Is STLD what STD should have been?
- Thread starter nooobeee
- Start date
Damn man, nice job finding a 6 year old post. That's getting close to actual archaeology.
It doesn't really matter what you call it as long as people know what series you're talking about. But yeah, using 'STD' kind of gives away from the start how much respect a person has for the show. I don't think that's going to catch on with the fans.
But on the other hand, 'LDS' for Lower Decks is a pretty charming abbreviation I think. It's fitting that its name should be a callback to a joke from one of the TOS movies. About drugs and Mormons.
Personally I tend to call the show 'Disco', because it's two syllables less than the full name and it's written on the t-shirts.
It doesn't really matter what you call it as long as people know what series you're talking about. But yeah, using 'STD' kind of gives away from the start how much respect a person has for the show. I don't think that's going to catch on with the fans.
But on the other hand, 'LDS' for Lower Decks is a pretty charming abbreviation I think. It's fitting that its name should be a callback to a joke from one of the TOS movies. About drugs and Mormons.
Personally I tend to call the show 'Disco', because it's two syllables less than the full name and it's written on the t-shirts.
After thirteen years on Trek BBS I sometimes feel as if I inhabit a permanent fog of Deja Vu.
The problem with "STD" specifically (and I probably also said this in a post years ago) is that "STD" reads as if you're talking about the 500th Star Trek film. Come to think of it, "STLD" would be the code for the 450th.
The problem with "STD" specifically (and I probably also said this in a post years ago) is that "STD" reads as if you're talking about the 500th Star Trek film. Come to think of it, "STLD" would be the code for the 450th.
Perhaps, but it sometimes seems like there's a double standard being applied, with some new iteration of Trek getting excoriated -- and even denounced as bad Trek -- for doing the same thing the older shows did all the time:
"DISCO did a thing! This proves it's not real Trek, not canon, and a crime against fandom! Bad writing!"
"But what about the 47 times the old shows did the same thing?"
"THAT WAS DIFFERENT!"
Last edited:
I don't really feel as though it's a double standard to hope that newer shows will avoid the dubious writing...idiosyncrasies...of the earlier shows?Perhaps, but it sometimes seems like there's a double standard being applied, with some new iteration of Trek getting excoriated -- and even denounced as bad Trek -- for doing the same thing the older shows did all the time:
"DISCO did a thing! This proves it's not real Trek, not canon, and a crime against fandom! Bad writing!"
"But what about the 47 times the old shows did the same thing?"
"THAT WAS DIFFERENT!"
As an example, "The Enterprise is the only ship able to intercept..." was ridiculous long before Discovery, and sure, it's probably shorthand in some instances (we can make allowances in TMP), but it still sounds dopey, especially in TFF when the E-A doesn't even seem especially functional. ST '09 revisiting that trope wasn't exactly the crowning homage moment of that film.
Though, for that particular trope, at least Discovery does have the spore drive to justify it.
If LDS didn't lampoon that trope (I've yet to see the final season), they certainly should have at some point.
I think that sometimes the old shows making the same mistake 47 times makes people even less forgiving now, and sometimes it really was a different situation back then.
It doesn't help that it can be hard to really pinpoint why it feels bad when the new shows do something that the old shows could get away with. But I think it's worth trying to figure out why viewers feel the way they do instead of seeing a contradiction and assuming they forgot to take their rose-tinted glasses off.
It doesn't help that it can be hard to really pinpoint why it feels bad when the new shows do something that the old shows could get away with. But I think it's worth trying to figure out why viewers feel the way they do instead of seeing a contradiction and assuming they forgot to take their rose-tinted glasses off.
TFF wasn't "the only ship in range." Kirk even pointed out that the Enterprise was a mess and there were other ships available. Admiral Harve Bennett even agreed saying "there are other ships, but they aren't commanded by Jim Kirk."
