Decanonization Time!

[fireproof78]

They really aren’t. If they never have anyone to play their values off of, it would get pretty dull, pretty quick.

Definitely not for me but I know I'm dull

I see what you're saying, and I respect that. I just don't think that's how much people watch movies or TV shows. Personally, I can hate what someone like Khan or Garak is doing, and yet still be compelled by their performances because Ricardo Montalban and Andrew Robinson just give brilliant performances and they are both so well written.

You're right for probably the majority of people that's probably how they watch things.

I don't really do it that way and I doubt I could explain it well because it will just invite further misunderstanding. I just see things differently.

ETA: clarity and grammar fixes.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

To be fair, nobody on this site enjoys Star Trek, as such.

I love the hell out of Star Trek. I don't think I'm alone.

I'm totally with @XCV330 on this!

I know you're likely joking, but I enjoy Trek as a whole very much.

Humoritisadifficultconcept, gah! I'm with @CoveTom here, too, then!

 

[CoveTom]

Definitely not for me but I know I'm dull

You're right for probably the majority of people that's probably how they watch things.

I don't really do it that way and I doubt I could explain it well because it will just invite further misunderstanding. I just see things differently.

ETA: clarity and grammar fixes.

Fair enough. I will also say that I certainly wouldn't enjoy seeing people doing those kinds of things in real life. However, it is different because it is scripted drama and I know that it is entirely fake. Ricardo Montalban, for example, was a very lovely gentleman who everyone adored. He's just an actor playing a role. And so it doesn't hit the same way as if you were actually seeing a real person doing those things. For me at least, YMMV, IDIC, etc.

 

[fireproof78]

Fair enough. I will also say that I certainly wouldn't enjoy seeing people doing those kinds of things in real life. However, it is different because it is scripted drama and I know that it is entirely fake. Ricardo Montalban, for example, was a very lovely gentleman who everyone adored. He's just an actor playing a role. And so it doesn't hit the same way as if you were actually seeing a real person doing those things. For me at least, YMMV, IDIC, etc.

And that's completely fair.

But Star Trek gets treated differently. It's held up as an example of leadership, friendship, virtue and stoic idealism. So, it sits a little differently for me when people say villains in Star Trek are enjoyable.

And I'll grant my parsing of the terms is probably incorrect and missing a lot of subtext for what people actually mean. But "it's drama" seems to shortchange how serious Star Trek is taken, at least around here.

 

[CoveTom]

And that's completely fair.

But Star Trek gets treated differently. It's held up as an example of leadership, friendship, virtue and stoic idealism. So, it sits a little differently for me when people say villains in Star Trek are enjoyable.

And I'll grant my parsing of the terms is probably incorrect and missing a lot of subtext for what people actually mean. But "it's drama" seems to shortchange how serious Star Trek is taken, at least around here.

I will say, without meaning to offend anyone, that I think TrekBBS is in no way reflective of the Trek audience in general. This came up in a discussion about Picard (the show) recently. Picard season 3 was the most successful thing, in terms of viewership, that streaming-era Trek has done. And if you go look at the broader internet -- social media, YouTube comments, etc. -- you will find overwhelmingly positive responses to it. Yet it is almost universally hated here. So I don't think we are a good representative sample of the broad audience that watches Trek.

 

[Tallguy]

Anything that says Star Trek doesn't use money, right?

 

[Tallguy]

I will say, without meaning to offend anyone, that I think TrekBBS is in no way reflective of the Trek audience in general. This came up in a discussion about Picard (the show) recently. Picard season 3 was the most successful thing, in terms of viewership, that streaming-era Trek has done. And if you go look at the broader internet -- social media, YouTube comments, etc. -- you will find overwhelmingly positive responses to it. Yet it is almost universally hated here. So I don't think we are a good representative sample of the broad audience that watches Trek.

I think it's got a lot of fans here. They're wrong, the poor dears, but it does have them.

Hell, the "None of this is Star Trek / SNW is an alternate universe" crowd seemed to eat up Pic 3 with a spoon. A badly written tonally all over the place spoon.

 

[BillJ]

Hell, the "None of this is Star Trek / SNW is an alternate universe" crowd seemed to eat up Pic 3 with a spoon. A badly written tonally all over the place spoon.

Multiverse guy here. I think Picard, the entirety of the series was poorly done, underbaked claptrap. Season three being the absolute worst offender. I actually have Picard as dead last when rating series, even behind SFA. Amazingly disappointing.

I do wonder why the TOS bridge, interior and exterior had to absolutely be totally redone in order to be acceptable to modern fandom, yet the same folks absolutely eat up the plan accurate rebuild of the Enterprise-D?

 

[fireproof78]

I will say, without meaning to offend anyone, that I think TrekBBS is in no way reflective of the Trek audience in general. This came up in a discussion about Picard (the show) recently. Picard season 3 was the most successful thing, in terms of viewership, that streaming-era Trek has done. And if you go look at the broader internet -- social media, YouTube comments, etc. -- you will find overwhelmingly positive responses to it. Yet it is almost universally hated here. So I don't think we are a good representative sample of the broad audience that watches Trek.

I agree for sure. It is definitely hard to navigate having different way of viewing things.

