THe only reason I check both forums is to see if there's news in the seasons coming up. Sometimes I'll post I liked an episode. I've been dragged into discussion. I regret them all.
Do people still watch Star Trek to enjoy it?
- Thread starter Mage
- Start date
THe only reason I check both forums is to see if there's news in the seasons coming up. Sometimes I'll post I liked an episode. I've been dragged into discussion. I regret them all.
This is true. But it doesn't make things any better when dealing with constant fault-finders (who'll shift goalposts in order to remain fault-finders) or the relentlessly negative.
Then there are people who think "But I keep watching in hope that I'll like it!" We're three seasons in. If they don't like Discovery by now, they're not going to like it ever. Who are they fooling? They need to move on to something they do like and let the people who enjoy the show enjoy it. "But I have to watch it all!" I've seen too many of them say. Well, if they can't move on from watching it, I'll move on from talking about it with them.
If I just hated it, I wouldn’t waste my time. Hate watching is dumb.
I absolutely adore Lower Decks. In my mind it easily had the best first season of any Trek since TOS. I cannot wait for S2.
I feel with Disco that I am watching to find something to love about it, to give me a reason to watch S4. S1 was bad and S2 very mediocre (except for Chris Pike who was great.) In other words, for me it needs to make the S3 jump in quality ala TNG or at least something close. And so far it’s been better but there is a ways to go. If I end up hating the rest of the season I won’t tune in for S4 unless the season ends on a cliff hanger. Like I said, hate watching is dumb.
I liked S1 of Picard for the most part so no issue there.
I absolutely adore Lower Decks. In my mind it easily had the best first season of any Trek since TOS. I cannot wait for S2.
I feel with Disco that I am watching to find something to love about it, to give me a reason to watch S4. S1 was bad and S2 very mediocre (except for Chris Pike who was great.) In other words, for me it needs to make the S3 jump in quality ala TNG or at least something close. And so far it’s been better but there is a ways to go. If I end up hating the rest of the season I won’t tune in for S4 unless the season ends on a cliff hanger. Like I said, hate watching is dumb.
I liked S1 of Picard for the most part so no issue there.
Interesting, I am pro Black pete and I have experienced exactly the opposite, especialy the violent.
But that is another discussion.
But is there a new tv show that is from a franchise that didn't get hate or massive critics?
Yup.
Enjoyment and quality are not mutually exclusive.
Do I get enjoyment out of nuTrek? Some - or at least enough to warrant paying for it.
Do I think it's quality television by 2020 standards? Not remotely.
People still get enjoyment from watching old Baywatch reruns. Boom mics, single takes, and all.
Do I get enjoyment out of nuTrek? Some - or at least enough to warrant paying for it.
Do I think it's quality television by 2020 standards? Not remotely.
People still get enjoyment from watching old Baywatch reruns. Boom mics, single takes, and all.
I watched PIC because it was called Star Trek, and I thought it would be a thoughtful, adult drama. Dumb me. I trusted Chabon. DSC I watch because my wife and I watch it together because it is called Star Trek, and she watches it.
I watch one series of another franchise I love.
We watch old eps of past Trek series on Netflix. Right now it's TNG S2 b/c I totally missed it, starting grownup life. It's pretty good. Laughable at parts, but I like it.
I watch one series of another franchise I love.
We watch old eps of past Trek series on Netflix. Right now it's TNG S2 b/c I totally missed it, starting grownup life. It's pretty good. Laughable at parts, but I like it.
This is the big thing for me. Relatively speaking, the CBS fare is pretty simplistic compared to what else is on.
Yup.
It's why I'm getting tried of the old "Like old Trek?" whataboutisms. Most of old Trek came out before Sopranos -- a show that fundamentally changed the scope of the medium. It's a complexly different ballgame now.
I watch a little to help me go to sleep at night. But only the old stuff that I'm so familiar with that the sounds on the TV don't arouse curiosity about what's going on, onscreen. I don't watch much of the All Access crap at all. I liked some of Picard, and the few Lower Decks episodes that I caught.
Well, if that weren't true on a dedicated Star Trek forum they'd really be in the shit, wouldn't they?
That's like saying "Most of the posters on the Facebook Washington Noname Football Team Fan Page were disappointed that the team got stomped (again) on (just about every) Sunday." Well, someone had to be, and look - they're all here!
Well, if that weren't true on a dedicated Star Trek forum they'd really be in the shit, wouldn't they?
That's like saying "Most of the posters on the Facebook Washington Noname Football Team Fan Page were disappointed that the team got stomped (again) on (just about every) Sunday." Well, someone had to be, and look - they're all here!
