clearly 4 hours of negativity was enough for me to skip it.
But then how will I be able to steal her points and complain about them to my wife?
I haven't seen it all yet, but the first 20 minutes or so really sums up most of the issues I also have with the new trek. It has left behind the positive utopian outlook of the future. The inspiration is gone. As she also goes into, there are tons of people who got into engineering, medical science, astronomy or similar fields because they watched Star Trek growing up. It has been a massive inspiration for many people in their life choices. While it is likely to early to conclude, it doesn't really seem like the newer Trek stuff will have that kind of influence. Would love to be proven wrong, but it doesn't set itself apart from similar action oriented pure entertainment shows anymore.
She also goes over how much of the joy of watching Star Trek is how we mostly see competent people acting responsible and making good decisions. Not that they have everything figured out, but most characters gave an impression of having a level of maturity that current society doesn't have. Modern Trek has gone a different route by showing people to be much more vulnerable, dealing with various levels of mental stress and issues, which of course will resonate more with how many feel in our current society. But it also hampers the hopeful outlook for the future. That is a radical different approach, that I think is at the core of where fans differ in terms of which generation of Star Trek they prefer.
I really like Dr. Collier, and her content is top notch - I liked most of this video, it's really well put together and doesn't feel like it slows down across its hour long runtime. I will say however that the point of "Starfleet is the bad guys now and that sucks" is - in my opinion - a very weak one. Why does Starfleet need to be the government equivalent of a Mary Sue? Yes, TNG, TOS, SNW, (some parts of) DIS, LD and ENT have proven that that can be fun and is definitely a winning formula, but I'm just thinking... why not? Why not have Starfleet be a little corrupt? They're all just human (and vulcan, andorian, denobulan, sometimes klingon etc). If anything, it's a little strange that everyone at Starfleet is perfectly loyal, on-message and hypercompetent (with the occasional Reg Barclay). I welcome a change of pace, and I think it was kind of cool as an idea. Of course, Picard wasn't that good and I really can't argue with most of the other points that she brings up. Yes, it's a bit of a bad show, but saying "Starfleet being evil isn't good storytelling" is a little too blunt for me.
"The Institution works and is populated by competent, well-intentioned people" is such a core part of the setting because it's both aspirational and very nearly unique. Nearly every other sci fi franchise out there is dominated by government institutions which fall somewhere on the spectrum of inept to outright evil, where their circumvention or outright destruction are portrayed as the only viable routes for doing good. As best I can tell this happens not from some universal understanding that institutions are evil, but because it's much harder to write good stories about powerful entities who solve problems instead of creating them. Starfleet/The Federation are (or at least were) the special exception, and dragging them back into the pack of what every other franchise does feels painful.
Also: Is a government that largely works really so wildly outlandish as to earn the "Mary Sue" tag? It's not like nothing ever went wrong in the older shows, only that what did go wrong was recognized and eventually (with effort) dealt with.
I think that for many people governments that actually work are mundane and therefore fairly invisible to them. Or in other words, people only notice them when they do things particularly badly or if they do bad things. At the same time, more recent years has seen the rise of conservative leadership across the globe, so people are seeing their governments being starved for resources and doing things badly, so they have the impression of government as being incompetent or malicious.
I haven’t yet watched the video, but I think that what might be throwing some people off is Starfleet as a whole being bad lacks nuance. Some might even consider it bad writing.
TNG, DS9, and VOY all had stories of corruption on the individual/small group level and/or divisive and abrasive powerful figures within Starfleet, with the latter happening often enough that the community coined the term “badmirals”.
I think that’s the sort of corruption stories fans expect to see.
Something else that crosses my mind is that a lot of fans got hooked on the franchise for its message of forward-looking hope, something that’s increasingly rare in modern media, and it’s difficult to find much hope in a Starfleet that’s bad as a whole, which a small cast of “good guy” characters don’t realistically have a chance of going up against without some contorted plot twists.
A realization came to me while thinking about all of this during lunch.
Though it may not be intentional, writing baddies inside Starfleet as isolated incidents that get resolved in an episode or two makes a powerful statement that constant vigilance is a must and that corruption, furthering of self-interest at the cost of others, and overbearing egotism cannot be tolerated lest the sparks become an unstoppable wildfire. It's a message of action over indifference that is perhaps more relevant today than it's ever been.
