Haters of Star Trek: Discovery - wtf?

[WebLurker]

I don't like the whole thing where here in the States you have to buy CBS's streaming services to watch it and the rest of the world can see it on Netflix.

Beyond that, what's there to hate? The ship design looks cool. The return to the prime universe is okay by me. It sounds promising enough. On top of that, we don't know what the show is going to be like. So, how can we form an opinion when there's nothing to inform that opinion in the first place.

I'm just glad that it's given people something new to hate, just as the Kelvin films did for Enterprise, Enterprise did for Voyager and so on back through the line.

Huh? Not sure what you're trying to say, here.

I didn't hate ENT because of VOY. In fact, I like both. I'm not a fan of the Kelvin movies overall, but Beyond was awesome, so I think it has more to do with the people making the movie than the movies themselves.

 

[donners22]

Huh? Not sure what you're trying to say, here.

I didn't hate ENT because of VOY. In fact, I like both. I'm not a fan of the Kelvin movies overall, but Beyond was awesome, so I think it has more to do with the people making the movie than the movies themselves.

There is a portion of the fanbase which vehemently criticises the current or pending iteration of Trek, often before it is released.

After years of people complaining about the Kelvin films, and years before that of complaining about Enterprise, and before that Voyager and the TNG films, etc, now they're complaining about Discovery.

My point, with a touch of sarcasm, is that at least a new Trek iteration redirects the complaining for a while.

 

[SpaceLama]

I can understand people judging the fidelity of something and finding it wanting (I may not agree).

I can understand people looking for respect for the artistic themes and spirit of something.

But I really can't sympathise with the hostility toward Discovery - because we don't even know how faithful it will be to the spirit and themes of Star Trek - and all indications actually point to "very". It's run by a fan, with no small amount of talent. The press releases have all pointed toward respect for the artistic legecy of Star Trek. He has assembled a team that seems very well considered.



Deeper themes are all that matter - ship designs and other superficial things do not (within reason - i.e. not breaking the "look" of the setting) - but they are just reflections of deeper themes anyway - Starfleet designs reflect the philosophy of the show; they are utilitarian because Star Trek is empiricist - and the new ship is not even close to being in violation of those themes - it is actually MORE faithful to them, than, say, the Enterprise E, or the Defiant.

Many objections seem to fall into this:

"It's not in the era that I wanted (despite it being really obviously telegraphed from the beginning that it would be a pre-TOS prequel, I maintained an unreasonable expectation that it would be post-Voyager), therefore I am deeply unhappy, and rather than enjoy it for what it is, I want the show to be replaced with my own preferance".

To justify this, since most fans don't agree, or are at least cautiously agnostic toward the show:

"Prequels are inherently bad, and cannot succeed - the era itself will destroy all merit the show might have".

Well, might not an unreasonable expectation, and rigid inability to find the fun in this other idea, be more of a problem, rather than the era of a show you know nothing about (in terms of deeper themes)? If you want to be happy in life, be more fluid. You may eventually get that post-Voyager show, but until then, we can all enjoy another different take on the franchise. We should all be celebrating that Star Trek is going to be enriched by even more adventures and material, which may well be of a very high standard and quality.

 

[Nyotarules]

Earth date 1965 A.D - future fans of Star Trek object to a show about a ship exploring the galaxy where no man has gone before on the grounds that no one asked them for permission to broadcast on the fairly new invention called Television.

 

[Nyotarules]

Brian Fuller ruined Star Trek and raped my childhood.

Perhaps you should speak to your parents about that

 

[locutus101]

I wonder. Does the prime universe stop after Spock leaves it? Like in DS9's children of time that disappeared when the defiant didn't get thrown back in time, except on a much bigger scale of course.

 

[Ovation]

I wonder. Does the prime universe stop after Spock leaves it? Like in DS9's children of time that disappeared when the defiant didn't get thrown back in time, except on a much bigger scale of course.

No. It doesn't. Nothing in any of the new Trek films even remotely suggests such an outcome.

 

[The Wormhole]

And indeed, IDW's comics have shows the Prime Universe continuing after Spock and Nero's departure.

 

[locutus101]

No. It doesn't. Nothing in any of the new Trek films even remotely suggests such an outcome.

Well, then maybe someone (other than Spock) could travel from one universe to the other and then back, like they do with the mirror universe.

 

[Ovation]

Well, then maybe someone (other than Spock) could travel from one universe to the other and then back, like they do with the mirror universe.

It would have to be accidental, as no one in "Prime" knows of the existence of the other. From their point of view, Nero and Spock disappeared and liked perished.

 

[shapeshifter]

Brian Fuller ruined Star Trek and raped my childhood.

