What has the new series done to ruin Star Trek this time?

[fireproof78]

"Stories and characters are rubbish, I only care about producers taking care to get the details right" <--- something that literally no one has ever said.

Ad absurdum strikes again.

The emphasis of complaints always seems to come down to aesthetics. And I've seen that first hand when people complained over the "too dark" plot due to drug use, then a fan film uses the TOS aesthetic and shows Pike as an alcoholic and that's "True Trek!"

Yeah, sorry, the focus always seems to be on things that are not as important to me.

 

[Citiprime]

The emphasis of complaints always seems to come down to aesthetics. And I've seen that first hand when people complained over the "too dark" plot due to drug use, then a fan film uses the TOS aesthetic and shows Pike as an alcoholic and that's "True Trek!"

It's aesthetics, tone, and how someone feels the IP is being expressed.

For a non-Star Trek example: Batman. On film, compare the Christopher Nolan version of Batman with Joel Schumacher's version of Batman.

You wouldn't look at that collection of movies and say: "Well, you know it's all Batman" the same way people say it's all Star Trek just with different visuals so what's the fuss?

No. You would look at those movies and see that they both use the same building blocks, but they're fundamentally different in how they approach the subject. They express the themes and ideas of the source material totally different. They're different in the tone, the seriousness with which they try to explore the characters, and the world those characters inhabit. And, yes, one version puts nipples on the Batsuit and one doesn't.

And I think what some people are trying to get at is that Discovery and Strange New Worlds (specifically) sometimes doesn't feel connected to TOS or the Berman era, and their approaches to the material do not seem like they're in the same volume of material as the other previous shows.

 

[fireproof78]

You wouldn't look at that collection of movies and say: "Well, you know it's all Batman" the same way people say it's all Star Trek just with different visuals so what's the fuss?

Yes. Yes, I would. I grew up with Adam West. That's Batman.

I watched Keaton. Also Batman.

And I think what some people are trying to get at is that Discovery and Strange New Worlds (specifically) sometimes doesn't feel connected to TOS or the Berman era, and their approaches to the material do not seem like they're in the same volume of material as the other previous shows.

And you know, that's fine. But they're still Star Trek. It's not Ruined.

 

[Phoenix219]

Yes. Yes, I would. I grew up with Adam West. That's Batman.

I watched Keaton. Also Batman.


And you know, that's fine. But they're still Star Trek. It's not Ruined.

but they aren't desparately trying and pretending to be the same Batman,. and then try to tell you that Bale and Affleck are also the same exact Batman. They are clearly different incarnations of the character.

 

[fireproof78]

but they aren't desparately trying and pretending to be the same Batman,. and then try to tell you that Bale and Affleck are also the same exact Batman. They are clearly different incarnations of the character.

No but they tried to connect Keaton and Kilmer and Clooney.

I can manage different incarnations existing at once. As @Greg Cox notes, this is something comic books have done for years. I've dealt with it in the theater world. It's ok to me for these things to live together.

Others will manage differently.

And I will reiterate that this does not ruin Star Trek, the franchise, the fan base, or anything else like it. It still exists. Just like Batman keeps on existing for some dumb reason.

 

[Phoenix219]

No but they tried to connect Keaton and Kilmer and Clooney.

I can manage different incarnations existing at once. As @Greg Cox notes, this is something comic books have done for years. I've dealt with it in the theater world. It's ok to me for these things to live together.

Others will manage differently.

And I will reiterate that this does not ruin Star Trek, the franchise, the fan base, or anything else like it. It still exists. Just like Batman keeps on existing for some dumb reason.

i actually agree more then i disagree, but when TPB insist "no its the same version!" it doesn't really work. Different incarnations existing at once is just a multiverse in modern fiction, and no one would complain about that, if they weren't also being told that they are the same version. Fans like me just want acknowledgement. Say its a different narrative. aka universe. aka timeline. aka reboot. But don't piss on us, and tell us its raining.

 

[Phoenix219]

I really wanted to like SNW, and did, early on. Then, we got the Xenomorph Gorn, Kirk being there all the time, the weird season finale, and I just kinda moved on. They laid the nostalgia on so thick, that it feels like they're winking at me. That and I really enjoyed Anson Mount's run on Hell on Wheels. To the point that I treat Cullen Bohannon as an ancestor of Christopher Pike.

Just one of those things where you can't go home again.

During the S2 premiere, with all the drugged-up-war-doctor stuff, and by the musical episode, with its video game counter score mission quest thing at the end, I 100% convinced myself that this is just TOS characters playing the new "Captain Pike" holographic DLC in the rec room. Spock, Chapel, Uhura and M'Benga play it, and Kirk joins them on occasion. Its just interactive television for them.

