I don't understand the hate Disco gets / still gets.

[JamesRye]

Season 4 did a great job with that Trek feeling.

First season of a Trek show that I gave up on

I made it through the first 4 episodes of Season 4 and realised that I was just watching out of some weird sense of loyalty and love for all things Star Trek. It had become a slog. I'd decided that I wasn't going to bother with SNW, but here in the UK, we can watch the first three episodes for free on Amazon Prime - though I won't be signing up to Paramount + until TMP-DE and ALL of Season 1 of SNW is on there.

 

[fireproof78]

First season of a Trek show that I gave up

It happens to all of us, some later than others.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

First season of a Trek show that I gave up on

I made it through the first 4 episodes of Season 4 and realised that I was just watching out of some weird sense of loyalty and love for all things Star Trek. It had become a slog. I'd decided that I wasn't going to bother with SNW, but here in the UK, we can watch the first three episodes for free on Amazon Prime - though I won't be signing up to Paramount + until TMP-DE and ALL of Season 1 of SNW is on there.

I gave up Enterprise season 1 4 episodes in. Thank goodness Discovery came along and got me back into all things trek.

 

[JamesRye]

I gave up Enterprise season 1 4 episodes in. Thank goodness Discovery came along and got me back into all things trek.

Yeah, Enterprise wasn't great was it. Little wonder that it was cancelled.

 

[Lord Garth]

VOY Season 6 is the first season I gave up on. But I didn't really give it much of a chance. I was there for the first three episodes to see what Ron Moore brought to the table, then I was out. Almost a decade later, in 2008, when I gave VOY another chance, I found out htat had I stuck around, the very next episode after I stopped watching was "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy", which was a lot ot fun. And there were other episodes I liked once the Hater Blinders were off. But they had to be off. Otherwise, watching is a waste of time.

 

[Vger23]

Having been through this a bunch of times already, and having actually been on both sides, I'm getting bored with this process now. I want to say, "Can we just not do this again and say we did? Thanks!"

That's kind of where I'm at. I'm just bored with it. It's exhausting. I wish I had that level of passion and energy, but I really don't. I have learned that I like what I like, and I don't what I don't...and other people's ramblings aren't really going to change my mind on that. It's kind of a bummer because I used to like getting into heated / spirited debates, but now everything is so personal it's insane. People get all bent out of shape, or I get bent out of shape...and it's stupid.

I've also learned that there can be plenty of things that don't make sense or aren't in the spirit of "continuity" with a show or movie series...and it really doesn't affect my "in the moment" enjoyment of a story. A perfect case was this week's SNW episode. There were plenty of times I thought to myself "Wow...if Kirk fought THIS Gorn, he'd have been killed in about 2 min flat"...but I don't care...because I enjoyed the episode for what it was. I can't look at Pike's quarters or Discovery's turbolift system without laughing to myself at how ridiculous it all is. But it doesn't take away from my enjoyment of the stories. I'm very grateful for that I guess.

It reminds me of reviews I've seen on YouTube by actual naval aviators for Top Gun: Maverick. They all basically say "yeah, there's a lot of stuff that's unrealistic about the movie, but if it were made for realism, it would not have been nearly as entertaining for audiences as it was." And they all give it a rave review, in spite of the fact that they know it's kind of ridiculous.

I think a lot of people can't unburden themselves from their own expectations of what things SHOULD be (whether that's continuity, tone, "feel," whatever) and it shackles them from just sitting back and enjoying free of burden.

But yeah, after 40 years of it....it's exhausting and boring.

 

[fireproof78]

I think a lot of people can't unburden themselves from their own expectations of what things SHOULD be (whether that's continuity, tone, "feel," whatever) and it shackles them from just sitting back and enjoying free of burden.

That's how I feel and to me it's worse because it shows a lack of self reflection on what is appealing to Star Trek in the first place.

 

[C.E. Evans]

For me, the only time I ever got bent out of shape about Trek was during the initial run of ENT, but thankfully my "indignant fanboy" phase didn't last that terribly long. These days, I look back at that time and laugh at how petty it was to complain about a TV show from the 2000s not being perfectly in synch with a TV show from the 1960s. The Kelvin Timeline movies may actually have helped me realize that it was all about creative choices by the current Powers That Be, and if they decided that continuity is flexible, then so it is.

