Those actors tended to make VOY watchable for me. Picardo as well, though I certainly prefer "Latent Image" as a showcase of his acting abilities. Never cared for "Real Life."
Well, I love the glimpses. I look forward to more congealing of the team.
The Dismal Frontier (Thinkpiece on Discovery, Star Trek and Utopian Science Fiction)
- Thread starter Donker
- Start date
"Tin Man" is a good example of how the so-called "A" and "B" plots mesh together well, IMO. Tam's struggle with socialization naturally fits within the contextual frame of the race to the space entity with the Romulans.
I remember when my parents got a VHS of the first Voyager episode for me from Blockbuster, before it aired here
It was amazing, I had a new Star Trek series in my hands; I watched it hanging on every little detail. I really loved it, despite what people may think of the first season. I thought the Kazon were interesting and the Delta Quadrant seemed like somewhere far from civilization with these tribes wandered around salvaging things like Mad Max. I remember the episode with the singularity, and thinking it had really cool believable fringe science, like something off BBC's Horizon.
I continued to get some Voyager and DS9 episodes from blockbuster before they aired on BBC. Voyager was, several years later, also the first Trek series that I ever got bored of, watching a VHS of a new episode; I think it was around season 6, when I fell asleep during a Trek episode for the first time ever.
My impression to this day is that the first five seasons of Voyager were good, and that Season 4 is one of the finest seasons of Star Trek in particular (Seven's character arc was damn good material; the Hirogen, Year of Hell, the Relay Network too), but that the actors and writing felt tired in the last two seasons, and the Borg were neutered.
ENT on the other hand... I can enjoy it for what it is, but it still feels like many bad choices were made.
Last edited:
Aw that sounds kind of neat.I remember when my parents got a VHS of the first Voyager episode for me from Blockbuster, before it aired here
It was amazing, I had a new Star Trek series in my hands; I watched it hanging on every little detail. I really loved it, despite what people may think of the first season. I thought the Kazon were interesting and the Delta Quadrant seemed like somewhere far from civilization with these tribes wandered around salvaging things like Mad Max. I remember the episode with the singularity, and thinking it had really cool believable fringe science, like something off BBC's Horizon.
I continued to get some Voyager and DS9 episodes from blockbuster before they aired on BBC. Voyager was, several years later, also the first Trek series that I ever got bored of, watching a VHS of a new episode; I think it was around season 6, when I fell asleep during a Trek episode for the first time ever.
My impression to this day is that the first five seasons of Voyager were good, and that Season 4 is one of the finest seasons of Star Trek in particular (Seven's character arc was damn good material; the Hirogen, Year of Hell, the Relay Network too), but that the actors and writing felt tired in the last two seasons, and the Borg were neutered.
ENT on the other hand... I can enjoy it for what it is, but it still feels like many bad choices were made.
(I've only just bought the first season of Enterprise and am enjoying it. I actually think being so disenchanted with Discovery has allowed to me to savour previous Trek).
Thing is, any ex Shenzou crew should have those relationships. They served for years together.
Thanks for the kind words.
Probably because we consciously modeled the story on TOS A/B plots like "Journey To Babel" and not what TNG had been doing up to that point.
When I can broadly distinguish A plot vs B plot and mentally check them off it's not a good fit. I agree that Tin Man is a fine example of A and B working very well together.
After reading that think-piece this is exactly why I'm working on writing a new Star Trek universe that brings back the idea of a hopeful future in space, "Humanities Voyage Amongst the Stars". Modern Cinema/TV have sadly perverted Sci-fi into either a biased mouthpiece for social agendas, or Zach Synder like inversions of hopeful things turned dark. I hope for change in times to come.
Usually both. Instead of getting one hefty story that is appropriate for the 45-minute format, you get two 20-minute stories that simply don't have time to do anything very interesting.
Voyager is comfort food. You love it because the characters have become your good pals and you want to spend an hour hanging out with them eating ice cream. There are some really great episodes, but the hit/miss ratio was the worst in Trek outside TNG S1 and ENT S1-S2.
Have you not watched Star Trek before?
A rather condescending/rhetorical question on your part. If the intent was to come off as rude then you nailed it on the head sir. As for my statement I stick to it. There is a distinct difference between addressing social cases with maturity and challenging them versus just attempting to be a mouthpiece for a singular world-view and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Especially in the case of Star Trek a show that in theory is meant to display a brilliant future for humanity as we tackle whole varieties of new and old cases with tact while in turn exploring the galaxy. To the point of the think-piece that Discovery purposefully looks to either avoid or remove wholesale.
I'll repeat my question: What social agenda was actually pushed in Discovery? Part of the problem was that it felt like a soulless corporate product that really wasn't pushing any boundaries.
If you had read the whole sentence bar netting only a segment to quote your question would be answered friend. I'll repeat, "either a biased mouthpiece for social agendas, or Zach Synder like inversions of hopeful things turned dark". DSC inverts the premise of Star Trek. What was once an overall premise of hopeful exploration is instead turned into as quote, "Game of Thrones template of murder, sex, and unexpected resurrections", with little regard for the heart of what once was for what is perceived by studios/publishers as what the lowest common denominator desires. Star Trek by name, not by premise. I ask respectfully that in the future you refrain from condescending questions and instead just ask to the point with all components of a statement. No need to undermine my love as a fan by questioning whether I've watched the show. Thank you.
I'll admit that I haven't seen the last three episodes, but I didn't find it particularly dark. Heck, I think Mad Men was darker content wise than Discovery.
I don't think Discovery had a hopeful agenda to start off with. It's not like we were introduced to a bunch of scientists giddy with excitement and discovery embarking on sharing the love and exploring new worlds. Federation values?? What are those?
Things didn't become dark and perverted it was pretty much just what we got.
Things didn't become dark and perverted it was pretty much just what we got.
Considering the themes they chose, they must have had to work hard to say absolutely nothing.
Huh? Hasn't Trek always been a biased mouthpiece for social agendas?
Similar threads
- Locked