People don't whine about the other shows because nostalgia. This got reinforced with Picard S3, which did everything people complained about with Picard's first two seasons and all of Disco's seasons. But because it was the TNG reunion and fueled nostalgia. Indeed, when this has been pointed out in the past, fans of Picard S3 even admit it saying things like "it's worth it if it means seeing Riker and Worf again instead of having to watch Michael Burnham or Raffi."
Never mind they still had to watch Raffi in PIC S3 anyway.
Picard season 3 did not do the same things as Picard season 2.
It has the same caliber of writing and indeed was even written by the exact same writing staff, including Lord Terry.
The problem with Star Trek, in general, was that it relies way too much on a same format: the ship that goes around the universe, exploring strange new worlds, seeking new life and new civilizations, etc. Which is fine for 1 series, but may get a bit repetitive if all series were about that. So after TNG they started to change things a bit: DS9 is a static space station (and later on had to face all-out war), Voyager was stranded on the other side of the galaxy, Enterprise was a bit more hard sci-fi, etc. And the new series try to change things even more, with both Discovery and Lower Decks shifting the narrative focus to someone other than the Captain, and Picard and Prodigy being more about a random group that got together in a ship by circumstances rather than a formal crew.
So yes, both Discovery and Lower Decks deviated from the standard Star Trek formula, but each with its own purpose and to narrate its own story. The pointed similarities between Burham and Mariner are only superficial and may be dismissed as just contrived coincidences.
So yes, both Discovery and Lower Decks deviated from the standard Star Trek formula, but each with its own purpose and to narrate its own story. The pointed similarities between Burham and Mariner are only superficial and may be dismissed as just contrived coincidences.
There is a gag about the Cerritos being the only ship to handle a certain problem. To which the crew has a “you’ve gotta be kidding “ response.I don't really feel as though it's a double standard to hope that newer shows will avoid the dubious writing...idiosyncrasies...of the earlier shows?
As an example, "The Enterprise is the only ship able to intercept..." was ridiculous long before Discovery, and sure, it's probably shorthand in some instances (we can make allowances in TMP), but it still sounds dopey, especially in TFF when the E-A doesn't even seem especially functional. ST '09 revisiting that trope wasn't exactly the crowning homage moment of that film.
Though, for that particular trope, at least Discovery does have the spore drive to justify it.
If LDS didn't lampoon that trope (I've yet to see the final season), they certainly should have at some point.
You don't have to be Spock to figure out a logical solution to this conundrum...
You can't put Kirk in temporary command of the Excelsior, Scotty would mutiny!
What if they temporarily redesignate it Enterprise 1701-B?
???
In what way is Enterprise "hard sci-fi"?
Maybe they meant hardly sci-fi?
I always applaud a Star Trek series that deviates from the standard formula. DS9, Discovery, the first two seasons of Picard, and the first season of Prodigy worked for me in this regard, as far as Non-Traditional Star Trek. The same reason why I can get behind Section 31 and Starfleet Academy as well.
"Why didn't you say every season of Picard and Prodigy?" someone might ask. PIC S3 wanted to be a Traditional Star Trek Movie, except as a season of Streaming TV. PRO S2 felt more like a traditional Star Trek series, just with kids in the mix. So, I view both of those as more-or-less "traditional".
Lower Decks was non-traditional and even though it didn't quite click for me, they at least tried something different, turning what would've been B-stories in another series into A-stories. I consider the effort to be a good thing, regardless of what I thought of it. That's my sense of LD anyway. I don't know the series as well as regulars in this forum would.
Not everything should be TOS, TNG, VOY, ENT's first two seasons, or SNW. All examples of what I think of when I think of "Normal Star Trek".
Last edited:
My mind immediately goes to DC Comics' Star Trek run from the mid-'80s.
Last edited:
I'm waiting for someone to get mad again they moved Delta Vega in 2009. Any moment now.
Trek XI committed far more egregious sins. You know what I'm talking about.
Similar threads
- Locked
