Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

[Atrea]

Did you watch Enterprise? We're talking about the show where the captain said yes to genecide, worried more about his dog then getting his ship repaired, was xenophobic, and got into more fist fights (and lost) then any other captain.

Ahh yes, just like noted dog-lover Donald Trump...

[Ivanstone]

"These Vulcans are holding us back" (Paraphrasing) Archer. Also interfered into foreign affairs based on his personal beliefs on what's right and wrong.

1. The Vulcans were holding Humans back.
2. He made a Vulcan his First Officer and Science Officer anyways.
3. Generally tried to play nice with the Vulcans as a whole and helped them reconcile with other races.
4. Thought Vulcan cuisine was something important that needed to be catered to.
5. Marries a Vulcan in an alternate timeline.
And
6. Starfleet, being new, had a limited formal ways to deal with anything and very often had to rely on its Captains making correct judgement calls. This is different than later Captains who had formal regulations like the Prime Directive to deal with. Said Captains were being insubordinate on top of doing things based on their own “personal beliefs on what's right and wrong”.

[Elim Garak]

1. The Vulcans were holding Humans back.
2. He made a Vulcan his First Officer and Science Officer anyways.
3. Generally tried to play nice with the Vulcans as a whole and helped them reconcile with other races.
4. Thought Vulcan cuisine was something important that needed to be catered to.
5. Marries a Vulcan in an alternate timeline.
And
6. Starfleet, being new, had a limited formal ways to deal with anything and very often had to rely on its Captains making correct judgement calls. This is different than later Captains who had formal regulations like the Prime Directive to deal with. Said Captains were being insubordinate on top of doing things based on their own “personal beliefs on what's right and wrong”.

1. He didn't know that. Check your hindsight privilege.
2. She was forced onto him.
3. Stockholm syndrome
4. Ate steak nevertheless in front of T'Pol
5. Doesn't matter
6. Excuses are irrelevant.

[Ivanstone]

1. He didn't know that. Check your hindsight privilege.
2. She was forced onto him.
3. Stockholm syndrome
4. Ate steak nevertheless in front of T'Pol
5. Doesn't matter
6. Excuses are irrelevant.

1. Irrelevant. Results matter.
2. He was happy to have her anyways.
3. I don’t think that term means what you think it means.
4. He likes steak, she likes Plomeek soup.
5. A non-bigoted person is capable of change.
6. We know. You hate beliefs that are different from your own.

[qwerty123456]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson



Ask any 10-year old which is better, a plate of liver or a McD's cheeseburger? Hell, ask the majority of adults that question.

Not being the audience for a product does not mean the product is not of good quality. I don't enjoy Westerns at all and could poke holes in any one that I pleased, doesn't make any of them bad, just not tailored for my tastes.

Taste is subjective. Film quality is also subjective.

So you are going to try to handwave massive plot inconsistencies with a quote? Like Starfleet not wanting Seven because she was borg in season two with one of the borg she was with being in Starfleet in season 1, and her thinking slaughtering borg in the past when they shouldn't be making any ripples is completely ok when she was a former borg and went on saving other former borg? This isn't a marvel what if? They are trying to tell a storyline here and not only can they not follow the source material they can't even follow the material they wrote a season ago.

You don't seem to understand what quality means.

We literally have government/organizations, people, etc. whose jobs are to determine the quality of things. Fast food isn't good quality because of how it is made and how unhealthy it is for you.

Yes some things are subjective but quality is "the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something." Which is why one can say the Room is a poor quality film even if they enjoyed it.

[Dorothyjean]

And this has what to do with my comment?

You had replied to someone talking about "pro-Trump Enterprise episodes".

[VMSmith]

Yes some things are subjective but quality is "the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something." Which is why one can say the Room is a poor quality film even if they enjoyed it.

Even then, quality is someone's subjective designation because the factors that are being measured are not using an external standard. The standards you mention are still enacted by people using their personal opinions of what makes something better than the other. Only the qualities of a piece of art that can be qualitatively measured can be judged for "quality" because those exist outside any person's personal opinion of what is better and worse. Such things like: How many people watch it and pay for it

But since you all have dug so far in on "quality" and abandoned "dead" and "shit", since they were never defensible in the first place and are the things I was actually addressing, I'll point something out regarding Discovery's "quality". Nice derail, btw. qwerty brought up "quality", not me, and the rest of you have run with it ever since as that's a possibly defensible hill for Trek-hate, forcing me to defend a position I had not taken.

