What do older fans think?
- Thread starter Admiral Jean-Luc Picard
- Start date
Can people define theirterms? Seriously! "Science fiction" is a rather broad brush at this point, with a scale of harder to softer and a wide variety in between. And, dare I ask people to define "good" science fiction? So maybe, just maybe, we can have civil conversation rather than the sniping?
The forum exists for opinions, and I don't see any sniping.
I personally think "science fiction" must be based on imagined scientific and technological advances. I think the imagined "science" and the imagined "technological advances" must be equallyas important as the "fiction". The film "Signs" is described as a science fiction horror film, but I don't think "science fiction" fits, as there is little to no science involved... there is no inherent "science" in alien visitors or an alien invasion.
I can define good science fiction perfectly. Good science fiction is science fiction that one likes, bad science fiction is science fiction that one does not like. Good and bad are subjective terms. I took exception to someone saying "We" learned what "good" science fiction is by way of some new show that he likes. No, the poster found a genre, sub genre or portrayal of science fiction that appealed more to him. It means nothing whatsoever to me.
Fair enough.
Almost three years in, I'm still trying to figure it out myself. So welcome to the Club. We have Romulan Ale in the back. My personal secret stash. The good stuff.
29? I don't understand hate watching two...seems excessive.
15 episodes for season 1, 14 for season 2. There was one person on this board who hate-watched Enterprise. Don't remember if he made it to the end.
He did.
Not an older fan as such, but have previously made criticisms of Discovery.
Star Trek has always worked as an episodic series with an ensemble cast and suddenly experimenting by turning it into a serialised series from a POV perspective was always a gamble. The fact it is a POV from the perspective of a bland, poorly written Mary Sue character that the whole universe, plot points and events all ridiculously revolve around makes for bad story writing. Both this and the serialised format have also led to other characters not being properly developed and unlike other Trek series feel more superfluous.
If this wasn't enough, the series setting is supposed to be in the TOS era yet the jarring visual reboot, radical redesign of the Klingons, introduction of the spore drive and departure from previously established continuity breaks suspension of belief even for science fiction and fantasy and takes you out of the story.
All this, along with the annoying snappy MCU style dialogue makes for an incredibly flawed Star Trek series. Star Trek: Picard acts as something of a course correction in this respect for all its faults and feels more 'Star Trek' than Discovery ever did.
Star Trek has always worked as an episodic series with an ensemble cast and suddenly experimenting by turning it into a serialised series from a POV perspective was always a gamble. The fact it is a POV from the perspective of a bland, poorly written Mary Sue character that the whole universe, plot points and events all ridiculously revolve around makes for bad story writing. Both this and the serialised format have also led to other characters not being properly developed and unlike other Trek series feel more superfluous.
If this wasn't enough, the series setting is supposed to be in the TOS era yet the jarring visual reboot, radical redesign of the Klingons, introduction of the spore drive and departure from previously established continuity breaks suspension of belief even for science fiction and fantasy and takes you out of the story.
All this, along with the annoying snappy MCU style dialogue makes for an incredibly flawed Star Trek series. Star Trek: Picard acts as something of a course correction in this respect for all its faults and feels more 'Star Trek' than Discovery ever did.
Fan since the 70s.....disagree with everything you said. Cheers.
47 here. Been a fan since the only thing that existed was TOS reruns and FASA RPG games. Did not like DSC first-run, but after watching it again with the gf I found a better appreciation for it. I actually like it better than I like PIC. I still don't buy it as a prequel to TOS though. To me the Discoverse might as well be the Kelvinverse.
Ok...using up this free month to binge the show and finished (well still working on Short Treks).
Overall assessment ... amazing production values and I like a lot of the characters.
But shoving in all the TOS references seemed unneeded... the one thing that WAS ignored was Captain Garth and Axanar...THAT would have been nice.
And this should have been a Kelvinprise prequel...it would have made more sense in production values.
So basically...i will wait until another free trial to binge the next season...but meßes with my continuity and just fuels the "I could have done it better " thoughts...
Overall assessment ... amazing production values and I like a lot of the characters.
But shoving in all the TOS references seemed unneeded... the one thing that WAS ignored was Captain Garth and Axanar...THAT would have been nice.
And this should have been a Kelvinprise prequel...it would have made more sense in production values.
So basically...i will wait until another free trial to binge the next season...but meßes with my continuity and just fuels the "I could have done it better " thoughts...
No, that would have given a certain fan film producer/con man too much of a thrill.
I do wish they'd do a Short Trek or something that interpreted the Battle of Axanar very differently from said never-was fan film debacle.
It almost feels as if Discovery was made because of that (still unreleased) fan film.
Only in the fantasies of a certain wannabe fan film producer
I'd say the laat 3 movies had a little more to do with it.
Last edited:
It only showed where fan interest lies, as did the Kelvin films, Star Trek: Continues and Star Trek: New Voyages (or whatever their names are).
Also, it showed interest in themes of war, darkness, and heroes struggling.
Be careful what you wish for...
If Discovery had continued in the 23rd Century, I would've had Garth...
... but with a twist. Garth's tactics were required reading when Kirk was at the Academy. That predates DSC. So I'd have the Battle of Axanar have nothing to do with Klingons.
Incidentally, it should be noted that the idea that the Battle of Axanar was related to the Klingons comes from FASA. And is thus non-canon and isn't even anything that the people behind Axanar even came up with themselves.
Why would I want this? To show those people the character isn't theirs and the story behind Garth of Izar isn't what they thought it was.
... but with a twist. Garth's tactics were required reading when Kirk was at the Academy. That predates DSC. So I'd have the Battle of Axanar have nothing to do with Klingons.
Incidentally, it should be noted that the idea that the Battle of Axanar was related to the Klingons comes from FASA. And is thus non-canon and isn't even anything that the people behind Axanar even came up with themselves.
Why would I want this? To show those people the character isn't theirs and the story behind Garth of Izar isn't what they thought it was.
Last edited:
Well I'm very old and I like it. Right now I'd rank DSC in the top 4 Trek series and climbing. Season 1 was the best first season of any Trek show, and season 3 seems pretty promising.
Much like TNG, Discovery has become the crux point for almost every other Trek show happening and established streaming platform, its creation will be seen as one of the most important Trek events within the franchise's history.
RAMA
Much like TNG, Discovery has become the crux point for almost every other Trek show happening and established streaming platform, its creation will be seen as one of the most important Trek events within the franchise's history.
RAMA
Similar threads
- Locked
