The STAR TREK Superthread

[rogueMatthias]

DSC S1 had interesting elements that makes it Trek. Saru is the first distinctly non-human crew ever as a main cast (Klingons and Bajorans don't count). A ship with experimental technology. A unique look into the Federation's criminal justice system. Better production to bring it all to life.

And they used it all to have over-the-top fight scenes. Sigh.

I feel after Lorca died, the whole military structure and discipline and authority faded more and more, and I didn't realise how important that was to a series feeling like Star Trek. By series 3 the crew just feels like an obnoxious work clique who just do whatever they want without any real consequences.

What Discovery writers have forgotten is that you have to ground it in something real and with logical consequences, or this leads to decisions that just make it increasingly frustrating and unbelievable (which says a lot for a ship in an alien world).

Picard would never have promoted Ensign Wesley Crusher as Captain over all the other more qualified bridge crew (who've actually taken Command training) because that would have been completely fucking mental and ridiciculous. Discovery though is so far from believability or grounding in reality that they can do the same with Ensign Tilly without raising objections.

[Ivanstone]

"Mandalorin just demonstrated that you can still make good quality live action Star Wars."

That is precisely what people are meaning when they say Star Wars needs a mandalorian. There needs to be a show that can prove you can still make good star trek.

STD has a number of good ideas, but its execution has left the fanbase feeling disinterested and spiteful to the franchise.

People need to say: "We need better Star Trek." No referencing other shows. Especially Star Wars. Because the problem with DSC is they tried to turn Trek into a Star Wars show.

I enjoyed the Killjoys (more than I like Mando). But I don't say DSC needs to be good like the Killjoys because they're not really the same kind of show. Honestly I'm not sure what I could compare Trek to. Tennant Dr. Who is probably a much better objective for DSC to aim for than anything Star Wars related.

- - - Updated - - -

Picard would never have promoted Ensign Wesley Crusher as Captain, over all the other more qualified bridge crew (who've actually taken Command training) because that would have been completely fucking mental and ridiciculous. Discovery though is so far from believability or grounding in reality that they can do the same with Ensign Tilly without raising objections.

Picard did nominate a young inexperienced civilian character to Acting Ensign because he felt it would be a good experience.

Saru nominated an Ensign to Acting First Officer for similar reasons. Its admittedly more of a stretch but the reasoning was the same. The actual mistake was Tilly not deferring to the Second Officer when the shit hit the fan. No, I don't know who the second officer is. Which is another mistake.

[Tyris Flare]

"Mandalorin just demonstrated that you can still make good quality live action Star Wars."

That is precisely what people are meaning when they say Star Wars needs a mandalorian. There needs to be a show that can prove you can still make good star trek.

STD has a number of good ideas, but its execution has left the fanbase feeling disinterested and spiteful to the franchise.

Yeah he's still not getting it for some reason.

Making a show that honors the legacy and doesn't insult the fans, with lots of attention to detail. Once you've repaired the damage, THEN you can move forward to something new.

Picard could have been this but wasn't. It was just...something. Incompetently executed. The sequel trilogy is a good comparison.

[SavoirFaire]

Look at that, it's turning into another bitching about Discovery thread. How surprising.

Disc being the most recently aired
Gen-3 trek it’s to be expected, and I prefer it being here instead of the show thread because the sentiment keeps getting repeated. So allow me to pivot:

Know what I couldn’t stand about Picard? Well one of the things? Romulans? These guys, again? Ugh. I mean at least it’s not the Klingons but I think we’re bound to get more of them in Picard S2 and I fear disc s4 will focus on humans on earth. Give me a break. At least we have LD!

Know what I loved about DS9? Klingons? A bit. Romulans. Some, not a ton. I felt neither was overused. We got to see a lot of the Cardassians, Bajorans, ferrengi, The dominion, you know, new stuff. It’s hard to argue against Dukat as one of the all time great trek villains, and Garek is the best supporting character in all of Trek, CMV. That’s what I want from gen-3 trek. Moving forward with the federation and not focusing an inordinate amount of time on the races we already know quite well.