 

[Phoenix219]

I really wanted to like SNW, and did, early on. Then, we got the Xenomorph Gorn, Kirk being there all the time, the weird season finale, and I just kinda moved on. They laid the nostalgia on so thick, that it feels like they're winking at me. That and I really enjoyed Anson Mount's run on Hell on Wheels. To the point that I treat Cullen Bohannon as an ancestor of Christopher Pike.

Just one of those things where you can't go home again.

So, Pike and O'Brien get stuck in a time portal......

 

[Farscape One]

Discovery would absolutely work better in every possible way by being set Post-Nemesis.

That still wouldn't save the godawful writing and characters, but at least it could shed some of its other baggage. There really is precisely nothing about the narrative of Discovery that needed it to be set where it was. CBS was gunning for nostalgia, but executed it with zero nostalgia. Odd strategy.

"You guys like Klingons, right?"
"Yeah, Klingons are cool!"
"Ok, check these Klingons out."
"Those aren't Klingons."
"...but... we called them Klingons. And they say words like "Kaeylescsh".
"Ok but they aren't Klingons."
"Ugh, why are Star Trek fans so toxic?"

I bolded what I am on complete agreement with. It would have avoided pretty much ALL issues with visual continuity and appearance. Almost certainly wouldn't have forced them to go to the 32nd century because they had to unchain themselves of what they locked themselves into.

This.

To this day, I still feel it's one of the cardinal mistakes of Discovery that they made her Spock's foster sister. None of the other spinoffs felt the need to have that deep of connective tissue. And there was no need for it with Discovery. They should have let Burnham's story be her own, and live or die on their ability to make it work without Spock and Sarek.

Beyond that, I think what made a lot of fans wince and wonder about what was going on is the INSISTENCE that everything was happening in the Prime Timeline from the producers and Paramount, even though right out of the gates they introduce THAT version of the Klingons.

And it felt almost like someone gaslighting you, trying to convince you that you're crazy for questioning whether any of this fit together with what had come before.

I bolded what I am in complete agreement with.

Making her the adoptive sister of Spock, who is basically the face of the franchise, telegraphs to the audience immediately that they don't believe in her or the series enough to stand on their own feet. Look at TNG... not a single character was related in any way to TOS. But they built upon what was established from TOS while still doing their own thing, just like how DS9 and VOY built upon the previous shows. ("The Naked Now" notwithstanding... I get WHY they wanted to do it, which was to bring out secret desires of the crew early. I just don't think it was a good way to do it, plus it was too early in the show to be concerned with hidden traits... we only had the pilot to get to know them. Something like 'hidden desires' would be more effective if we knew about their regular selves first. It's like trying to get to marriage before going on your first date... you're skipping all the 'get to know you' phases.)

Her relation to Spock did absolutely nothing for the show, with the exception of bringing us "Lethe", one of the only good episodes of those first two seasons. Even in season 2, when we actually see Spock, she could have simply been an old friend, classmate, or anything outside of family... and it would have changed nothing.

 

[Orphalesion]

Agreed.

More than that, to me, future installments cannot ruin a franchise because franchises by their nature, grow, change and develop. Star Trek initially was an Earth driven polity out and about, until the Federation showed up.

Star Trek is a wonderful franchise in that it fires the imagination but often times is strangled by past perceptions of it all hanging together, and external resources saying one thing is it must be correct. It hampers vision because it must squeeze in the tinier and tinier box of what is deemed "Star Trek", not by writers or producers but by fans who claim greater ownership because of greater knowledge.


It's frustrating in its limits places in enjoyable stories.

The only way, in which an instalment of a franchise can sorta, kinda, ruin part of it is this:
An instalment can "ruin" the aspect or events in the franchise it is centred on. Like for example, I didn't like ENT, so ENT "ruined" any possibility of a Star Trek story about the first Starfleet ship that I can enjoy.
But beyond that, agreed.

Humans are protective of things they interact with and feel they’ve contributed to. It doesn’t have to make sense to anyone outside of themselves.

"Humans" What humans? Which ones are you talking about? Am I not human?

And IDK maybe I just grew up in a different era where things like that seem different, but to me any fan-contribution or supplementary material (fanfic, RPGs,m fansites, video games, spin-off comics etc.) is by definition an AU (alternate universe). I have heaps of Fanon and AU for franchises I like, including Star Trek, but I would never get upset because a new instalment contradicts my fanon.

 

[Dar70]

Define respect.

I get so tired of being told this. I love a reference as much as the next fan but what gets my excitement up! Stories and characters!

Sorry, but I'm tired of being told the only thing that matters is the history. It's frustrating because some how history means more than the characters. At least, that's the impression I get from the constant haranguing over it and the supposed ruination of the franchise because it isn't built like the 60s, 80s or 2000s any more.

I don't feel respected if the character isn't there. I felt winked at and cheap.

Well of course stories and characters matter. They could have totally used these legacy characters and written them in the confines of their original narrative and believably expanded on them. But they didn't do that. To be honest they are throwing too many legacy characters in at this point.