So, as for Discovery's "quality":

2 Primetime Emmy wins
8 more Primetime Emmy nominations
7 Academy of Sci-fi, Fantasy & Horror wins, including best Sci-fi TV series, best supporting actor, and best actress
6 more Academy of SFF&H nominations
4 Critics Choice nominations
1 Empire Awards win for best actor
1 Hugo nomination

That's just a small handful because I don't feel like counting them all up. There are many, many more. No matter what Mike & Jay may think, the people that make up the awards presentations have all signaled that they feel that Discovery is a "quality" TV show, by the very standards that you are championing (which I reject as still being subjective).

The show that is often spoken of as "Real Trek", The Orville, pales in comparison when you look at the list of awards. Yet the comparison is constantly made, in favor of The Orville. That shows to me that even by their own standards, the standard-bearers of "quality" chunk their beliefs overboard to favor what they, personally, subjectively, prefer.

[Kathranis]

Not being the audience for a product does not mean the product is not of good quality. I don't enjoy Westerns at all and could poke holes in any one that I pleased, doesn't make any of them bad, just not tailored for my tastes.

Taste is subjective. Film quality is also subjective.

Eh. There are numerous traits of film that have broadly agreed upon standards, enough that you can judge films based purely on technical merits even if you don't like the subject matter. I'd say those are pretty objective, and when people are talking about the quality of a film or TV series, they are most likely talking about those things. Writing, editing, cinematography, pacing, acting, production design, etc.

We can probably all agree that McDonald's hamburgers are made cheaply using cheap ingredients, and are therefore "lower quality" burgers than you'd get from a high end restaurant. There are other factors that make them so popular: availability, price, speed, convenience. These are quantitative factors, not qualitative. The quality of the burgers is really only a factor relative to those; their quality is acceptible for the price. In a sense, you could even say that the lower quality is actually the main selling point.

The same is true for movies. Even if a movie is objectively low quality -- which is to say poorly crafted -- it can still provide a great deal of entertainment value. For example it might be able to keep an uncritical audience engaged for the majority of its runtime, making it effective escapism for the masses. That alone is not exactly indicative of "quality filmmaking." In fact, sometimes the low quality is what makes a film entertaining. Hence b-movies.

[qwerty123456]

Even then, quality is someone's subjective designation because the factors that are being measured are not using an external standard. The standards you mention are still enacted by people using their personal opinions of what makes something better than the other. Only the qualities of a piece of art that can be qualitatively measured can be judged for "quality" because those exist outside any person's personal opinion of what is better and worse. Such things like: How many people watch it and pay for it

But since you all have dug so far in on "quality" and abandoned "dead" and "shit", since they were never defensible in the first place and are the things I was actually addressing, I'll point something out regarding Discovery's "quality". Nice derail, btw. qwerty brought up "quality", not me, and the rest of you have run with it ever since as that's a possibly defensible hill for Trek-hate, forcing me to defend a position I had not taken.

So, as for Discovery's "quality":

2 Primetime Emmy wins
8 more Primetime Emmy nominations
7 Academy of Sci-fi, Fantasy & Horror wins, including best Sci-fi TV series, best supporting actor, and best actress
6 more Academy of SFF&H nominations
4 Critics Choice nominations
1 Empire Awards win for best actor
1 Hugo nomination

That's just a small handful because I don't feel like counting them all up. There are many, many more. No matter what Mike & Jay may think, the people that make up the awards presentations have all signaled that they feel that Discovery is a "quality" TV show, by the very standards that you are championing (which I reject as still being subjective).

The show that is often spoken of as "Real Trek", The Orville, pales in comparison when you look at the list of awards. Yet the comparison is constantly made, in favor of The Orville. That shows to me that even by their own standards, the standard-bearers of "quality" chunk their beliefs overboard to favor what they, personally, subjectively, prefer.

The awards you mention are subjective when I talked about quality I mean actual standards which is why my complaints were about the writing being disconnected from its own previous cannon and not something like the style of the ships or something else subjective.

Do you seriously not understand or are you trolling? It's ok to like bad shit especially if you care more for visuals over story or what ever is bad about something. I like the game vampire survivors more than I like the Last of Us and yet the quality of the graphics are far inferior to the Last of Us.

[VMSmith]

The awards you mention are subjective when I talked about quality I mean actual standards.

Ok, do me a favor then and present the universally-agreed upon, objective standards for film that Discovery violates. And violates in such a way that people for whom film-making is a way of life have been bamboozled into giving subjective opinions about Discovery's quality that are objectively false, ie the awards.

