Well, it sort of is due to it being a Star Trek show. That sentence is extremely gatekeepy. It assumes that Star Trek is definable in what type of show it creates (it isn’t), is uniform in its types of shows (it isn’t) and that anything different than status quo is not applicable. It’s utterly nonsense and the same nonsense that was parroted about TNG, and DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise and every other show that wasn’t TOS. Remember everyone whining about the Kelvin timeline and “ItS nOt ReAl StAr TrEk!” Sure seems like most of them are gone now and the movies are getting loved.
Star Trek goes out of its way to scream about diversity, to allow differences and celebrate those, and that not every path has to be the same. I don’t understand the insistence that the shows themselves cannot be diverse either.
The themes of celebrating diversity are absolutely the same. The difference I see is mainly the cinematography, story structure, and pacing. SNW and Lower Decks are a lot closer to what Trek has been in those aspects than Discovery was.
Again: Not saying Disco is bad at all. (Except for having a reaction shot of every one of the dozens of people on the bridge any time anything interesting happens. Those irk me.)
EDIT: After further consideration, I’ve decided that Disco is Trek, but it’s a series of Trek movies and not a series of TV episodes. But the last season is still the same premise as Andromeda.
My guy, that’s nonsense. Suggesting that Discovery is too different to be Star Trek is just hilariously bad. That presumes that the cinemetography, story structure and pacing has been consistent with no dramatic changes across TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT or the Kelvin films.
That comparison just does not make sense. TOS and TMP couldn’t be more different. Nevermind TAS or how dark DS9 is.
I’m not saying that you’re saying Discovery is bad. I’m saying that you’re suggestion that it isn’t real Trek because there’s too much variation is nonsense and an affront to the series that pushes diversity more than anyone else.
You might not have seen my edit, but I’ve changed to viewing it as a series of Trek movies rather than a TV series, which makes much more sense. Right down to the multiple reaction close ups.
Which I also just do not understand. Why can’t the show just be a different type of show? Why must there be an argument needed to be made that it’s either more of a movie or this entire discussion in general where it’s not ‘Real Trek’. TV has evolved. It’s not quite the same as when syndication was readily availab.e. TV in general has moved into an era with shorter seasons and more linked together narratives.
I just cannot fathom in anyway whatsoever where the show being different causes such intense feelings in people that an argument needs to be made to distance itself from the rest of Star Trek in general. Star Trek screams diversity from the top to the bottom and fans seem to be fine with that until it touches the TV shows themselves and if it’s not the exact same carbon copied and outdated format then it’s a problem? I just do not get it. I didn’t flip shit about DS9 and say that it was too dark to be part of Star Trek. (People wanna complain about Discovery starting that but all they did was carry the torch that was stuck in the promenade.) I just went “Neat! Inifinite Multitudes!”
People have expectations of things based on past experience. If those expectations aren’t met some people won’t like it. See also: Episodes 1-3 and 4-6 of Star Wars.
Star Wars is probably not the best example considering literally everything since A New Hope has been complained about by fans in some regard. Empire Strikes Back was critically panned at release and even Return of the Jedi had some complaints. Then literally every movie since has had fans rabid. Moreover, Star Wars didn’t paint itself as a paragon of diversity.
But thank you for reminding me not to ever post an opinion on Discovery again because I’m gonna get into a flamewar with someone I like and respect and that makes me sad.
I asked questions because I just did not get where you were coming from. You started all of this by saying that it wasn’t real Trek. You don’t get to complain when someone calls you out on gatekepeing behavior. I’m not getting into a flamewar over an opinion, I was questioning you over your gatekeeping because I find that to be antithetical to everything that Star Trek stands for. I’m sorry that you’re upset here but you said that Star Trek Discovery wasn’t real Star Trek and then are surprised that the dude who is named after a Discovery character and who is known for defending Discovery… defended Discovery?
