Now that I've finished Season Two ... (Spoilers)

If that's supposed to be key evidence for junky writing, I can pick out about 1 million lines from previous Trek that would make anyone cringe. "Have you noticed how your boobs have started to firm up?...There's coffee in that nebula...Get that cheese to sickbay...I did fall asleep reading a particularly erotic chapter in my grandmother's journal. She wrote very detailed descriptions of her experiences with Ronin..." Shall I go on?

As far as asking the bigger questions, season 1 did a great job with exploring the heart of what it means to be "Starfleet," and season 2 spent half the season exploring questions of destiny, faith, etc. It's all there, including your missing 25%.

 

Sure.. If you want to believe that. And my citing only 1 example doesnt mean there isn't more, much more.
Fair enough, there are dumbass lines in all of trek. But that still doesnt mean your argument wins out. Ultimately the formula that drew traditional fans has been left by the way side. They said as much when they began releasing articles about the crew being at each others throats constantly.

It was admitted to early on. Some like it. Many also don't. To deny that theres a good sizeable chunk of fandom not happy with STD is just willful ignorance.

 

You like that line! Well, double-dumbass on you!

If you'll excuse me, it's hammock time!

 

I loved that line. Young Spock, in the midst of an apocalyptic crisis is reminded why he became a science officer in the first place. And he expresses it.

It's also literally the only time Spock has outright said he liked something.

 

No it isn't.

 

You know what, every single time Star Trek is critisized as a "message show", it's because it's "violence is not the solution"-message spelled out way too simple so that even the dumbest viewer could get it.

And then I read posts like these, where "lololol of course violence is teh awesome". Like, Jesus Christ, how oblivious can anyone be?

OF COURSE a show that makes statements about violence HAS violence in it! But holy shit, pay attention!

The "Kirk-Dropkick" is pretty much never what SOLVES the plots of the episodes! The final five minutes are the apparently dreaded "Kirk-speech" - where the anvil of the episode is dropped so hard that even the youngest viewer should understand it! And even episodes that DO end with violence -Balance of Terror e.g. - usually end with the characters lamenting the uselessness of said violence, and how it all could and should have been averted in the first place!

How the hell can you watch a family-targeted showv with a strong anti-violence message that is directly spelled out to the viewer and get the message "violence is awesome" from it??????

It's like... some people watch Sesame Street, and get the impression that drugs are awesome and you get cool by bullying people. Like, Jesus Christ....

 

Almost every good anti-war movie is a good war movie. They tend to depict the thing they are trying to criticize. Moreover, filmmakers have exploited this seeming dichotomy, using well-produced war scenes to draw viewers to theaters. The result is that an individual can enjoy such films as war movies without necessarily absorbing the anti-war message.

Star Trek exploits the same dichotomy. In all it's iterations, even Discovery, StarTrek is an action-adventure series in whose protagonists are driven to find ethical solutions to a vast range of social problems, choosing as often as is possible to find non-violent solutions. However, they are always prepared to use violence both reactive and proactively. Star Trek can be viewed just for the pew-pew: it's not too difficult to enjoy the episode for the action in spite of the message.

Of course, we've seen a large group of people who have taken this to the extreme, insisting that Discovery is "woke"--that it's trying to undermine some sacred principles through casting and storytelling--and they ignore how progressive Star Trek was in the past.

The question here is of course different: where are the ethics? I think they are present, just not as overtly and perhaps not as frequently as they should be. A recent episode of the podcast of The Mission Log, recorded at STLV, illustrates this. Key Ray was apoplectic about the absence of "messages, morals, .." (whatever his tagline is). A teacher in the audience came up to talk about what her students saw in Discovery. In contrast to the concerns raised by Ray, the teacher talked about how her students saw characters who modeled strong moral behavior, whose decisions showed respect for life in all its forms. Whereas past iterations of Star Trek have been more polemical in their exploration of values, Discovery's characters have internalized those values. Would I prefer more discussion? Yes, especially because I believe that it would help present more complex stories.Would I like less action? Yes, especially since some of the scenes go on too long. However, I would be remiss if I said that Discovery is without values. The ethics are there.

 

I think what needs to be kept in mind is that Star Trek action-adventure platform and that is going to be translated differently across productions and eras.

 

No one said these things.

 

Proof that Ignorance is bliss.

 

Proof that fandom isn't a monolith.

 

I would stand to gather that there are just as many fans who think that Discovery isn't good Star Trek that felt the same way about...

• TMP ("it's so sterile!")
• TWOK ("it's so militaristic!")
• TNG ("why is the captain bald... and BRITISH?")
• DS9 ("to boldly stay put!")
• VOY ("its TNG lite!")
• ENT ("prequels suck!")
• Kelvin Trek ("it's all action!")

Sure, the internet amplifies the argument. But there's no real empirical evidence to suggest that there's truly any more people out there that hate this iteration of Star Trek than any other. They're just louder. MUCH louder.

 

Um again WATCH the show (TOS):
Season 1
Man Trap - McCoy kills Salt creature (who BTW was intelligent itself as it perfectly impersonated McCoy and asked teh question, maybe we should leave it alone - although it killed a redshirt in the opening teaser while salt was available via other means.