I don't want "qwerty's list of Discovery pet-peeves", I need the, again, universally-agreed upon violations ... because if quality is objective then everyone will agree that these violations make Discovery low-quality.

And before you throw out some inconsistent-canon argument, keep in mind that every continuous story that has existed beyond the life of its creator will have inconsistencies. The MCU has them, Star Wars has them, Lord of the Rings has them ... it's inevitable given enough time and enough fingers in the pot. Star Trek is approaching 60 years and over 800 episodes, to expect perfect adherence is foolish, as said by the Ralph Waldo Emerson quote I provided.

You can pretend your standards are universal, but they're not. No one other than sad, little, nostalgic people are whining about Star Trek, and that includes Mike. By the standards of anyone who actually matters (studio execs, audience, awards voters), Discovery is high quality and successful. The standards of internet whiners are, again, not universal. They're allowed their opinion, but the rest of us are free to ignore it because FIVE concurrent products shows them to be grossly in error.

[Devilyaki]

Star Trek has been dead for a long time, the values and morals honed in the classic ones are far gone and replaced by todays problems, giving the future that was a hopeful one in Star Trek, to a bleak one still plagued by the same bs. The new shows everyone acts like a child..

[Varitok]

Star Trek has been dead for a long time, the values and morals honed in the classic ones are far gone and replaced by todays problems, giving the future that was a hopeful one in Star Trek, to a bleak one still plagued by the same bs. The new shows everyone acts like a child..

If they just give me an HD DS9 release, I'll be happy and never bother with anything passed Enterprise. My issue is that every character on these shows come off as if they're pumped full of Uppers or something. Overly sentimental, overly positive (You didn't need Picard hugging and giving emotional speeches ever 15 minutes to understand that they are content with their station in life), Overly negative (Looking at Picard S1 and Discovery s1/2). It feels like people didn't understand what Trek was actually about and just read the genre tags on imdb and called it a day.

No one, not one single person, feels like they're real. Everyone has a quirk and it's cranked up to fucking 3000.

[Devilyaki]

If they just give me an HD DS9 release, I'll be happy and never bother with anything passed Enterprise. My issue is that every character on these shows come off as if they're pumped full of Uppers or something. Overly sentimental, overly positive (You didn't need Picard hugging and giving emotional speeches ever 15 minutes to understand that they are content with their station in life), Overly negative (Looking at Picard S1 and Discovery s1/2). It feels like people didn't understand what Trek was actually about and just read the genre tags on imdb and called it a day.

No one, not one single person, feels like they're real. Everyone has a quirk and it's cranked up to fucking 3000.

Totally agree. What I mean by they all act like emotional children.

[Ivanstone]

Star Trek has been dead for a long time, the values and morals honed in the classic ones are far gone and replaced by todays problems, giving the future that was a hopeful one in Star Trek, to a bleak one still plagued by the same bs. The new shows everyone acts like a child..

TOS was filmed while the Cold War was in full swing and you're fucking high if that didn't affect the show.

The problems of 50 years ago aren't that different from the ones of today and Star Trek still shows that we can get past fighting ourselves and start taking care of each other.

[Mace]

It honestly took me a moment before realizing that this post is satire. Well played.

On topic: SNW's premier was awesome.

I also liked it, it was enjoyable, something to look forward too.

[Elim Garak]

1. Irrelevant. Results matter.
2. He was happy to have her anyways.
3. I don’t think that term means what you think it means.
4. He likes steak, she likes Plomeek soup.
5. A non-bigoted person is capable of change.
6. We know. You hate beliefs that are different from your own.

1. Since we are discussing his CHARACTER - his reasoning matters, not the results.
2. To troll
3. To not think is your right
4. She's a vegan - and he ate steak in front of her. Clearly trolling.
5. Alternate timelines do not matter
6. Ad hominem is futile.

[kenn9530]

Star Trek has been dead for a long time, the values and morals honed in the classic ones are far gone and replaced by todays problems, giving the future that was a hopeful one in Star Trek, to a bleak one still plagued by the same bs. The new shows everyone acts like a child..

What values and morals, ToS was mostly about kirk punching and fighting while trying to bang everything attractive possible so i wouldnt say ToS is better than the current star trek series, TNG was decent and had a higher focus on diplomacy but still had some of the ToS antics, DS9 is pretty good with the best part being the dominion war and Voyager involved a little more of the exploration side.

All series have thier own flaws and good points, but i wouldnt say any of the previous star trek shows are that much better or worse than the current new ones.