[Ivanstone]

I can fully agree that I'd like to explore alien races and what they say about ourselves much more. I'd like to see Discovery explore the Kelpiens and Barzans more than they have already. Like you, I'd love to see Picard have more to do with anyone other than the Romulans and the Borg. Ossyra was a good villain, but only lasted just over half a season. That's a bit of a waste. Same with Lorca in season 1, man would I like to see him back.

Mirror Lorca is dead. Prime Lorca’s disappearance was never resolved. That I wouldn’t mind seeing.

[Sunseeker]

Know what I loved about DS9? Klingons? A bit. Romulans. Some, not a ton. I felt neither was overused. We got to see a lot of the Cardassians, Bajorans, ferrengi, The dominion, you know, new stuff. It’s hard to argue against Dukat as one of the all time great trek villains, and Garek is the best supporting character in all of Trek, CMV. That’s what I want from gen-3 trek. Moving forward with the federation and not focusing an inordinate amount of time on the races we already know quite well.

Well, inevitably every Star Trek series has "the Ferengi problem". Sure, we can introduce a new species, we can see how they're a new challenge for the Federation to deal with buuuuuut.....there's no guarantee that they're going to catch on as characters the viewers want to see as primary antagonists recurring throughout the series. TNG tried the Ferengi, and found ground with the more existential threat of the Borg.

DS9 tried the Cardassians and it found traction, but then they introduced the Dominion as a Borg-esque existential threat, which IMO was arguably just neo-Klingons(the Jem'Hadar) and neo-Romulans(Vorta) and the Changelings (IMO) were wholly uninteresting as villains.

Voyager tried the Kazon(hey look we're doing the Klingon thing again!) and found ground with a "monster of the week" TNG vibe and then fell back on the Borg as the big baddies.

Enterprise tried...things and we got the Xindi and the Temporal War. Fucking christ...when people when about DSC, excuse me, do you have a moment to talk about the Xindi?

I'm not saying you're wrong, only that sometimes it takes a while for a show to really nail down a "good villain".

Personally, I think DSC should have stuck with the Mirror Universe as the main antagonists. So far it's been the one redeeming element of the series, that for all the leather clad Kira's and "havind a goatee means you're evil" counterparts, DSC's presentation of the Mirror Universe has been one of the best.

[Ivanstone]

excuse me, do you have a moment to talk about the Xindi?

Go for it! Vent your spleen.

I didn't mind ENT S3 but you're more than welcome to shit on it. Just don't dis Phlox. He might actually be my favourite CMO.

[Kithelle]

So in Star Trek First contact when the federation was fighting the borg cube. Worf decided to make a suicide run on the cube when he ran out of torpedos. However the Defiant's nose is an armed launchable warhead. So why didn't he use that? I understand that they lose their navigational deflector when they launch it but if he was already willing to make a suicide run on the cube you'd think he would've used the warhead first.

A warp core exploding will do a LOT more damage than shooting the deflector dish at them

- - - Updated - - -

I think their assholeness kind of made sense as an extension of the prime directive though. Just because a species can achieve warp, doesn't mean they can be trusted with all your technology.

You could consider anyone following the prime directive an asshole for not helping a primitive civilization with diseases and natural disasters too, afterall.

Especially considering Humans, in the last 150 years before first contact had experienced so many wars including 3 world wars....the eugenics wars. It's understandable that the Vulcans were cautious

[bulutooth23]

I admit I kinda like Discovery.

[Myradin]

I admit I kinda like Discovery.

I think the show has a number of good ideas. I don't mind the spore drive (Time period is kind of bad for it to originate in but whatever). I like the concepts of the characters. I like Saru, especially as the first non-human captain of the main ship. The klingon war could have been done well. Similarly, I think moving trek into another time period like TNG did is good at this point.

Really my problem is just the execution of all these broad ideas, and the logic (or lack there of) they use to prop them up. I feel like their brainstorm sessions are on point, but they don't seem to be able to translate that to the screen properly.

In my opinion at least.

[Ivanstone]

RIP Christopher Plummer

[Ivanstone]

For those of us old enough to remember, TNG was hated even before it aired and for a long time afterward. It was a number of seasons before it got good and loved.