I watch(ed) Better Call Saul, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Orange Is the New Black. (Edited to add I've seen some of Stranger Things and Black Mirror too, and I liked what I saw of them) I still like Discovery and Picard. I'm going to be watching Downton Abbey soon. So the "All those shows out there!" argument doesn't work with me.
Usually, whenever I see someone pull the "All those shows out there!" routine, it's comic book shows (like whatever Marvel or DC is putting out) or The Mandalorian. Occasionally, someone will mention an HBO show, but none of them ever will top the rawness that was Oz. Which I've seen several people say they don't have the stomach for.
We just have different tastes. Period.
There are two different groups of people complaining about DSC/PIC: Those who want to go back to 1987-2005 Trek and those who think they're not like "All Those Shows Out There!" So you have one group of people saying one thing ("It's not enough like Old Trek!") and another group of people saying another ("It's too much like Old Trek!") Neither group is right.
Usually, whenever I see someone pull the "All those shows out there!" routine, it's comic book shows (like whatever Marvel or DC is putting out) or The Mandalorian. Occasionally, someone will mention an HBO show, but none of them ever will top the rawness that was Oz. Which I've seen several people say they don't have the stomach for.
We just have different tastes. Period.
There are two different groups of people complaining about DSC/PIC: Those who want to go back to 1987-2005 Trek and those who think they're not like "All Those Shows Out There!" So you have one group of people saying one thing ("It's not enough like Old Trek!") and another group of people saying another ("It's too much like Old Trek!") Neither group is right.
Last edited:
We’re right for us. Just like you are right to like it based on your tastes and expectations.
In what way? And why does a show I have no desire to watch have to completely change all the shows I might like?
I don’t know if that’s true. Technically TFF & TUC fall under 1987-2005 Star Trek. Not sure who has been asking for those movie presentation styles to come back.
There are fans that might want that era back. But some fans might solely want ‘90s Trek back, or ‘80s Trek or ‘00s Trek or even ‘60s or ‘70s Trek. Some fans just want to go with the flow and to continue with the franchise with whatever new series comes out. I’m sure the younger generation when they grow up will one day want ‘10s Trek back.
To paraphrase what you said before, everyone’s taste are different.
In that case, I hope the next era of Trek is more optimistic and entertaining than what we have right now!
I'm not sure I'd consider Diff'rent Strokes a Star Trek show, but I haven't seen enough episodes to accurately judge.
Webster, on the other hand, is definitely a Star Trek show.
I suspect that, if these shows weren't Star Trek, most people who constantly rate them high probably wouldn't even bother with them. That's the problem with arguing taste as the primary (or only) criterion of quality. Pineapple is my favorite pizza topping. But I'd rather eat a well-made pizza without it than a poorly made pizza with it.
Despite what modern discourse might lead some to believe, It is possible to have some amount of rational objectivity about things. A person is (or at least should be) perfectly capable of looking at a piece of art and say, "You know that's not my thing, but it's pretty great." Or "I love the artist and the work, but this and this and this could be better."
As per my example, The Sopranos was never my thing; I was just never into the whole mob mystique. I've seen both Godfather and Goodfellas once each and that's enough for me. But I've seen a good handful of episodes and been exposed to a lot of the show through pop culture osmosis to recognize it as (probably) the greatest TV series of all time. I feel pretty much the same about Breaking Bad. (And that's probably a crime where I live.) Transversely, I love Smallville to the point where it's one of only a few shows where I could sit down and watch any given episode at anytime if prompted. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend it was ever anything beyond a cheap knock-off Buffy clone with Superman and a would-be sex-offender.
Or, I utterly loathe "Bohemian Rhapsody." It's the proverbial fingernails to chalkboard, as far as I'm concerned. And I actively avoid having to listen to it. But if someone told me they thought it was the greatest song of all time, I wouldn't argue.
So I am perfectly capable if taking myfeelings taste out of the equation.
And, believe it or not, it's true for most people as well. The most popular and touted show of the season is about chess. CHESS! And almost every word-of-social-media-mouth review of it is prefaced with phrasing a long the lines of "I don't like chess but..." Because, despite what the Star Trek fandom likes to imply, Joe Public with seek out and engage content of good quality regardless of its setting or background.
This has always been true for Star Trek. That is to say, when Star Trek is of good quality people take notice. And there is a direct historic correlation between Star Trek's [greater] success and its quality.