I don't buy into the DIS (and now SNW) exist in an alternate timeline stuff because I don't need to. I don't need to reconcile any discrepancies between those shows and TOS because it's a waste of time and effort. I understand how important Trek lore and continuity is to some people. When there was no new Trek TV shows or movies being made, all Trekkers had was the lore and they were the ones that kept the fire burning when it seemed Trek was dead. It is totally fair to say that their passion about the Star Trek Universe is what made TMP (a total snooze-fest to most non-Trekkers) a success and spawned later Trek movies. The success of those films lead to TNG and the rest is of course history. That being said, after so many Trek shows and with so many different creators, Trek doesn't have a singular vision anymore. It has to be looked at as a series of different productions with different takes on Trek's past, present, and future. Despite a number of visual differences, It maintains a general continuity that actually holds up pretty well. Not perfectly, but still pretty well for a soon to be 56-year old franchise with different creators at the helm.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't buy into the DIS (and now SNW) exist in an alternate timeline stuff because I don't need to. I don't need to reconcile any discrepancies between those shows and TOS because it's a waste of time and effort. I understand how important Trek lore and continuity is to some people. When there was no new Trek TV shows or movies being made, all Trekkers had was the lore and they were the ones that kept the fire burning when it seemed Trek was dead. It is totally fair to say that their passion about the Star Trek Universe is what made TMP (a total snooze-fest to most non-Trekkers) a success and spawned later Trek movies. The success of those films lead to TNG and the rest is of course history. That being said, after so many Trek shows and with so many different creators, Trek doesn't have a singular vision anymore. It has to be looked at as a series of different productions with different takes on Trek's past, present, and future. Despite a number of visual differences, It maintains a general continuity that actually holds up pretty well. Not perfectly, but still pretty well for a soon to be 56-year old franchise with different creators at the helm.

I think this hedges closer to a deeper truth around Trek fans, and genre fans in general, than many are aware of, much less willing to admit. Investing in the franchise took time, and effort and became part of the identity of many in an effort to save their beloved franchise. There was a level of elitism in the feeling of being someone who could identify different starships, find the trivia, and take pride in their confidence that this knowledge was helping to support their beloved franchise. As such it becomes more difficult to accept any changes because there is a feeling of disrespect to the hard work of several to maintain the Trek franchise for so long.

It's a fascinating thing, and one that I don't think many are ever really conscious of in the day to day.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I don't think there's any big mystery to be figured out to understand why people already predisposed to be annoyed by inconsistencies get even more annoyed when it happens with a series they're knowledgable about and enjoy.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think there's any big mystery to be figured out to understand why people already predisposed to be annoyed by inconsistencies get even more annoyed when it happens with a series they're knowledgable about and enjoy.

Sure there is. Because people enjoy different things on different levels. I am fairly knowledgeable about Trek AND I don't get annoyed by inconsistencies. I get annoyed with inconsistencies in history, in human behavior, and in food preferences, but not in fictional inconsistences that I know way more about than any of my math classes.

So, yeah, it's a mystery to me and one I enjoy unpacking, especially with the highly emotional responses expressed.

 

[dupersuper]

I get annoyed with inconsistencies ...in food preferences

Please elaborate.

 

[fireproof78]

Please elaborate.

I believe Calvin and Hobbes illustrated this quite well:

 

[ananta]

VOY Season 6 is the first season I gave up on. But I didn't really give it much of a chance. I was there for the first three episodes to see what Ron Moore brought to the table, then I was out. Almost a decade later, in 2008, when I gave VOY another chance, I found out htat had I stuck around, the very next episode after I stopped watching was "Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy", which was a lot ot fun. And there were other episodes I liked once the Hater Blinders were off. But they had to be off. Otherwise, watching is a waste of time.

Wow, we both quit Voyager at exactly the same time. I couldn’t say I hadn’t given it a chance, but I was just utterly bored by it. I think Farscape was on the scene by that point and it was just everything that Voyager wasn’t for me: fresh, bold, creative, weird, alien and sexy. I didn’t revisit Voyager until 2011. I found it passable, and at times pretty decent, as long as I kept my expectations low. At least when DSC came along I found it fresh and engaging for all its issues.

 

[fireproof78]

I think Farscape was on the scene by that point and it was just everything that Voyager wasn’t for me: fresh, bold, creative, weird, alien and sexy.

That was part of what drew me away. Scifi channel had a lot of original programming that I preferred over Voyager and so I stepped away and basically preferred fan clubs and magazines over watching the show. I caught episodes here and there but that's not something I made any effort to watch, unlike Farscape, SG-1, and the Invisible Man.

 

[ananta]

I

That was part of what drew me away. Scifi channel had a lot of original programming that I preferred over Voyager and so I stepped away and basically preferred fan clubs and magazines over watching the show. I caught episodes here and there but that's not something I made any effort to watch, unlike Farscape, SG-1, and the Invisible Man.