Some people can’t handle something new. I always wondered what old USENET Trek groups would post about TNG/VOY/DS9. There are some archives available but it’s not complete. I did dig this up from 21st Century Usenet (aka Reddit):
https://www.reddit.com/r/StarTrekDis..._1993_why_the/

Here’s a line from a 1993 DS9 review:
“It cost $12 million dollars, and starts a whole new era in the Trek universe. If this episode is anything to go by, the series has a lot of potential. Now all they need to do is not throw in lots of morals, ignore social conscience and find some good science fiction plots.”

[Rathwell]

For those of us old enough to remember, TNG was hated even before it aired and for a long time afterward. It was a number of seasons before it got good and loved.

[IMG]https://scontent-den4-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/145824597_4120102571343052_9156636403561670366_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=2&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ ohc=vD9ITK1frKEAX9taw8r&_nc_ht=scontent-den4-1.xx&oh=8473ab335be6012477f3a50c40da9542&oe=6044550D[IMG]

"LeVar Burton - the new Spock"

Not quite! If anyone's the new Spock, it'd be Data

[Koriani]

"LeVar Burton - the new Spock"

Not quite! If anyone's the new Spock, it'd be Data

RIGHT?! How can anyone pick any other crew member *but* Data when you're talking about "The new character associated with pure logic as counter to humanity." (That right there would make me discount anything else the reviewer said since they clearly don't understand the characters they are talking about.) But in any case... (lol)

But yes - every new show in a franchise (be it Trek, or any other franchise) is usually met with much resistance from 'old fans'. Its not necessarily to do with the show itself - but the human resistance to change.

That's why I usually try to have enough awareness of my own resistance (as a human) to change and new things and give new shows (and other new things) a bit more time to get their feet under them before I decide if I like it or not. I know as a human I'm biologically programmed to be resistant and suspicious of change and 'new', so I keep that in mind.

So yea, every new Trek Show is always going to have a portion of old fans who outright will never like it from day one - because its new, and they don't want the change. Some of those shows come into their own and are seen as 'worthy' next generation shows, and some of those shows don't (or won't). Truly only time and hindsight will be the 'truth' when it comes to those shows.

And it means for the rest of us - to give things time 'to grow on us' and to get past the 'new' feeling before we jump on any immediate show-hating bandwagons after only the first episode or something. Yes, a show can be objectively bad of course - regardless of whether its new or not. But if you haven't even given yourself time to get over the resistance to the change, then you aren't giving a show (or anything else) the chance on its own.

Humans have many patterns - this is just one of them. (lol)

[draynay]

One of the things that worked in TNG's favor was that they didn't try to shoehorn new characters into the roles of the old characters. So that "new Spock" is a pretty bad take from someone really oversimplifying things.

The only time they really failed in this regard was in season 2 where they tried to create an antagonistic relationship between the doctor and Data, a la McCoy & Spock. But while Spock was a sarcastic asshole who gave as good as he got, Data was so childlike and vulnerable that every Pulaski jab felt like she was cruelly punching down at someone incapable of defending himself.

[ravenmoon]

That's an Enterprise retcon of the Vulcans. In TOS and TNG, the Vulcans weren't assholes. They were legit wise and helpful.

ENT retconned the Vulcans into being high and mighty assholes dictating Earth's progress, though I think it actually began with Voyager with Tuvok.

Enterpriese feels a bit wasted too.. it w as always going to be a tough one to do, but.. what they didn't bank on is that much of the novel science had worn off because the same subjects had been treated in the other shows, especiallyt he original.

Doing an episode on transporter phobia was far less interesting on Enterprise than it was on the ToS, because for a lot of treekies, that stuff isn't new, and it just feels you are going over established ground, with nothing new to shine.

it's like a show for the most devoted of star trek so you get all the details of how your fave institutions and galaxy state in TNG-voyager period came to be.. but they must have thought with the added benefit of introducing trek to new audiences.

but by 2004, people expected a lot more shine from sic-fi - the planets and tech looks are all rather bland. if they had focused part on exploration and meeting superior aliens, and showing the true grit of humanity against tough odds in contrast to TNG and beyond era where humans have basically now pretty much the cutting edge leaders in tech.. then coupled it up with actually showing us alien worlds and alien civilization, putting more effort into sides of the star trek universe we never saw from the far ore ship/space orientated star treks' it would have done much better.

As a child/teen in 2004, you had much fancier and flashier stuff out there, you weren't going to break a new generation into trek with what they came up with in Enterprise.