Disclaimer: Only Trek I had watched beforehand was Lower Decks (loved it) and SNW (loved it) in that order. With that said, here are my opinions nobody asked for:
S1 had its flaws but I was there for dark, depressing, and moody.
SNW cast carried the fuck out of S2 and the plot was good too imo.
First half of S3 was promising…but they fucked it up so utterly and completely in the second half that it was hard to take the rest of the show seriously afterwards.
spoiler
SPOILER START
They COMPLETELY lost me with the source of the burn, it was one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in a hot minute.
They had me again with the Giorgio redemption stuff in S4(?), but it was all downhill from there.
SPOILER END
I had to forward through starting from the second half of Season 4 just to get through it. It got so ridiculously boring. I was hoping it’d get better and I could watch normally again but it just didn’t.
Watching TNG now and I’m loving it. Can be a bit slow sometimes but still enjoyable.
I agree. Out of all the reasons they could have come up with for The Burn being caused by a distraught Kelpian was one that was mostly just designed for an emotional ending rather than basic decent sci-fi.
That was really an issue with Discovery for me overall, they wanted to do the ‘tug your heartstrings’ before doing anything else. There needs to be a balance for me.
I do like that Seasons 3 and 4, for all of their flaws (and 4 had massive flaws), tried to do their best to undo the darkness of the first season by restoring Starfleet and the Federation in the far future.
Yes! “Tug your heartstrings before doing anything else” hits the nail on the head! They completely forgot the part where they actually have to earn it. When you try to make people care without putting in the legwork, it just builds resentment. Then they try to play it off like “he is now Saru’s ward and an important part of Kelpian society or whatever the hell that was?”…a lazy " shit happens in space" would’ve been a better explanation than that tbh.
I liked what they tried with the later seasons and the new federation too. However, I feel like they swung too far in the other direction from S1 where they got too scared to have actual stakes and started doing the transparent holywood thing of introducing new characters (or trying to give an old character more plot than they had in 4 seasons) in the first 10 mins of an episode, killing them off, then expecting you to care because characters you actually know liked them.
deleted by creator
Well, it sort of is due to it being a Star Trek show. That sentence is extremely gatekeepy. It assumes that Star Trek is definable in what type of show it creates (it isn’t), is uniform in its types of shows (it isn’t) and that anything different than status quo is not applicable. It’s utterly nonsense and the same nonsense that was parroted about TNG, and DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise and every other show that wasn’t TOS. Remember everyone whining about the Kelvin timeline and “ItS nOt ReAl StAr TrEk!” Sure seems like most of them are gone now and the movies are getting loved.
Star Trek goes out of its way to scream about diversity, to allow differences and celebrate those, and that not every path has to be the same. I don’t understand the insistence that the shows themselves cannot be diverse either.
The themes of celebrating diversity are absolutely the same. The difference I see is mainly the cinematography, story structure, and pacing. SNW and Lower Decks are a lot closer to what Trek has been in those aspects than Discovery was.
Again: Not saying Disco is bad at all. (Except for having a reaction shot of every one of the dozens of people on the bridge any time anything interesting happens. Those irk me.)
EDIT: After further consideration, I’ve decided that Disco is Trek, but it’s a series of Trek movies and not a series of TV episodes. But the last season is still the same premise as Andromeda.
My guy, that’s nonsense. Suggesting that Discovery is too different to be Star Trek is just hilariously bad. That presumes that the cinemetography, story structure and pacing has been consistent with no dramatic changes across TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT or the Kelvin films.
That comparison just does not make sense. TOS and TMP couldn’t be more different. Nevermind TAS or how dark DS9 is.
I’m not saying that you’re saying Discovery is bad. I’m saying that you’re suggestion that it isn’t real Trek because there’s too much variation is nonsense and an affront to the series that pushes diversity more than anyone else.
You might not have seen my edit, but I’ve changed to viewing it as a series of Trek movies rather than a TV series, which makes much more sense. Right down to the multiple reaction close ups.