Gene himself raped mine with TMP and again with TNG. lol

 

[Paradise City]

I dunno about hating it. I had severe reservations intially as a string of grumpy posts on here will a testify to. I think the odds were good that they were going to transmogify the JJ films and unceremonously cram it into the small screen, the JJ approach being a style that does not find favour with me. They may still do that of course. But I think the signals are now that they will take a new way that is distinct from anything that went on before and I find that reassuring. I'm pleasantly interested in it now.

 

[Danlav05]

Someone on Facebook was fuming the show would be led by gays and women.

is it really 2016?!

 

[Rahul]

Is thit the new thing now? Complaining about the complainers? Man, how brave of those people...

Nobody is hating Discovery as a whole yet. We have only limited information about it. We don't know the greater picture yet. That doesn't mean we aren't allowed to have opinion about said little pieces.

What do we know about Discovery?
the ship - it's ugly
the setting - I really hate prequels with a passion
Those are the major things. Other than that we have only small nuggets:
the number of episodes - 13. nobody will get passionate about that
female lead/LGBT characters - I'm okay with that. This is the Internet on the other hand, so there will be complaining about

What don't we know about Discovery?
pretty much everything else
the characters - will they be interesting or annoying?
the actors - will they be talented or bland?
the stories - will they be exciting or boring?
the general direction and tone - will it be convincing or cheesy?
etc.


We have absolutely no way to get passionate about the things we do not know yet. And nobody does on this forum. We can only discuss the things we already know yet. And we DO. But that's basically only -the ship design and -the prequel setting. I somewhat dislike the one and hate the other. That doesn't mean I have a strong emotion against Discovery as a whole. Hell, I'm looking forward to it like an excited child.

The only thing criticism in this early stage means is that the things the producers decided to show first are dicisive, and that they need to seriously step up their game in the other departments of production. That's neither impossible nor too much to ask. And they even already seem to have heard it and acted upon, as they already have promised that they have changed and try to further improve the ship design.

As soon as the actors and characters get unveiled they will be discussed too. The same when the first episode drops.

So yeah, when the tone here feels negative: It's only opinions about the things we ACTUALLY know about, not the show as a whole.

What else are we supposed to do? Feed everything up and never have an own opinion about anything?

 

[locutus101]

Someone on Facebook was fuming the show would be led by gays and women.

is it really 2016?!

There are Neonazis, so a guy like that seems mild in comparison.

My point being that if we wait for everyone to become enlightened and tolerant, we'll wait for a very very long time.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

How come you hate prequels so much Rahul?

I have found them, like anything, to be sometimes good, sometimes bad.

 

[locutus101]

How come you hate prequels so much Rahul?

I have found them, like anything, to be sometimes good, sometimes bad.

I for one, don't hate them but I find them less enjoyable than continuations. In the latter you can expect new technology, new aliens, new situations. You're not supposed to have that in prequels, not really.

For instance it's a bit awkward when Archer gets hold of cloaking technology and it never occurs to him to send it to star fleet research, he also does that with holodeck technology which he encounters twice and yet "forgets" to ask the aliens to give him the blueprints or whatever. Twice it's aliens that owe him big and would probably have agreed to do so. Seems clumsy to me.

That's why the handling of prequels is more difficult than the regular stuff. And the writers often get it wrong.

 

[Rahul]

How come you hate prequels so much Rahul?

I have found them, like anything, to be sometimes good, sometimes bad.

I just have never seen a good one.

At worst, you can smell from a mile away the whole direction everything is going. Which is not very exciting to watch. At best they are fun extended material to the original. But they are just that - extended material. They are never really independent. I love Enterprise season 4 like the next Trekkie. But try showing that shit to someone who doesn't know what a Tellarite is. It just doesn't work.

Whatever they are, there are severe creative restrictions and a built-in expectation of how events have to unfold by the audience. And they never manage to really stand on their own, or go completely unexpected or innovative ways. In this way they are even more restrictive than reboots.

I certainly like flashbacks/prequel-episodes and stuff like that. When someone has a really good and rock-solid idea about a past event (like that TNG episode with the Enterprise-C). But usually prequels are a recipe for writers not knowing what to do, fucking around in their restricted lore they have themselves boxed in, and uncapable of changing or adjust to tone and direction of a series if it doesn't work because otherwise it would remove them from the pre-planned course they have commited to.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Archer even having cloaking technology in the script was one of the worst writing decisions in Trek's history, for me - completely unnecessary. But the reason I don't think it's a problem with prequels is because of just that - it was uneccecary.

 

[locutus101]

Archer even having cloaking technology in the script was one of the worst writing decisions in Trek's history, for me - completely unnecessary. But the reason I don't think it's a problem with prequels is because of just that - it was uneccecary.

It was unnecessary but the writers can't help themselves, sooner or later they do that kind of stuff.

I mean for example, I can understand that the federation forgot about the ferengi , especially since they never got around to say who they were (wink wink) but the BORG!!! How can anyone forget about the borg?