General Star Trek thread

pixelburp · 04-11-2019 11:01pm

Uh. I do not get that meme. Truly, I'm finally old and out of touch.

04-11-2019 11:06pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Uh. I do not get that meme. Truly, I'm finally old and out of touch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV0wTtiJygY

Evade · 04-11-2019 11:22pm

Usually the meme has the butterfly obviously not be the thing referenced in the bottom text. The subtitle on the original scene was "is this a pigeon?"

Goodshape · 05-11-2019 12:18pm

Yeah, the meme is usually highlighting tone-deafness or some sort of misappropriation or unsuitability.

Like Scarlet Johansson looking at a character of a different ethnic background, asking "Is this a role for me?"

Or JJ Abrams looking at explosions and lens flairs, asking "Is this Star Trek?"

The above Discovery one isn't a very good example tbh

AMKC · 05-11-2019 8:59pm

Goodshape wrote: »

Yeah, the meme is usually highlighting tone-deafness or some sort of misappropriation or unsuitability.

Like Scarlet Johansson looking at a character of a different ethnic background, asking "Is this a role for me?"

Or JJ Abrams looking at explosions and lens flairs, asking "Is this Star Trek?"

The above Discovery one isn't a very good example tbh

Or JJ Abrams looking at explosions and lens flairs, asking "Is this Star Trek?"

I would change that to a trekkie or a fan watching ''Star Trek 09'' and asking ''Is this Star Trek?''

BrookieD · 06-11-2019 8:55am

Bobtheman wrote: »

Is Discovery trek ?

Yes 100% it is trek, its canon, its the Trek IP and as above its already better than Voyager and DS9 were in Seasons 1/2. The problem is older fans of trek need to let go the old premise of what trek was. TOS was of its time, TNG also of its time but dodgy as f**k in seasons 1/2, given the production issue its no surprise though but they pulled it around with Best of Both worlds and it shone. DS9 never a fan of but again later seasons it found its feet. Enterprise, found its way just as it was cancelled.

Discovery is different, Picard, while i think while i will embrace it will turn out to be marmite for a lot of so called "Trek" fans.

Looking forward to Lower Decks, if they get the humor right i think it will work, will be interestin to see a TNG era animated show and to think of some of the aniations that could have been its high time we got animated with trek again..

pixelburp · 06-11-2019 10:04am

I've often said that the IDEA of Trek is stronger than perhaps the reality; nostalgia and rose-tinted glasses has informed Trek as this meditative show, full of philosophy and smart concepts, but more often than not, it was a daft show of space gods in togas, "Sub Rosa" or "Code of Honour". The drivel-to-quality ratio isn't necessarily as low as perhaps we'd like to otherwise think.

But it also meant that the show was more flexible than we gave credit: TOS was a swashbuckling adventure show; TNG a weird amalgam of that, plus its philosophical, utopian navel gazing; DS9 a serialised adventure of politics and deception; Voyager a failed attempt to get back to the procedural space adventures; Enterprise a failure. Maybe there was a through-line of idealism or exploration in all those shows, but not always and not always executed with any great competency.

Stark · 06-11-2019 11:13am

pixelburp wrote: »

Voyager a failed attempt to get back to the procedural space adventures

In defence of Voyager, I saw it more as a 24th century Odyssey story. I would have been one of the fans at the time rooting for the crew, and getting crazy excited at a hint of a story development that would bring them a step closer to reaching home. It's a pity the finale was such a kick in the face for those of us who were waiting for that final moment.

06-11-2019 11:32am

Stark wrote: »

In defence of Voyager, I saw it more as a 24th century Odyssey story. I would have been one of the fans at the time rooting for the crew, and getting crazy excited at a hint of a story development that would bring them a step closer to reaching home. It's a pity the finale was such a kick in the face for those of us who were waiting for that final moment.

It was meant to be The Odyssey but there was obviously disagreement about what the tone of the show was going to be

The pilot had it set up for a tense, resource starved, and distrusting crew in a ship with no means of repair and refuel but by episode 4 it was all happy families and reset buttons.