But they have a chance to do so in Strange New Worlds, if they focus on the worlds.. Let Discovery now switch to exploring 31st century space combining some space travel with a mission to rebuild the federation, almost like a new take on showing its forming, but officially it's reforming, switching form it's sequential format.. which they say they are going to do.

Strange New Worlds, should be part space exploration, but more focused on the planets, and showing us cool stuff, the civilizations of our fave races properly, rather than the very crappy pics we saw in earlier shows.

This way when someone comes and watches the whole star trek franchise, they get some variation of theme throughout.

[Deadite]

So yea, every new Trek Show is always going to have a portion of old fans who outright will never like it from day one - because its new, and they don't want the change. Some of those shows come into their own and are seen as 'worthy' next generation shows, and some of those shows don't (or won't). Truly only time and hindsight will be the 'truth' when it comes to those shows.

And it means for the rest of us - to give things time 'to grow on us' and to get past the 'new' feeling before we jump on any immediate show-hating bandwagons after only the first episode or something. Yes, a show can be objectively bad of course - regardless of whether its new or not. But if you haven't even given yourself time to get over the resistance to the change, then you aren't giving a show (or anything else) the chance on its own.

Humans have many patterns - this is just one of them. (lol)

It has been 3 season for Discovery now. Me thinks that is plenty of time. If anything it is actually getting worse.

[Koriani]

It has been 3 season for Discovery now. Me thinks that is plenty of time. If anything it is actually getting worse.

Oh I didn't mean directly anything to do with Discovery. I was just more commenting on the "default human nature" of it all. And how its a pretty "standard" issue each time a new series (or new rebirth or new version of whatever xyz franchise) comes out and gets started.

If you gave a show half a season and didn't care for it - you've watched enough, move on! (lol)

If you don't like a show and you've given it 3 seasons - why? (not you btw, just a general statement) Unless one is into hate-tv watching, just watch something else.

I save my DISCO discussion for its own thread, where I already posted .

[Sunseeker]

It has been 3 season for Discovery now. Me thinks that is plenty of time. If anything it is actually getting worse.

Season 3(or the end of and the start of Season 4) were both turning points for TNG (Stewart had considered quitting the show until Best of Both Worlds) and Voyager(Scorpion). Arguably, the same could be said of DS9 where the show really started to build up the Domnion as ya know, a thing. And all of these shows had 26 hour-long episodes per season. Technically speaking, each of these shows were all on season "6" if they were counted in 13-episode intervals like DSC.

I'm not saying DSC will get better. I'm just saying we gave almost every other Trek far more time to prove themselves.

[Sunseeker]

Another thing is that shows like DSC, PIC, WandaVision etc are all hampered by the fact that they are serialized, season-long arc shows. Individual episodes don't tend to retain the watchability of shows like TNG where you can just watch an episode at random and be entertained by that episodes story without being aware of where it fits in the seasons storyline.

This is why, I feel, shows like LD and Mandalorian are better received ... although they do contain ongoing stories those plotlines are typically referenced at the start of an episode to "set the scene" and then the episode itself is a self-contained story that you can watch irrespective of where it falls in the season.

It's not that one is "bad" or another is "better", it's just different storytelling devices that can cloud the perception of a show.

Absolutely. It's a double-edged sword of this style of programming. You can jump right in to season-long arcs, but you miss out on what the show had to build up and develop by wading through seasons of episodic garbage. Previous Trek's had to "prove themselves" to earn season-long arcs by having "Random alien encounter" episode. "random disease" episode. "Spatial anomaly" episode. "pointless romantic triangle" episode. "character argues with the captain then does something stupid and learns a lesson" episode. Until there were finally enough recurring viewers that the Networks thought people would pay attention to any plot that lasted for more than 5 minutes.

Shows will learn over time. Mando is a good sign of that. Pull back a little from the "grand story arcs" but keep an underlying arc running in the background beyond "explore new worlds" in order to keep it all tied together.

I will also add this is an issue of "shrinking seasons", DSC has only been given 39 episodes. By the end of season 3, TNG, VOY and DS9 had 78.

IMO, it really doesn't matter if DSC was episodic or not. DSC barely has more than one and a half seasons of standard Trek, it quite literally doesn't have the episodes to be anything at all.