The competition just exploded around that time, and House of Berman weren’t keeping up. Aside from DS9, which I get the impression Berman didn’t even like even though he co-created it, they were still coasting on TNG and it’s format. I think VOY was a clear attempt to replicate TNG and it really floundered; not only did it not have the same calibre of writing but it was out of step with the times.

 

[Steve Roby]

I don't need to reconcile any discrepancies between those shows and TOS because it's a waste of time and effort. I understand how important Trek lore and continuity is to some people. When there was no new Trek TV shows or movies being made, all Trekkers had was the lore and they were the ones that kept the fire burning when it seemed Trek was dead.

When there was no Trek on TV or in theatres, a lot of us were reading Star Trek comics, novels, and fanzines. Given that most of them at least tried to stay consistent with whatever canon existed at that time but few of them tried to stay consistent with each other, it became pretty easy to overlook inconsistencies and just enjoy the stories on their own merits.

It also doesn't hurt that some of us got into Star Trek a long time ago. We learned pretty early on that even limiting yourself to canon Trek meant accepting inconsistencies. TOS Klingons look different almost every time they appear. In The Voyage Home, Kirk and the gang act like they haven't visited the 20th century a few times already and definitely know what things like exact change are. TNG Trill and DS9 Trill are significantly different. There have always been inconsistencies.

That being said, after so many Trek shows and with so many different creators, Trek doesn't have a singular vision anymore. It has to be looked at as a series of different productions with different takes on Trek's past, present, and future. Despite a number of visual differences, It maintains a general continuity that actually holds up pretty well. Not perfectly, but still pretty well for a soon to be 56-year old franchise with different creators at the helm.

Trek didn't even have a singular vision in the 1960s. Did it support or oppose the Vietnam War? Depends which episode you watch. You'll get a definite anti-war message from "A Taste of Armageddon" and "Errand of Mercy," but in "A Private Little War," Kirk decides that sometimes you just have to keep a nasty little war going on in some far away less advanced place. TNG changed the Prime Directive from being don't interfere if you can avoid it to being an excuse to sit by and watch whole civilizations die out. Roddenberry wasn't the only one setting out the Trek vision, and his idea of what that vision was changed between TOS and TNG anyway. As for TNG, was it feminist or misogynist? Racist or anti-racist? Depends which episodes you watch. I'm not saying anyone involved with TNG ever deliberately set out to be racist or misogynist, but it happened occasionally anyway.

Basically, if someone tells me they don't like new Trek because it's inconsistent with old Trek, or because it's not adhering to Gene's vision, I can tune out. They're giving excuses, not explaining what they really don't like -- or they never really knew anything about Star Trek.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Basically, if someone tells me they don't like new Trek because it's inconsistent with old Trek, or because it's not adhering to Gene's vision, I can tune out. They're giving excuses, not explaining what they really don't like -- or they never really knew anything about Star Trek.

Exactly.

Even the much vaunted 'Gene's Vision' wasn't even consistent within the man's own mind. When TAS came out it was canon until it wasn't when TNG came out, by which time much of TOS and TOS movies weren't canon according to the Great Bird. Sometimes there was a logic to his thinking, sometimes he was pettily excluding works that he wasn't involved in.

Anyone and their aunt can not like a given slice of Star Trek as far as I'm concerned. It's when they describe Trek from TOS to ENT as having consistency or start harping about the sacred words and thoughts of Roddenberry that I switch off. That and reading that the canon wasn't 'respected'.

 

[C.E. Evans]

There have always been inconsistencies.

Preaching to the choir there, and already covered.

Trek didn't even have a singular vision in the 1960s.

You missed my point there. Look at the bigger picture. It did indeed have a singular vision in the 1960s with the original Star Trek production team--initially spearheaded by Gene Roddenberry and later by Fred Freiberger. They produced 79 episodes of Trek and established what Trek was back then. TOS Movies aside, then came TNG in the 1980s and what would ultimately become known as the Rick Berman Era that would run until the mid 2000s. And now we have the Alex Kurtzman Era that began in the late 2010s. The main thing to take away from this is that there hasn't been one person overseeing Trek--it has had different people in charge, each with their own ideas of what Trek should be. Instead of looking at Trek as some sort of real historical piece where everything fits together perfectly, it really should be looked at it for what is--a series of individual productions by different producers that share a general continuity, rather than a 100% consistent one.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Instead of looking at Trek as some sort of real historical piece where everything fits together perfectly, it really should be looked at it for what is--a series of individual productions by different producers that share a general continuity, rather than a 100% consistent one.

That's exactly how I see it. I actually think it's more interesting to regard that way as well, rather than as future-history as you say. Plus looking at it from a production standpoint saves me all the headaches and hand wringing about canon.