For example, when deconstructing them as "objectively" as possible, WOK, TVH, and ST09 are the three best films. They are also the three that have the largest pop culture foot print. That's not a coincidence. They are followed closely by FC and the first one. All the other films fall into various degrees of mediocrity.
A lot of Star Trek fans really like TUC. But, while it may or may not be a good "Star Trek film," it is not a good film. The script has huge structural issues and the conceit and the plot are entirely incongruous. More importantly, however, is Meyer just lacked the artistic edge he had during WOK. Khan was his second film and it's clear he really pushed himself. In fact, there are a lot of shot sequences so meticulously thought out that I actually think he probably spent as much time storyboarding them as he spent writing his entire treatment. He put serious thought into mise en scene and visual subtext. Shot selection and framing. Even if people aren't actively aware of that stuff, they do notice it subconsciously. Because it makes for a better cinematic experience.
But with TUC, most of that directorial drive was lost. He had become complacent, which was compounded by the fact that he was constructing an allegory that, by the time the film was released, had already lost its luster. So what was left was a weak film.
A weak film with a lot of Star Trekkieness. And that's the thing, fans love it because of its sentimentality and its very specific appeals to emotion. But those appeals are meaningless to most people. All they see is a poorly constructed film. So it fell right off the zeitgeist cliff. (Save for a few self-aggrandizing memes on George Takei's Facebook.)
nuTrek is exactly the same.
Because despite whatever "well if you read them a specific way" confirmation biased numbers might suggest, it is not greatly successful. If it were, its presence throughout high-profile social media and the like would be much greater than it is. It would be thewater-cooler Twitter-talk show each and every week instead of Mando or Gambit or Crown. But it isn't. Most Skiffy-General (Let alone TV-General) YouTube channels or TV programs only devote minimal (if any at all) time to it. The overwhelmingly vast majority of people aren't even aware of its existence. And I guarantee that if it were actually as good as the evangelists claim, people would be.
But what it does have is a lot of Star Trekkieness. The great irony of the "it's not Star Trek" bullhorns is that the only thing it has going for it is that it IS Star Trek. It drowns itself in self-referential feel goodness. Without going into spoiler territory, 'Unification III' is the perfect example of this. Remove all the "remember when" moments, and all that's left is a very bare bones plot where the set-up does not align with the DXM resolution with people shouting empty platitudes at each other in between. But every other scene pulls at the Trekkie heart strings so therefore it must be good television.
That's not how it works.
And no amount of hand-wavy fallacies will change that.
Despite what modern discourse might lead some to believe, It is possible to have some amount of rational objectivity about things. A person is (or at least should be) perfectly capable of looking at a piece of art and say, "You know that's not my thing, but it's pretty great." Or "I love the artist and the work, but this and this and this could be better."
As per my example, The Sopranos was never my thing; I was just never into the whole mob mystique. I've seen both Godfather and Goodfellas once each and that's enough for me. But I've seen a good handful of episodes and been exposed to a lot of the show through pop culture osmosis to recognize it as (probably) the greatest TV series of all time. I feel pretty much the same about Breaking Bad. (And that's probably a crime where I live.) Transversely, I love Smallville to the point where it's one of only a few shows where I could sit down and watch any given episode at anytime if prompted. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend it was ever anything beyond a cheap knock-off Buffy clone with Superman and a would-be sex-offender.
Or, I utterly loathe "Bohemian Rhapsody." It's the proverbial fingernails to chalkboard, as far as I'm concerned. And I actively avoid having to listen to it. But if someone told me they thought it was the greatest song of all time, I wouldn't argue.
So I am perfectly capable if taking my
And, believe it or not, it's true for most people as well. The most popular and touted show of the season is about chess. CHESS! And almost every word-of-social-media-mouth review of it is prefaced with phrasing a long the lines of "I don't like chess but..." Because, despite what the Star Trek fandom likes to imply, Joe Public with seek out and engage content of good quality regardless of its setting or background.
This has always been true for Star Trek. That is to say, when Star Trek is of good quality people take notice. And there is a direct historic correlation between Star Trek's [greater] success and its quality.
For example, when deconstructing them as "objectively" as possible, WOK, TVH, and ST09 are the three best films. They are also the three that have the largest pop culture foot print. That's not a coincidence. They are followed closely by FC and the first one. All the other films fall into various degrees of mediocrity.