Now I could never get behind the resourced starved angle, they encountered so many friendly space faring races that there would never have been issue with dry dock facilities, instead have Voyager start showing aspects of alien tech being hybridised into StarFleet compatibility, or the plating of the ship change where direct materials were not readily available.

They could have dedicated an entire series to Year of Hell and the trip through Cremin space and really showed that struggle.

They SHOULD have made so much more of the different views/methodologies of the Maquis and have Chatokay actually be loyal to Jayneway (knowing that they needed the entire crew to work to get home) but have them struggle with the lower deck crew and take their time integrating. Carey should still have been chief engineer though and have Be'lanna take over in season 3 or so. Made no sense for her to get that position immediately.

Voyager was a serialised project/idea which was forced into an episodic format. I assume that this was a network push, given the somewhat lackluster response to DS9 (originally), but they completely hamstrung a show which very much was diminished by the reset button.

As it stands; it is the weakest of Treks, for me, because of that wasted potential.

Rawr · 06-11-2019 11:51am

pixelburp wrote: »

But it also meant that the show was more flexible than we gave credit: TOS was a swashbuckling adventure show;

I often felt that this was something they had tried to get back to over the years. The TNG-era had sort of reduced the "Great Unknown" with it's wonders and dangers into "Sector 205-6"with predictable challenges and dry politics.

Don't get me wrong, I was often in for the politics too, but early Trek was a real adventure into the edge of of the known universe.

Voyager was botched attempt to do this as described plenty. I think they "tried" to do this with Enterprise, but was just frustrating to be in pre-TOS Trek universe minus most of the fun of TOS. I felt that the lack of tech on it's own didn't really add to the "adventure" of it all.

Discovery, for it's sins, has managed to bring in an adventure angle again. If they could ever get around to fixing some of the issues it could brings us right back into a proper sense of exploring the unknown, especially now that they've gone into a future hellscape Alpha Quadrant. But they really do need to correct a lot of the glaring problems with the show to make it worth watching anymore. Kind of frustrating to see such potential sullied by silly mistakes.

Inviere · 06-11-2019 7:07pm

Bobtheman wrote: »

Is Discovery trek ?

Personally for me, no. The show could have been really really good, I did enjoy a lot of the mystery and intrigue of Season 1. However it has been ****ed around so much by various writing hacks writing teams, from one to another, different chiefs stepping in at different times, and my most recent impression of the show was a near incoherent mess of plot & exposition soup. The show has also HEAVILY concentrated its focus on a single character, meaning that by Season 3, I probably couldn't name more than five or six characters.

For me the show is only remotely good when it's a non-arc episode showing, the arc stuff has been really badly handled. It IS canon, but we're free to have our own head-canon too, and for me, Discovery doesn't at all align with any of the things that made Star Trek great.

TheValeyard · 07-11-2019 10:11pm

Discovery would be a lot stronger without all the focus on a main single character. There are a few characters who would be great to focus on more.

We also need a Captain Pike show.

07-11-2019 10:17pm

TheValeyard wrote: »

Discovery would be a lot stronger without all the focus on a main single character. There are a few characters who would be great to focus on more.

Almost every single criticism (negative) of this show has this as the main point. Well it would not be SO much if she was not the most important person in the universe... but can we please please see more of the other cast, especially as every time we've seen

Why can the show runners not take this on board?

Justin Credible Darts · 07-11-2019 10:25pm

I said this before but the proportional representation on the show show is wrong.

Other than the guest stars of Pike and lorca the season before, there is no straight white male in the main cast.It is like the show tries to get every other sex , creed, color etc in the show first.

There should be more Asian as well, but in order to facilitate political correctness and fit in everyone, white males and asian seem to be less important than the other minorities

07-11-2019 10:31pm

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I said this before but the proportional representation on the show show is wrong.

Other than the guest stars of Pike and lorca the season before, there is no straight white male in the main cast.It is like the show tries to get every other sex , creed, color etc in the show first.

