I want to be clear here as a mod before arguments start. In Ten Forward:
You are allowed to hate any Star Trek series or movie(s) that you like.
You are also allowed to talk about how much you hate them all you like.
Just don't be a dick about it.
And also don't be a dick about someone hating those things.
CAN I BE A DICK ABOUT NON-STAR TREK THINGS THOUGH?
Yes, but you have to avoid using words like "woke" and "diverse" and "agenda" so you come across as a generic hater.
I have to get up super early for work and so I wake up the rest of my family one by one before I go. The other day, my brother complained that I woke him up first even though he leaves last. He asked if we could have a family meeting about it and said, "I think we need to have a more diverse woke agenda."
Yes, but there's a fine line. Can you be a dick about J.J. Abrams' Star Wars movies? Yes. Can you be a dick about J.J. Abrams' Star Trek movies? No.
(Just kidding, I hate all of them. Just don't be a dick in general please.)
Understood o7
I'll be good
It wasn't meant for you specifically. You're fine. I just wanted to nip it in the bud before it started.
I used to worry that I hated new Trek. Then lower decks and strange new worlds came out.
When disco fucked off to the future I started enjoying it more because it felt like it no longer didnt fit in with the timeline. And then it got to the cause of the big explosion thing and decided I hated it again for such a stupid cause.
Zero interest in Picard, feels too edgy grimdark.
LD/SNW by comparison have been enjoyable since day one.
The first two Picard seasons are… weird.
Picard S3, while not perfect, is a hell of a lot of fun, and very obviously a love note to ST fans who grew up with the 90s series.
Agreed that the cause of the Burn was just… wat. Similar levels of “wat” for that seed ship interlude where the barzan father “phased partially out of reality due to grief”.. like, come on, what in the Kentucky Fried Fuck is that bullshit?
I do think disco is mostly good, but it’s also about 5-10% catastrophically bad/nonsensical/poorly written, which can really take the wind out of your sails when watching parts of it. I must add, however, that I think the very prominent focus on mental health and trauma, as well as non-heterosexual/-heteronormative relationships was an excellent change that that series specifically introduced.
I do think disco is mostly good, but it’s also about 5-10% catastrophically bad/nonsensical/poorly written, which can really take the wind out of your sails when watching parts of it.
I like Disco, although I do think it has writing problems. But 5-10% would be a high mark for a Star Trek series.
Think of all the utterly shit episodes there were of TNG despite TNG generally being considered the show the other shows want to emulate in one way or another.
There’s bad episodes, and then there’s “this character was exposed to a spicy rock while in vitro and throughout childhood and then got upset one time and made all the spicy rocks explode and killed all the federation people”.
Trek’s variable episode quality is a well-established trope at this point, but disco has absolutely pushed the handwavey bullshit ceiling to new heights. Disco absolutely has some really good high points, but I wish the low points weren't quite so low.
This is compounded by the fact that Disco’s format is much more of an “epic season-long tale” (compared to SNW’s much more episodic format), and the fact that the writers basically bunted on the singular climactic moment of the 3rd series when it should have been a grand slam is just embarrassing and disappointing.
I don't see that as any more ridiculous than 'if you go faster than infinite speed, which is somehow possible, you turn into a salamander' or 'Deanna gets energy-raped, gets pregnant, has a baby, it grows up in about 3 days into a kindergartener, then dies in her arms, but that's all okay because an alien wanted to know what being human was like' or 'this is a planet that is exactly like Earth in every way except the Roman Empire exists with 20th century technology and that makes sense because we have a theory about it.'
I can keep going...
Oh, don’t get me wrong - all of the instances you cited (as well as a few others) were… not good at all, and completely asinine.
The primary contrast I’m drawing here is that those were bad episodes… whereas the Burn was a season-long mystery that was tied up in a neat little bow with absolute nonsensical bullshit, which frankly cheapened the impact of the season overall, and makes me roll my eyes whenever they do a callback to something Burn-related in S4. If it was confined to a single episode (like the barzan seed ship stuff I mentioned earlier), it’d be far more excusable, but in my eyes, they kinda soured the entire season by just phoning it in for what should have been one of the most important segments of the season to really nail the writing on.