[Ivanstone]

1. Since we are discussing his CHARACTER - his reasoning matters, not the results.
2. To troll
3. To not think is your right
4. She's a vegan - and he ate steak in front of her. Clearly trolling.
5. Alternate timelines do not matter
6. Ad hominem is futile.

1. The Vulcan’s were fairly dismissive from the get go and he was reacting to it. Their reasoning was not revealed till much later in the series.
2. She was treated as a useful crew member from he get go.
3. To not understand what common terminology is or even understanding what you see on TV is also your right. Just don’t get shocked when you’re criticized for it.
4. He’s an omnivore who respected her right to her own food.
5. See pt 3.
6. See pt 3.

[qwerty123456]

Ok, do me a favor then and present the universally-agreed upon, objective standards for film that Discovery violates. And violates in such a way that people for whom film-making is a way of life have been bamboozled into giving subjective opinions about Discovery's quality that are objectively false, ie the awards.

I don't want "qwerty's list of Discovery pet-peeves", I need the, again, universally-agreed upon violations ... because if quality is objective then everyone will agree that these violations make Discovery low-quality.

And before you throw out some inconsistent-canon argument, keep in mind that every continuous story that has existed beyond the life of its creator will have inconsistencies. The MCU has them, Star Wars has them, Lord of the Rings has them ... it's inevitable given enough time and enough fingers in the pot. Star Trek is approaching 60 years and over 800 episodes, to expect perfect adherence is foolish, as said by the Ralph Waldo Emerson quote I provided.

You can pretend your standards are universal, but they're not. No one other than sad, little, nostalgic people are whining about Star Trek, and that includes Mike. By the standards of anyone who actually matters (studio execs, audience, awards voters), Discovery is high quality and successful. The standards of internet whiners are, again, not universal. They're allowed their opinion, but the rest of us are free to ignore it because FIVE concurrent products shows them to be grossly in error.

They couldn't keep the canon consistent within the two seasons they wrote. Thats bad writing. And considering you still don't know what quality means and equating people liking it to quality I'm going to assume you are still in middleschool and stop responding until you atleast take a few highschool English classes.

[Koriani]

Hot take? Maybe? Just what I've thought for years -

Honestly - when Paramount+ announced all the Star Trek based shows past Discovery I didn't really take it as 'faith that this was doing so well' but more a "we have to hitch our streaming service to some 'bedrock franchise' and this is what we got! We run with it!" That, along with the power of Kurtzman-push, is why we have 5 Star Trek Series, more so than that every single series is a "top popularity" producer.

And really - the fact that none of them have yet been cancelled, to me, is just as much to do with "Paramount put their cart here and they've got to ride or die it now-" (what else we gonna build a stream channel around?) as any one, or all, of the Trek series being the 'giant money makers' (like say on the level of GoT for HBO, or Mandalorian for Disney+).

None of us really KNOW how well subs/profits are up or down because of any or all of the Star Trek shows. We also probably won't (really) know until years from now - when either Paramount+ as a service thrives and gets bigger, or fails down on its face because it hadn't been solvent for ten years. These streaming networks (CNN aside ha) aren't going to raise up/down within a single year or two, or due to a single show or two. They've invested all this to be a top 'streaming' provider and they KNOW it takes YEARS before they should really 'expect' those big/profit numbers to pay out. So nothing 'right now' is necessarily going to show how well, or not, the entire thing is doing - because they have the built-in idea of expecting payout 'down the road'. Right now all they have to go is get people subscribing - and figure out how to brand their Service.

Its also why, for example, they pay out 900 million to keep the rights to South Park - they do that with the expectation of money over YEARS making that worth it, not within the first year or two of Paramount+ to recoup it for them.

So far, Star Treks are doing that - we guess (as that's all we can do). But whether that means these shows end up being the powerhouse for Paramount+ they HOPE and WANT them to be - remains to be seen.

I just think its what they had to build on - so its "all in or nothing" at this point, and they aren't ready or able to throw that much 'backing' into another franchise option for the streaming service.

And I'm someone who actually still watches Disco and Picard (though would never argue they are high quality anything) along with Lower Decks and now SNW - I'm still wondering and waiting to see if THIS is the "Horse" that sustains Paramount as a paid service. I think they were fools to put a huge chunk of eggs into this Basket - but time will tell!

So I guess that's a "I don't quite agree that five Star Trek shows obviously means they are all doing well/successful .." But I also don't disagree - because we just don't know. There are other factors at play then just whether THESE shows were good or not, to justify their existence. Their existence could be due to things that have nothing to do with whether the shows are successful or not on their own - at least directly. *shrugs*