That's a good observation, and although I doubt the overall pattern is deliberately designed for that effect, the significance of vigilance against corruption is pretty explicitly harped on at various points. The end of TNG's The Drumhead is probably the most notable example:
Yes exactly! IMO Star Trek isn't just a utopia where we sail around doing science. It's about the struggle necessary to maintain utopia. Peace and equality when achieved is a tenuous balance that must be actively defended.
Starfleet as the badguy sucks for a few reasons.
As others have mentioned, a core part of the Trek universe is optimism, not cynicism. They've messed with the "corrupt starfleet" before, but there's literally a lower decks episode making fun of some writers seeming to forget that the whole point is that starfleet is mostly good(a character goes off to prove someone's innocence only to realize that they actually didn't need to because trusting in the system WORKS in their universe and that's half the fucking point of it).
It has been done, in trek, before, and was done better. It understood its universe, understood how to do something like this, and understood the limitations of it.
If you WANT cynical sci fi, there's plenty of other options out there (expanse comes to mind).
Perhaps most importantly of all, it's not even good writing in regards to "evil starfleet". It's just "oh yeah they let an entire planet die because reasons, politics am I right?" right out of the gate. This is very clearly someone dusting off a copy paste script and then just laying the star trek setting over it, even though it doesn't fit at all. If you ripped the trek name off this project, it'd STILL be a shitty plot with a whole bunch of "evil cuz evil" logic.
Everyone at Starfleet isn't perfectly loyal or hyper competent and never has been on any star trek show. There are tons of episodes that specifically deal with immorality, abuse of power, and incompetance within starfleet, so much so that it's a running trope that every Starfleet admiral is evil.
Most federation citizens, and most Starfleet officers however, are not immoral, and Starfleet as a whole isn't. The whole point of star trek is that the federation is a force for good. Seeing how they apply their morality to various situations when pressed is the main point of the show.
Sure, you could make the federation a greedy, self centered, paranoid assholes, but at that point why not just watch takes in long breath Star wars, The Expanse, Battlestar Galactica, Farscape, Firefly, Alien, Starship Troopers, Avatar, Interstellar, or the literally every single other Sci Fi setting where the authorities are corrupt and evil?
It's just boring. The federation being an idealistic look at humanity's potential is the one thing that makes Star Trek really unique.
Flipping everything around and saying "actually, what if federation bad" isn't some sort of unique, interesting idea. It's just lazy, cheap writing that makes Star Trek into every other Sci Fi show.
Now, if you want to do a story about what happens when the federation's benevolence runs up against the harsh realities of the universe at a massive scale, you could do that, but Deep Space Nine already did that better than I trust any modern writing team to do.
I disagree on this point. It's a powerful fantasy to have a system that individuals believe in and expend effort to maintain. In fact I would argue that a recurring source of tension is the efforts of individuals to root out rogue agents, infiltration, or groups within leadership who threaten to undermine the principles of Starfleet.
Starfleet is a composed of individuals with their own motivations. The fantasy is that with effort we can maintain an altruistic organization for the betterment of all. Nu-Trek throws that away for drama because it's easier to write and "the world sucks except for a couple anti-heroes" is in vogue.
I think a more optimistic vision could sell now. The Harris campaign is showing that people want aspirational vision. I'd like to see it represented in media.
I've never watched this person's videos before but this was surprisingly delightful given the tone and content. The only other coverage I've seen on Picard has been the RLM videos but they're a lot more direct and reactive since they did it as the show was airing, and approached the entire thing from a more emotionally attached place.
As a sidenote, I had a lot of this on in the background and I found I had to remind myself that this wasn't a Jenny Nicholson video. The voice is so similar, and a very similar camera angle completes the picture.
The costume changes completed the effect for me!
I thought I was going crazy because their mannerisms are very similar down to the details of their facial expression and the way they talk. I suppose two people can be alike, there's nothing wrong with that.
I really like the video. It is comprehensive, well-informed, and it's nice to watch people talking passionately about stuff they love. And now I don't have to watch Picard, which is a plus. The only thing I would say in terms of criticism is that, in regards to the dynamic of comparing new vs old, a lot of the criticism of Star Trek Picard's inconsistencies could be made about the old shows as well.
Very much agree. It's important to avoid viewing the older shows through rose colored glasses due to nostalgia or other factors. I grew up on TNG and there are a fair few episodes that I feel contributed to my moral compass, but I also remember several episodes (especially in early seasons) that would be considered problematic today.
I'm 100% in agreement with Angela's assertion that the general darker, grittier "tone" of the newer Trek shows is a mistake though.