All that said: it’s overall still fun; I am rewatching it right now, in preparation for S5 starting to roll in April.
True, but Star Trek was mostly episodic, even when there were story arcs, before Discovery too. I think the problem is more about TV shows, especially sci-fi shows, leaning very hard on the season-long mystery plot arc. Because then you're putting all your money down on a single story and if that story isn't one of the more popular ones, you take a much bigger risk.
Yeah, I agree with that. Making your series into some sort of make-or-break mega-movie-ish thing can work sometimes… but it’s not the appropriate way to tell every single story, and producers seem to finally be starting to realize that. Personally, I blame the MCU and the related series for that being a screenplay writing fad for so long.
Fwiw, I do think SNW has largely nailed the format for the modern era - mostly episodic, but there’s a higher-level background plot that gets touched on every once in a while, and here and there you’ll find an episode purely focused on that overarching plot. And I also think my enjoyment of DS9 and Voyager back in the day stems from that broadly-comparable series presentation.
Edit: and LD, of course. LD is great!
I agree. I think SNW figured out the right formula for a modern Star Trek show. LD too really. It also has that combination and it works.
What counts as New Trek?
I enjoyed Discovery up until season 3. Then it lost me. SNW is fantastic though.
Also kind of pissy that they used the bury your gays trope. It's so old.
Back in my day, "new trek" was Enterprise!
Now get off my lawn.
(I'm not actually that old. Edit: also, I hate my lawn and don't care if you walk on it.)
Look at Mr Moneybags over here!
He has "have a lawn and don't even like it" kind of money!
Probably has a bank account that's in the black by double figures at least once a year!
I was able to buy a house during the Great Recession. I'm well aware of how lucky I am and how screwed just about everybody else of my generation is.
My dog would love your lawn I'm sure. Together we'll make it into something nice!
I'm the opposite too, Disco really grabbed me in season 3. When Sadil told Burnham "that future is you," I was sold. I honestly teared up, you could feel the weight he carried his entire life being lifted. What a line. Plus the future is a better fit for them and helps avoid continuity issues and all that.
All the gay killin' was disappointing, I agree there.
I think I only got like three or four episodes into Discovery.
It's just, the whole schwooping them off to a different timeline didn't jive with me. It felt like they didn't like the plot they'd done so far and decided to do a soft reset? Maybe they didn't, but it was so strange and I couldn't get back into it at that point. I loved the mushroom stuff. I wanted to see more of May Ahearn. I loved the bit with her and Tilly, and I didn't feel like all that was done yet.
Have they picked that stuff back up since?
Yeah. Like, as a gay person I love seeing more LGBTQ representation, but it's at the same time kind of annoying when we're always killed off. I guess by some definitions ST:D doesn't really fill the bury your gays criteria but it's close enough to be irksome. Like, why must we always die? 😩
I think I only got like three or four episodes into Discovery
Disco had a rough start because the showrunner Bryan Fuller was fired during preproduction, and they drastically changed the story he had in mind and just ran with it. Fuller has writing credits for the first 3 episodes, which is about where we both gave up on the show (I started again a few years later and got caught up). Those first two seasons are real hit & miss for me, it kinda looked like they were scrambling to develop a compelling story but were under a tight deadline.
The part where they time travel was actually done well, I thought. I had some issues with the tone here and there, but I thought it made sense in universe. It's really too bad Disco had so much turmoil wrt creative control, because I look at how SNW and LD hit the ground running, and it's obvious they had a clear vision from day one and were able to plan everything properly.
Bryan Fuller was fired during preproduction, and they drastically changed the story he had in mind and just ran with it.