There should be more Asian as well, but in order to facilitate political correctness and fit in everyone, white males and asian seem to be less important than the other minorities

Umm that still would matter fvck all if Michael were red headed Irish male. Still be a sh1tty plot device

Evade · 07-11-2019 10:31pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Why can the show runners not take this on board?

I wonder if Sonequa Martin-Green has some clause in her contract that she has to be in a certain amount of scenes.

07-11-2019 10:39pm

Evade wrote: »

I wonder if Sonequa Martin-Green has some clause in her contract that she has to be in a certain amount of scenes.

I hinestly keep thinking the same, there has to be contractual reasons

Justin Credible Darts · 07-11-2019 10:44pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Umm that still would matter fvck all if Michael were red headed Irish male. Still be a sh1tty plot device

I was speaking on the whole.

But yes I agree it would not matter what color, sex or creed the main character is if they are completely dominating the show, which she is.

For me Pike the true star of the last season, lorca and georgio the stars of the first season. Burnhams storylines became the b story to me in the episodes and the supposed B stories took on more importance for me

AMKC · 07-11-2019 11:57pm

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

I was speaking on the whole.

But yes I agree it would not matter what color, sex or creed the main character is if they are completely dominating the show, which she is.

For me Pike the true star of the last season, lorca and georgio the stars of the first season. Burnhams storylines became the b story to me in the episodes and the supposed B stories took on more importance for me

The same with me too. Trying to focus too much on one character just turns people off that character and it is not what Star Trek is about. Star Trek is about team work and working together. They had a great concept for Discovery but somewhere along the pre production or production it got lost.

odyssey06 · 08-11-2019 9:02am

AMKC wrote: »

The same with me too. Trying to focus too much on one character just turns people off that character and it is not what Star Trek is about. Star Trek is about team work and working together. They had a great concept for Discovery but somewhere along the pre production or production it got lost.

Agreed. It might have been reasonable in the pilot for the new series to focus on one character by way of introduction - and then segue into making it an ensemble on the ship. But Star Trek isn't supposed to be a vehicle for one character imo.

Rawr · 08-11-2019 11:55am

Evade wrote: »

I wonder if Sonequa Martin-Green has some clause in her contract that she has to be in a certain amount of scenes.

Been thinking that too for a while. Can't help but wonder if the whole thing about Michael being the default "savior of everything" in past Seasons (and Season 3 by looks of it) may be also be baked into her contract somehow.

If that is the case, and if there no way to modify or close that contract without closing the whole production, I can't put much hope into Discovery improving to a point where I myself can keep watching. If the resolution to most plot-arcs will be "Michael will save us", then I fear this show will not improve despite anything else they may do well.

08-11-2019 1:04pm

Rawr wrote: »

Been thinking that too for a while. Can't help but wonder if the whole thing about Michael being the default "savior of everything" in past Seasons (and Season 3 by looks of it) may be also be baked into her contract somehow.

If that is the case, and if there no way to modify or close that contract without closing the whole production, I can't put much hope into Discovery improving to a point where I myself can keep watching. If the resolution to most plot-arcs will be "Michael will save us", then I fear this show will not improve despite anything else they may do well.

I'm on record here saying I like Discovery and the direction is it taking Trek (for the most part)

Yes there are instances of bad writing and the Klingon War was terrible done but I still hold to the fact that, outside TOS, these are the best opening 2 seasons of any Trek show (especially considering the lesser season episode count)

Now in saying that...
If they go this year with another "Michael is the saviour" route I will give up on the show.
It is not "Star Trek: Michael".

They have a wonderful premise. I have long called/hoped for a full future Trek: The Fall, since TNG brought up vast civilisations which spanned the galaxy only to fall and vanish. I wanted to see a show which dealt with a Federation aftermath showing that the Federation views on cooperation and equality can rise from the ashes.
The supporting cast, with the little they have gotten, have been more than solid. There is the potential for a great ensemble.