Anyhow if it's stories and characters your are concerned about would you have been ok with a three nacelles Enterprise or one shaped like a donut? I mean why not. They already made the turbolift interiors look like a huge amusement park.

Didn't mind visual updates but they went too far in that respect as well on a few things.

 

[The Wormhole]

What is the biggest movie of the summer? Deadpool & Wolverine. What is one of the biggest things fans of that movie love? They put Wolverine in his damn yellow suit that for years the people in charge of the X-Men movies thought was ridiculous for the X-Men.

I'm pretty sure you missed the point if you actually think the reason Deadpool and Wolverine is such a success is because Wolverine is wearing an outfit similar to his comics costume.

Also, I'm pretty sure it says something if the only time in 24 years they showed Wolverine wearing the comics costume in a live action movie is the one that is basically meant to be a comedy.

 

[BillJ]

I'm pretty sure you missed the point if you actually think the reason Deadpool and Wolverine is such a success is because Wolverine is wearing an outfit similar to his comics costume.

Also, I'm pretty sure it says something if the only time in 24 years they showed Wolverine wearing the comics costume in a live action movie is the one that is basically meant to be a comedy.

Success? Largely not, but I bet it put smiles on a lot of fan faces and generated a lot of good will.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Also, I'm pretty sure it says something if the only time in 24 years they showed Wolverine wearing the comics costume in a live action movie is the one that is basically meant to be a comedy.

He doesn’t look ridiculous in it though, and the costume itself is not one of the movies jokes.

If anything, it proves that it could have worked 24 years ago, if done right, even though the widespread opinion (from not only the producers but many fans) was that it would not translate well to screen.

I think it looks perfect and nothing about it is played for laughs.

 

[1001001]

 

[fireproof78]

i actually agree more then i disagree, but when TPB insist "no its the same version!" it doesn't really work. Different incarnations existing at once is just a multiverse in modern fiction, and no one would complain about that, if they weren't also being told that they are the same version. Fans like me just want acknowledgement. Say its a different narrative. aka universe. aka timeline. aka reboot. But don't piss on us, and tell us its raining.

I think it's giving the audience credit in expecting them to understand differences in production values.

 

[HotRod]

Fans like me just want acknowledgement. Say its a different narrative. aka universe. aka timeline. aka reboot.

And yet.... fans like me appreciate that these are THE characters we've been in love with for decades. That we're finally, after all these years, giving these characters a rich and interesting backstory.

Uhura, as played by Celia Rose Gooding has made me appreciate Uhura, as played by Nichelle Nichols, all the more. Same goes for Spock and all the legacy characters.

Hell, The Menagerie becomes a much more emotional episode, now that we know much more about Pike and Spock's relationship. We can completely understand why Spock goes to the lengths he does to "save" his former Captain.

I can watch TOS and SNW and connect the two series without any trouble at all. They are the same characters. It is the same Enterprise. To take that away, damages both series, in my opinion.

Strange New Worlds makes The Original Series a far better show.

 

[Citiprime]

I'm pretty sure you missed the point if you actually think the reason Deadpool and Wolverine is such a success is because Wolverine is wearing an outfit similar to his comics costume.

Also, I'm pretty sure it says something if the only time in 24 years they showed Wolverine wearing the comics costume in a live action movie is the one that is basically meant to be a comedy.

From VARIETY:

“Deadpool & Wolverine” executive producer Wendy Jacobson recently told HeyUGuys (via IGN) that adult men were “sobbing” during Hugh Jackman‘s camera test, which marked the first time the beloved “X-Men” actor wore Wolverine’s iconic yellow and blue superhero suit from the comics. The suit alone has generated significant buzz for the upcoming Marvel tentpole, as Jackman never wore the comics-accurate costume during his previous 17-year stint playing Wolverine.​

​

“It was one of the craziest things,” Jacobson said. “It was the camera test. It was before we started shooting. To see both of those guys, first of all, in costume together was just mind-blowing, but Hugh walking out in the yellow and blue, I mean, there were grown men, like, sobbing on set. So we knew it was a special, very special thing.”​

Without getting into spoilers, a big part of the climax involves that suit and a specific piece of it that signifies that this Wolverine accepts his identity as part of the X-Men. So, yeah, the suit DOES have a part in the story, and it's not me that didn't understand what they were watching if they didn't get that. It is one of the biggest reaction moments for the movie.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm pretty sure you missed the point if you actually think the reason Deadpool and Wolverine is such a success is because Wolverine is wearing an outfit similar to his comics costume.

Also, I'm pretty sure it says something if the only time in 24 years they showed Wolverine wearing the comics costume in a live action movie is the one that is basically meant to be a comedy.

I always chuckle when someone calls what Wolverine wears in D&W "comics accurate."

 

[fireproof78]

but Hugh walking out in the yellow and blue, I mean, there were grown men, like, sobbing on set. So we knew it was a special, very special thing.”

I worry about people. A lot.