On the other hand, Bryan Fuller was responsible for the thing people hated most of all about the first season of Discovery:
The other Bryan Fuller contribution that remains is his redesign of the Klingons. "One of the things he really, really wanted to do was shake up the design of the Klingons," Herberts said. "One of the first things that he ever pitched to us when we were deciding whether or not to come on the show was his aesthetic for the Klingons and how important it was that they be aesthete, that they not be the thugs of the universe, that they be sexy and vital and different from what had come before."
https://www.slashfilm.com/552474/bryan-fuller-redesigned-the-star-trek-discovery-klingons/
I think I'm still on the fence about the revamped Klingon look; I would be 100% ok with it, though, if they reveal it's just the way that Klingon house/subspecies evolved, as some of the fan theories go. The changes are so drastic (even moreso than the changes made between TOS and TNG) that it's jarring. What I never got used to was the Klingon mouth prosthetics; they were so unwieldy that it was hard to understand the dialogue at times. I had to turn on closed captioning.
Here's the thing: I dislike Discovery. I tried, it's not for me. I dislike the (for me) over-emotional acting.
But I have a hard time believe people who complain about Trek being woke are actually trekkies.
Because they never seem to get upset about far more woke episodes of TOS, TNG or SNW.
The ones I love are the ones who claim Star Trek got too political.
The Star Trek that commented on racism, the cold war and overpopulation. In the mid-1960s.
But I have a hard time believe people who complain about Trek being woke are actually trekkies.
Same here, and that's why I singled out out bad faith actors in my post. They aren't real fans of Trek any more than people who like to highlight black crime statistics in the U.S. are "just asking questions." It's bullshit, and they need to be called out on that bullshit. Star Trek has always had a progressive vision of the future; anyone who claims otherwise or complains about "wokeness" is sowing discord and trying to get people to subscribe to their brand of douchebaggery.
Never underestimate the ability of conservatives to ignore political messages that aren't explicitly stated. Even something as in-your-face as TNG's The Outcast is easily viewed by conservatives as "a funny alien story", and not a metaphor for real-world political issues.
The meaning of woke changed. That is to say, TNG isn't woke in the same way STD tries to be.
TNG is about self reflection, self improvement, professionalism, materialism, humanism, striving every day to make tomorrow better than yesterday.
STD is about emotions, entitlement... And honestly I struggle to find what the show actually says. There's a focus on CGI spectacle. But since STD contains a black woman as captain, a gay couple, and a non binary individual, criticism of its lack of depth isn't allowed.
We see the writers pat themselves on the back for things Star Trek has already done in the past, just to give themselves social brownie points, and if you don't like it you're a sexist bigot. That is what woke means today. It's not true progressivism.
Discovery makes me sad. Some great premises and actors, very little of what makes/made Trek great. What a shame.
Lower Decks is nothing but joyous snort giggles. Well quite heartfelt at times.
SNW is wonderful fun. You get your progressive post scarcity utopia (yay) and more than a few sensible chuckles. And guffaws. Also the truly grim but still appropriately Trek stories like Under the Cloak of War.
Also I would kill for a proper Bat'leth Boys music video! You have not experienced K-pop until you've heard it in the original Klingon.
Discovery is a great Sci fi, but not that good at being Trek IMO, and didn't really respect the rest of Trek. It's better now that they moved it to the future of Trek where it's tech level makes sense, and there isn't a littany of other media in the same time period.
The first seasons of Picard were weird because it felt that it was more about other characters, and the TNG characters were more there for fan service to trick the fans into watching.
Lower Decks and SNW are fantastic.
New Trek isn't bad because it's progressive, it's bad because they've lost the vision of what Star Trek even is. Case in point:
That headline is a bit misleading... The season was rewritten because you couldn't understand it unless you had seen every other bit of star trek and remembered everything that happened... It required too much star trek knowledge not that it was too similar to other star trek shows.
Trek is like beer. There is good Trek. There is better Trek. There is bad Trek. But bad Trek is better than no Trek. And any Trek is better than star wars.
I'd rather have no Trek than whatever bullshit is posing as Trek right now.