A lot of Star Trek fans really like TUC. But, while it may or may not be a good "Star Trek film," it is not a good film. The script has huge structural issues and the conceit and the plot are entirely incongruous. More importantly, however, is Meyer just lacked the artistic edge he had during WOK. Khan was his second film and it's clear he really pushed himself. In fact, there are a lot of shot sequences so meticulously thought out that I actually think he probably spent as much time storyboarding them as he spent writing his entire treatment. He put serious thought into mise en scene and visual subtext. Shot selection and framing. Even if people aren't actively aware of that stuff, they do notice it subconsciously. Because it makes for a better cinematic experience.
But with TUC, most of that directorial drive was lost. He had become complacent, which was compounded by the fact that he was constructing an allegory that, by the time the film was released, had already lost its luster. So what was left was a weak film.
A weak film with a lot of Star Trekkieness. And that's the thing, fans love it because of its sentimentality and its very specific appeals to emotion. But those appeals are meaningless to most people. All they see is a poorly constructed film. So it fell right off the zeitgeist cliff. (Save for a few self-aggrandizing memes on George Takei's Facebook.)
nuTrek is exactly the same.
Because despite whatever "well if you read them a specific way" confirmation biased numbers might suggest, it is not greatly successful. If it were, its presence throughout high-profile social media and the like would be much greater than it is. It would be the
But what it does have is a lot of Star Trekkieness. The great irony of the "it's not Star Trek" bullhorns is that the only thing it has going for it is that it IS Star Trek. It drowns itself in self-referential feel goodness. Without going into spoiler territory, 'Unification III' is the perfect example of this. Remove all the "remember when" moments, and all that's left is a very bare bones plot where the set-up does not align with the DXM resolution with people shouting empty platitudes at each other in between. But every other scene pulls at the Trekkie heart strings so therefore it must be good television.
That's not how it works.
And no amount of hand-wavy fallacies will change that.
I stand by what I said then. Forget about Star Trek. We have different tastes in general.
Are you prepared to tell this to DS9 Fans? If you are, I'm going to grab some popcorn and watch from the bleachers.
TWOK is still referenced. TVH, not really. The 2009 Film? I think it's faded.
I like TUC, but I think it's the most dated Star Trek movie ever made. It's impossible to separate that movie from 1991.
"Unification III" is my least favorite episode not only of the third season but of Discovery. Not to throw you a curveball or anything. The Star Trekky thing I assume you're talking about wasn't enough to save it for me.
Incidentally: With the third season in its new setting, I don't miss anything about the 23rd Century or TOS. I'm surprised to hear myself say that, but I'm glad it's not there anymore. It's a combination of two things: I like the new setting and I was tired of arguing with Gatekeepers and Canonistas about the prequel setting. But either way, I'm quite content with Discovery staying in the 32nd Century.
Last edited:
Star Trek is my favorite form of entertainment in the entire market. Of course I watch it to enjoy it.
If it’s something I like, I invest time and emotion into it and I watch it, warts and all. If it doesn’t catch my attention, I am usually just not invested in it. I don’t hate it or nitpick the crap out of it...but I generally just don’t care and it’s almost like it just isn’t there.
I still have yet to see all of VOY. There are TNG episodes I haven’t seen since they aired. I was never in any particular rush to watch LD week-to-week. I like S3 of DSC, but not as much as the last two...so I talk about it here far less. It fees a little like “Discovery Lite” meets “TNG for the 2020’s”, and one of the main reasons I like the first two seasons were that they were so different from previous Trek...so the gravitation back there has left me feeling kind of meh about it all by comparison.
There’s 750+ hours of Trek, across 35 seasons from 9 distinct series (2 of which are animated) and 13 major motion pictures, all spanning 54 years.
They’re not all gonna be winners. We’re lucky there’s enough diverse material to have something for everyone.
If it’s something I like, I invest time and emotion into it and I watch it, warts and all. If it doesn’t catch my attention, I am usually just not invested in it. I don’t hate it or nitpick the crap out of it...but I generally just don’t care and it’s almost like it just isn’t there.
I still have yet to see all of VOY. There are TNG episodes I haven’t seen since they aired. I was never in any particular rush to watch LD week-to-week. I like S3 of DSC, but not as much as the last two...so I talk about it here far less. It fees a little like “Discovery Lite” meets “TNG for the 2020’s”, and one of the main reasons I like the first two seasons were that they were so different from previous Trek...so the gravitation back there has left me feeling kind of meh about it all by comparison.
There’s 750+ hours of Trek, across 35 seasons from 9 distinct series (2 of which are animated) and 13 major motion pictures, all spanning 54 years.
They’re not all gonna be winners. We’re lucky there’s enough diverse material to have something for everyone.
Last edited:
Similar threads