Which I also just do not understand. Why can’t the show just be a different type of show? Why must there be an argument needed to be made that it’s either more of a movie or this entire discussion in general where it’s not ‘Real Trek’. TV has evolved. It’s not quite the same as when syndication was readily availab.e. TV in general has moved into an era with shorter seasons and more linked together narratives.
I just cannot fathom in anyway whatsoever where the show being different causes such intense feelings in people that an argument needs to be made to distance itself from the rest of Star Trek in general. Star Trek screams diversity from the top to the bottom and fans seem to be fine with that until it touches the TV shows themselves and if it’s not the exact same carbon copied and outdated format then it’s a problem? I just do not get it. I didn’t flip shit about DS9 and say that it was too dark to be part of Star Trek. (People wanna complain about Discovery starting that but all they did was carry the torch that was stuck in the promenade.) I just went “Neat! Inifinite Multitudes!”
deleted by creator
Star Wars is probably not the best example considering literally everything since A New Hope has been complained about by fans in some regard. Empire Strikes Back was critically panned at release and even Return of the Jedi had some complaints. Then literally every movie since has had fans rabid. Moreover, Star Wars didn’t paint itself as a paragon of diversity.
I asked questions because I just did not get where you were coming from. You started all of this by saying that it wasn’t real Trek. You don’t get to complain when someone calls you out on gatekepeing behavior. I’m not getting into a flamewar over an opinion, I was questioning you over your gatekeeping because I find that to be antithetical to everything that Star Trek stands for. I’m sorry that you’re upset here but you said that Star Trek Discovery wasn’t real Star Trek and then are surprised that the dude who is named after a Discovery character and who is known for defending Discovery… defended Discovery?
I forgot the rules. Sorry.
These points being interpreted as “gatekeeping” is wild.
The first comment was literally “I like Discovery but it’s not real Trek”.
That is textbook gatekeeping.
Disclaimer: Only Trek I had watched beforehand was Lower Decks (loved it) and SNW (loved it) in that order. With that said, here are my opinions nobody asked for:
spoiler
SPOILER STARTThey COMPLETELY lost me with the source of the burn, it was one of the dumbest things I’ve seen in a hot minute.
They had me again with the Giorgio redemption stuff in S4(?), but it was all downhill from there.
SPOILER ENDI had to forward through starting from the second half of Season 4 just to get through it. It got so ridiculously boring. I was hoping it’d get better and I could watch normally again but it just didn’t.
Watching TNG now and I’m loving it. Can be a bit slow sometimes but still enjoyable.
Edit: Does boost not do spoiler tags?
It is a known issue
https://sopuli.xyz/post/18946660
Ah, thanks! It was driving me mad
Re your spoiler:
spoiler
I agree. Out of all the reasons they could have come up with for The Burn being caused by a distraught Kelpian was one that was mostly just designed for an emotional ending rather than basic decent sci-fi.
That was really an issue with Discovery for me overall, they wanted to do the ‘tug your heartstrings’ before doing anything else. There needs to be a balance for me.
I do like that Seasons 3 and 4, for all of their flaws (and 4 had massive flaws), tried to do their best to undo the darkness of the first season by restoring Starfleet and the Federation in the far future.
SPOILER STARTspoiler
Yes! “Tug your heartstrings before doing anything else” hits the nail on the head! They completely forgot the part where they actually have to earn it. When you try to make people care without putting in the legwork, it just builds resentment. Then they try to play it off like “he is now Saru’s ward and an important part of Kelpian society or whatever the hell that was?”…a lazy " shit happens in space" would’ve been a better explanation than that tbh.
I liked what they tried with the later seasons and the new federation too. However, I feel like they swung too far in the other direction from S1 where they got too scared to have actual stakes and started doing the transparent holywood thing of introducing new characters (or trying to give an old character more plot than they had in 4 seasons) in the first 10 mins of an episode, killing them off, then expecting you to care because characters you actually know liked them.
SPOILER END