Or to use your metaphor, There is good beer, there is better beer, there is bad beer, and then there is that weird warm yellow liquid that turns out to be actual horse urine that got sold to you like beer. That's what NuTrek is.
What does that make the Orville? Cider?
I said better Trek, didn't i?
But bad Trek is better than no Trek.
Thank you. I've been saying that since Discovery came out. I will take any new Star Trek over no more Star Trek.
Can we keep this community civil?
If you feel personally attacked when people voice their dissent against regressive discriminatory behavior, perhaps consider it's your conscience trying to tell you something.
All I know is Kirk from the original series (the actor) is pretty anti progressive and from what I can tell closer to a Nazi then a star trek captain.
Of course last time I heard about him was very long time ago though
AFAIK, William Shatner is mainly a self absorbed twat and kinda a pain to work with, which was why he was on the outs with the rest of the crew for decades, but I've never seen him regurgitating right wing talking points like Kevin Sorbo or Chuck Norris.
After he did his AMA on reddit he took a look around and stated something along the lines of it having "too much of the bad internet" and didn't stick around.
Also he's Canadian and not from the Prairies, so unlikely to be alt-right. His biggest flaw I've heard of in a few places is that he "works to rule" in the union sense. He does things that make him money WRT his fandom and his acting.
E.g. the big fallout he had with George Takei was because in his eyes, Takei as a person would benefit more from Sulu staying on the Enterprise and playing more in the movie, because more screen time equals more cash.
Takei took the minor role because it made sense for Sulu as a character, as well as personally the representation of a Japanese (and then closeted gay man) as the captain of a starship.
Takei took the minor role because it made sense for Sulu as a character, as well as personally the representation of a Japanese (and then closeted gay man) as the captain of a starship.
Takei has suggested that while he is gay, Sulu is not. He objected to Sulu being gay in the Abramsverse and said they should have made a new character gay instead of shoehorning it into his character just because he's a gay actor.
Which makes sense. Sulu could, at best, be bisexual. Not because there was no gay representation in TOS, but because he was shown being interested in women. He's attracted to the titular women in Mudd's Women, he "takes over" with one of the showgirls McCoy has on his arm in Shore Leave, and he's arguably sexually interested in Uhura, albeit while intoxicated, in The Naked Time. As Takei himself knows.
I'm not gay, but if I was and was known for playing a prominent character in a popular show and then they remade the show as a movie, but made my character gay because I was gay... I'd be kind of insulted. It would basically suggest that every character I played was gay unless clearly indicated otherwise, which is not what I would want people to think of my acting abilities.
Sorry, I wasn't implying Sulu was gay. I meant for him as an actor.
He’s not only Canadian but Jewish from Montreal. He’s very much not what the commentator suggested.
I'm pretty sure he is a lot of things but Nazi is not one of them
/c/TenFoward: Your home-away-from-home for all things Star Trek!
Re-route power to the shields, emit a tachyon pulse through the deflector, and post all the nonsense you want. Within reason of course.
~ 1. No bigotry. This is a Star Trek community. Hating someone off of their race, culture, creed, sexuality, or identity is not remotely acceptable. Mistakes can happen but do your best to respect others.
~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen both on lore and preferences. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.
~ 3. Use spoiler tags. This applies to any episodes that have dropped within 3 months prior of your posting. After that it's free game.
~ 4. Keep it Trek related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.
~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love Star Trek stuff but 3-4 posts in an hour is plenty enough.
~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.
~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon' and fuck over our artist friends.
Fun will now commence.
Sister Communities:
Want your community to be added to the sidebar? Just ask one of our mods!
Honorary Badbitch:
@jawa21@startrek.website for realizing that the line used to be "want to be added to the sidebar?" and capitalized on it. Congratulations and welcome to the sidebar. Stamets is both ashamed and proud.
Creator Resources:
Looking for a Star Trek screencap? (TrekCore)
Looking for the right Star Trek typeface/font for your meme? (Thank you @kellyaster for putting this together!)