Spoilers Yeah... I give up - Star Trek has abandoned philosophical naturalism - it's depressing/juvenile

[Vger23]

Ahh, okay. I've done everything I can to avoid sports as much as possible in life, so I don't really know how people who enjoy sports act.

Being a sports fan is absolutely no different than being any other type of fan. You watch something that entertains you, you want "your team" to do well. You're happy when it does, you're despondent when it does not. You talk about it with others. There are people who hate what you love, and vice-versa.

Dead-nuts on just like being a genre or franchise fan.

 

[Ovation]

Exactly. The whole "fans are owed" something for their loyalty feels like entitlement to me. If I don't like the direction of a show, band, film series, book series, I don't buy it. That's the relationship.

Exactly.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Being a sports fan is absolutely no different than being any other type of fan. You watch something that entertains you, you want "your team" to do well. You're happy when it does, you're despondent when it does not. You talk about it with others. There are people who hate what you love, and vice-versa.

Dead-nuts on just like being a genre or franchise fan.

you even cosplay at any given event

 

[Jadeb]

It will improve. That's part of developing a show, allowing the actors to fill out their characters, etc.

I don't argue that "Old Trek was bad" so much as "Old Trek struggled too." I think DISCO gets shellacked for things that Old Trek did and that's more frustrating to me. I feel like DISCO doesn't get any slack.

I agree with you about the "fan entitlement" attitude, but I'm not sure Discovery deserves a lot of slack, or at least as much as some of the old shows. Not only does Discovery enjoy unprecedented resources and freedom, but they're charging us for the privilege of watching it. Further, I'd suggest we consider the shows in their period context. TOS, at its best, was not just great Star Trek but some of the finest television of its time, I'd argue. TNG, when it hit its stride, was strong TV by early '90s standards. Discovery, on the other hand, is trying to compete as prestige television in the era of prestige television but failing to bat in that league.

That's one reason I'm more willing to forgive some of the Orville's sins -- and there are many -- than I am Discovery's. It mostly succeeds at what it's trying to do in a way that Discovery does not. And I don't think that's a terribly unfair metric.

 

[fireproof78]

I agree with you about the "fan entitlement" attitude, but I'm not sure Discovery deserves a lot of slack, or at least as much as some of the old shows. Not only does Discovery enjoy unprecedented resources and freedom, but they're charging us for the privilege of watching it. Further, I'd suggest we consider the shows in their period context. TOS, at its best, was not just great Star Trek but some of the finest television of its time, I'd argue. TNG, when it hit its stride, was strong TV by early '90s standards. Discovery, on the other hand, is trying to compete as prestige television in the era of prestige television but failing to bat in that league.

That's one reason I'm more willing to forgive some of the Orville's sins -- and there are many -- than I am Discovery's. It mostly succeeds at what it's trying to do in a way that Discovery does not. And I don't think that's a terribly unfair metric.

I think every new show is allowed growing pains. So, I'll agree to disagree as to measuring it against Orville. I'm willing to forgive sins of a show as the show is, not against TOS, or TNG, or DS9, or Orville.

But, that's me. Discovery may enjoy "unprecedented resources and freedom" but it's also enjoying microscopic nitpicking.

 

[Jadeb]

But, that's me. Discovery may enjoy "unprecedented resources and freedom" but it's also enjoying microscopic nitpicking.

Can't argue that. But it comes with the territory, I'd think. Surely no one who signed up for Star Trek's bold journey into pay TV could have expected otherwise.

 

[fireproof78]

Can't argue that. But it comes with the territory, I'd think. Surely no one who signed up for Star Trek's bold journey into pay TV could have expected otherwise.

Doesn't make it less frustrating.

 

[nutshell]

The OP is wrong on so many levels. At the heart of it is that all the “mysticism” on Discovery has a scientific/natural backing whether the OP acknowledges that or not.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

The OP is wrong on so many levels. At the heart of it is that all the “mysticism” on Discovery has a scientific/natural backing whether the OP acknowledges that or not.

He also ignores it happening in every other trek series.

 

[fireproof78]

The OP is wrong on so many levels. At the heart of it is that all the “mysticism” on Discovery has a scientific/natural backing whether the OP acknowledges that or not.

Is that "in a nutshell"

I do agree, but I also saw the opportunity. I'll show myself out.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Is that "in a nutshell"

I'm so glad YOU did it, because I stopped myself twice posting it

 

[fireproof78]

I'm so glad YOU did it, because I stopped myself twice posting it

It was worth it.

 

[Tenacity]

The OP is wrong on so many levels. At the heart of it is that all the “mysticism” on Discovery has a scientific/natural backing whether the OP acknowledges that or not.

Even the "destiny?"

 

[fireproof78]

Even the "destiny?"

Well, that's been a part of Star Trek since at least Star Trek II.

 

[Refuge]

That's utter bullshit. What psychological depth there seemed to be, turned to to be just doppelgänger fakery.

Exactly!

 

[Refuge]

To me, this show will not be allowed to stand on its own without being criticized to pieces.

That cuts both ways. To some Discovery has failed to compare well with previous Trek, to others previous Trek is a goldmine to pick out examples to put any other Trek down to excuse Discovery.

Not many threads deal with Discovery as stand alone.

 

[Pauln6]

A lot of my friends who are Luke warm fans of Star Trek absolutely love Discovery. I admire it's approach to storytelling and that fact that it is doing what Enterprise should have done. I'm less enamoured of the swearing and gore as I don't think they're necessary.

I think it's entirely in keeping with Star Trek philosophy, more so than the first two NuTrek movies, even if I dislike the concept of instantaneous travel, which I think will be done by the end of the season in any event.

 

[fireproof78]

That cuts both ways. To some Discovery has failed to compare well with previous Trek, to others previous Trek is a goldmine to pick out examples to put any other Trek down to excuse Discovery.

Not many threads deal with Discovery as stand alone.

Yes, and I know that that is human nature. I would rather evaluate it as it stands on its own before evaluating it within the greater work.

In that sense, I guess, for me, yeah, it is a "reboot" (if we must use that term) in that I want to evaluate it on its own merits.

I think it's entirely in keeping with Star Trek philosophy, more so than the first two NuTrek movies,

Seriously? Kirk reaching for his full potential isn't keeping within the human journey and evolutionary optimism in TOS?

 

[ralfy]

I take every show as it is portrayed, at face value. When seen this way there's no reason to complain or carp because every criticism is mostly about a comparison to something else in our head. This is a show created by other people based on what's in their different heads. Obviously it is going to be different from what's in mine. Art is a dictatorship, and you can find ways to enjoy it if you try. On the other hand you could spend your time analyzing it to bits. YMMV.

If what's in their heads is always going to be different from what's in yours, then how can you enjoy any show?

 

[fireproof78]

If what's in their heads is always going to be different from what's in yours, then how can you enjoy any show?

The question of every artist, sadly.