 

[BillJ]

Yet it is almost universally hated here. So I don't think we are a good representative sample of the broad audience that watches Trek.

If you go look at the episode ratings, "The Last Generation" was overwhelmingly positively received here...

Spoilers - Star Trek: Picard 3x10 - "The Last Generation"

Welcome to the grading and discussion thread for our first Star Trek series finale in 18 years. You could say that TNG is coming to a conclusion once again, 29 years later. Is it a sad occasion? Let's see… We've got the biggest threat the Federation has ever faced. That line is a cliché, but...

www.trekbbs.com

 

[Dukhat]

Multiverse guy here. I think Picard, the entirety of the series was poorly done, underbaked claptrap. Season three being the absolute worst offender. I actually have Picard as dead last when rating series, even behind SFA. Amazingly disappointing.

I do wonder why the TOS bridge, interior and exterior had to absolutely be totally redone in order to be acceptable to modern fandom, yet the same folks absolutely eat up the plan accurate rebuild of the Enterprise-D?

 

[Shawnster]

I do wonder why the TOS bridge, interior and exterior had to absolutely be totally redone in order to be acceptable to modern fandom, yet the same folks absolutely eat up the plan accurate rebuild of the Enterprise-D?

Production values increased greater between 1966 and 1986 than they did from 86 to 2026. TNG did not look like it was built out of cardboard and plywood. The bridge with its LCARS touch interface still looks futuristic.

Star Wars (ANH) still holds up really well visually despite being from 1977. TMP likewise still looks beautiful. It's that leap between 1966 and 1976 that seems to be the greatest leap. CGI has moved fx and practical models to a digital medium, but the appearance of those ships isn't thst much more realistic than SNW.

 

[BillJ]

Production values increased greater between 1966 and 1986 than they did from 86 to 2026. TNG did not look like it was built out of cardboard and plywood. The bridge with its LCARS touch interface still looks futuristic.

I would argue that those construction techniques and materials could've been applied to the Enterprise and its sets without the wholesale changes. Plus, looking at the bridge of the D, it is still a very recognizably 80's design.

If you look at the D from 1987. A lot of those sets don't hold up under close scrutiny.

 

[Dukhat]

Production values increased greater between 1966 and 1986 than they did from 86 to 2026. TNG did not look like it was built out of cardboard and plywood. The bridge with its LCARS touch interface still looks futuristic.

Star Wars (ANH) still holds up really well visually despite being from 1977. TMP likewise still looks beautiful. It's that leap between 1966 and 1976 that seems to be the greatest leap. CGI has moved fx and practical models to a digital medium, but the appearance of those ships isn't thst much more realistic than SNW.

I am of the opinion that they could have made a passable update to the TOS sets and ship design without making things as different as they did.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I don't know. The moment I saw the Enterprise bridge in Discovery, it sent a chill down my spine. I was home.

 

[BillJ]

I don't know. The moment I saw the Enterprise bridge in Discovery, it sent a chill down my spine. I was home.

First time I saw it, I wondered why the folks from Star Trek: Online were designing it.

 

[Dukhat]

I don't know. The moment I saw the Enterprise bridge in Discovery, it sent a chill down my spine. I was home.

That's cool that you felt that way. And I am not trying to change your opinion. I am just saying that the changes didn't have to be so drastic to be believable.

 

[CoveTom]

I do wonder why the TOS bridge, interior and exterior had to absolutely be totally redone in order to be acceptable to modern fandom, yet the same folks absolutely eat up the plan accurate rebuild of the Enterprise-D?

Who says that the TOS bridge had to be redone to be acceptable to modern fandom? I loved the faithful recreation of the Enteprise-D bridge and I absolutely hate what they did to the TOS bridge in SNW. I would have much preferred if they stuck to the original design.

I would argue that those construction techniques and materials could've been applied to the Enterprise and its sets without the wholesale changes. Plus, looking at the bridge of the D, it is still a very recognizably 80's design.

If you look at the D from 1987. A lot of those sets don't hold up under close scrutiny.

I honestly think it had more to do with the schedule and budget of TOS than with what techniques and materials were available at the time. 2001: A Space Odyssey was released during the original run of TOS and still holds up just fine.

 

[BillJ]

Who says that the TOS bridge had to be redone to be acceptable to modern fandom?

The only reason to reimagine it would've been because they didn't believe the designs would be acceptable to modern audiences.

I honestly think it had more to do with the schedule and budget of TOS than with what techniques and materials were available at the time. 2001: A Space Odyssey was released during the original run of TOS and still holds up just fine.

Agreed. Though the Discovery only had to hold up to a few months(?) of filming versus three seasons of TOS. It had a $12 million dollar budget, which I imagine was more than the totality spent on TOS.

 

[Tallguy]

Did you notice that when SNW decided to poke fun at the "Star Trek on a shoestring budget" and had Wesley go Full Shatner what they did NOT do? They didn't do the TOS bridge.

If this was such a laughable design that nobody can take seriously, why not? It's right there. It would even make a kind of sense in Universe: This is what Our Ship would look like with No Money.

The D bridge was so beloved it was never even hinted at in another 24th century Star Trek production. EVER.