Justin Credible Darts · 08-11-2019 1:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I still hold to the fact that, outside TOS, these are the best opening 2 seasons of any Trek show (especially considering the lesser season episode count).

Not for me though.
I think DS9 was far stronger bar an odd episode. Then DS9 not only had a better cast, but the supporting cast of DS9 had more depth than some of the other shows main cast.

for example the characters of Garak, Martok, Dukat, Rom, Weyoun, all has more depth, and personality that the cardboard cut outs of Neelix in voyager, or Crusher and her annoying son and Geordi in TNG.
What discovery does have in its favor is that unlike all the other trek shows, the started doing "arcs" a lot quicker than the other show....again something DS9 was first to do

Goodshape · 08-11-2019 1:25pm

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

for example the characters of Garak, Martok, Dukat, Rom, Weyoun, all has more depth, and personality

Not within the first two seasons though.

What discovery does have in its favor is that unlike all the other trek shows, the started doing "arcs" a lot quicker than the other show....

Unfortunately they've totally failed, twice, to stick any sort of coherent landing with those story arcs.

There's a lot I like about Discovery. Arguably the best Trek since DS9. But the way they're handling their "story arcs" is a low low point, imo. The standouts have been the stand alone episodes.

again something DS9 was first to do

Again not within the first two seasons.

Justin Credible Darts · 08-11-2019 1:39pm

I meant DS9 was the first trek, and one of the very first weekly tv shows at the time to start doing arcs,

I agree the arcs in discovery were poor and contrived, but the style does lend itself to better tv than your usual tng type story where its visit a planet, solve a problem, move on and rinse and repeat.

Goodshape · 08-11-2019 1:59pm

I like both styles for different reasons but I do miss the variety in the "new planet, new problem" weekly adventures.

Serialised story arcs can be great but honestly they were awful in Discovery. What sounded like potential in the first few episodes turned out to have no thought or planning behind it. Pretty much just an excuse to slot in some contrived "tune in next week" cliffhangers while they made **** up on the trot.

Again – nothing against good serialised television, but without an actual well thought out plan in place from the start, I'd very much prefer that they didn't.

Stark · 08-11-2019 2:46pm

I loved DS9 but those first two seasons were complete muck. Only got decent round about the time the Maquis were introduced in season two.

I agree with the sentiments about Discovery. The first two seasons haven't been perfect but they have been enjoyable. Season one in particular when I felt they weren't trying to pander to every dissenting voice.

Justin Credible Darts · 08-11-2019 3:36pm

Stark wrote: »

I loved DS9 but those first two seasons were complete muck. .

I think the first 2 seasons were not only decent but were better than the first 2 of enterprise, TNG and almost everything in voyager.

People are quick to cite how move along home was atrocious, which is was, but that was the same season that gave us the outstanding episode Duet, and a couple of other decent shows.
It introduced us to the gamma quadrant, had possibly the best pilot, and had characters like garak, rom, nagus and others appear in the first 2 seasons.

Decades later I think DS9 has held up better than any of them, although I may be a little biased as its my favorite show

pixelburp · 08-11-2019 4:46pm

Going on how season 2 ended, first order of business would be to reunite the Discovery + Burnham, and that season 3 trailer seemed to suggested it'll be Burnham who realises the state of the universe (I bet that Federation fellow we see is a hologram, tending to a museum or shrine to the fallen Fed)

So, if true, the right move would be that the ship is the vanguard of restoring the Fed. The wrong move will be making Burnham the key; I've liked Discovery but the hoops the writing jumps through to make Michael the centre of the universe has been crap. I hope, now that the chaos of writing seasons 1 and 2 is solved, we can see some consistency back, and Saru et Al drive the story.

Goodshape · 08-11-2019 5:51pm

I don't even mind Burnham being the centre of the show. Just not, constantly, the centre of the universe.

The original premise of "this show won't be focused on the Captain" got me excited for a lower-decks sort of approach. Instead it's disposable Captains and everyone and everything revolves around this... whatever rank she is now.

Pity.

General Star Trek thread

Comments