Where No Man Has Gone Before - Kirk kills his friend of 11 years - Gary Mitchell

What Are Little Girls Made of - Andrea kills herself and the Corby android that had Dr. Corby's complete consciousness (although Kirk killed another Android of on of Corby's scientists.)

Conscience of the King - Kodos gets in front of his daughter and is killed, but Kirk wanted to prove he was Kodos and ultimately have Kodos executed for his crimes (Unlike TNG, TOS still seemed to have a death penalty).

Balance of Terror - Kirk ultimately destroys a Romulan Warbird whose Commander himself destroyed four Earth Outposts with no real justification. Yes, Kirk offers to take survivors after crippling the vessel, but it is still ultimately a very violent resolution.

The Galileo Seven - Yes, Spock ultimately prevails, but EVERY Human on that shuttle feels killing one of more of the creatures to make them think twice before coming near the shuttle (And Spock concedes it "Sounds logical to him also").

Squire of Gothos - Kirk phasers Trelaine's device to escape; ultimately though mommy and daddy intervene.

Arena - Yes, Kirk ultimately (under view of the Metrons) decides to spare the Gor; but the ENTIRE episode is a showcase of violence of both sides - and IF Kirk got his way and the Metrons didn't intefere, he would have destroyed the Gorn ship per this exchange:

Court Martial - Kirk beats the crap out of Ben Finney to apprehend him.

The Return Of The Archons - Kirk phasers the 'Landrau' computer.

Space Seed - Kirk ultimately defeats Kahn in the Engine Room before exiling him to Ceti Alpha V. Otherwise Kahn would have killed any who refused to join him (again BOTH sides very violent).

Taste Of Armageddon - Kirk is fully willing to have Mr. Scott lay waste to Amenear VII - or plunge two planets back into real warfare; and again phasers the Computers that sustain the 'civil' warfare.

This Side of Paradise - Kirk goads Spock into atacking him to clear the spore influence and he and Spock essentially have the colonists beat the crap out of each other to do the same for them and his crew.

The Alternative Factor - To save existence, Kirk phasers a ship from space so two versions of one being will be locked at each other's throats trying to kill each other for eternity.

City on the Edge of Forever - Kirk pretty violently restrains McCoy so Edith Keeler dies and time is 'corrected' (again yes, it's necessary to save Kirk's 'world' but it's still a violent solution.)

Operation Annihilate - Kirk uses satellites to effectively commit genocide (again necessary as they are more a type of infection/parasite, but still a violent resolution.)

So yeah - out of 29 first season episodes, 16 have a violent resolution of some type (IE no real diplomacy or the non-violent resolution). And I assure you the trend continues throughput the remaining two seasons. So sorry, yes a majority of the time Kirk uses violence to ultimately resolve a situation (and many times it's justified or he has no real other choice, but that's a bit beside the point given your claim.)

 

Conversely, there is version of Star Trek that can appeal to different groups of people while retaining a similar ethical core.

TOS: campy, Cold War era action with extensive critiques of American foreign policy
TMP: 2001-style cinematic experience
TWOK-TUC: interpersonal relationships; considerations of aging and mortality, meaning of friendship, obsession, prejudice; light-hearted critiques of modern society and religion; considerations about reaching across the barricades
TNG: living a philosophical life
DS9: political ethics and the problems of Realpolitik
VOY: the dedication of a leader to the well-being of the community
ENT: the newness of discovery; the disappointment that comes from one's life course changing
Kelvinverse: comradery; the need for sacrifice; willingness to put one's life into the bigger picture
Discovery: the importance of group identity; resisting expediency

Everyone can have some version of Star Trek that appeals to them. Being an historian by training and profession, I identify mostly with DS9. I doesn't bother me that others take to other series (although I'll argue which is better, like any geek).


The funny thing is that the Discovery crew were themselves discontent with fighting a war. It was not the thing that they signed up for, and they did not feel that fighting was central to their identity or their goals. The resentment was something that put off some people who were looking for a TNG-style crew that never fought. However, it was a theme that comes down through strong, perhaps most strongly in something Miles O'Brien said: "It's not you I hate, Cardassian. I hate what I became because of you."

 

*applauding intensifies *

 

You've yet to provide evidence, so good bye.

 

Indeed! That's the main reason why I said about DIS:

Because they really tried. At least for the main arc, they actually DO went ahead and tried to depict that war in a realistic, Trek-like fashion, and even end It with a treaty, instead of a big battle.

Where they stumbled really wasn't the intention, but the execution: Especially the big fight to destroy the Charon, kill Lorca and all his MU minions, and blow up the death star went directly opposite their overall stated goal. And while the idea to have a peace treaty was appreciated, the execution was clearly lacking (a planet of one of the most aggressive races being able to be blown up with a hand-held device? From their "outsider district" nonetheless? Like, how come none other race at war with Klingons ever used that? Especially Orion?). Also, it fell into the trap of literally every cheap SF series, ever, where the big finale is always the guys with the nuke on the alien mothership....

That's why - despite y'all always insinuating it - I don't hate the show. It really tries. It's just flawed. As I continued in my original post:

 

You're really doubling down on trying to make an anti-war episode with a heavy moral anvil dropped into a "pro-violence is awesome!!!" example. Because it has violence in it. Like the rest of your examples. Wow.

I guess there really are people that watch anti-war movies primarily for the "kewl action".

 

No one is bloody saying that.