I'll have to dig in to the research articles.
I don't understand the hate Disco gets / still gets.
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
- Status
If I had to guess I’d say my generation is obsessed with nostalgia and clinging to the past because we are the only generation that experienced a mostly analog childhood but a RAPIDLY digital late adolescence and adulthood. Everything suddenly became digital, progress was massive and fast (or so it seemed), the latest phone/computer seemed to be old again already within only a few months, you couldn’t keep up anymore, the world changed so much so quickly, etc etc etc. I think this is the basis for the obsession with “I want for franchises today to produce the same stuff as they did in my childhood when everything was still okay, I want my comforting nostalgia blanket, not this stuff that reminds me that the world is different now” that parts of my generation seem to be particularly vocal about and not just in terms of the Star Trek franchise, it’s the same with other franchises as well - hell, even the Dynasty (!) fandom has the VERY SAME “not my franchise”, “they ruined my childhood”, “the writers are talentless hacks” arguments regarding the reboot version of that show.
I must confess I’m not immune to this either - when I recently read about an ALF reboot my stomach turned for a second because “how dare they, ALF IS MY CHILDHOOD” (I never grew up with Star Trek maybe this is what saves me regarding the whole nostalgia obsession with that franchise) before I remembered to approach this with “yo calm down the old show will still be there, just ignore a reboot or whatever else they may or may not do”.
That might very well be. It's an interesting idea of people clinging very hard to childhood ideas, and feeling threatened because of the new thing. It's an interesting idea to be sure, and I suppose it makes sense if one feels that something is being damaged beyond our recognition. But, unlike cell phones, or computers, girlfriends or cars, Star Trek remains the same.
Not to them. They want the Star Trek they had in their youth. Where things were resolved in one episode or maybe a short arc like on DS9 - but they were always resolved. It always wrapped up neatly. That’s the comforting childhood blanket. Things remained the same while everything around them in the world changed. The power of this aspect of nostalgia is extremely strong. Today’s Trek is different - actions have consequences over a whole season, things are NOT always neatly resolved and trauma remains or arises as a result, etc etc. And, of course, there’s the visual aspect with Disco in particular - it doesn’t LOOK like the Trek they’re used to (well, this goes mostly for the show’s first two seasons of course), so, it’s different in that regard also, and whoa no we can’t have that.
(this very same argument arose already with ENT so this is all basically just a re-hash of that outrage… which ironically came from some of the same people who now include ENT in their “this is real Trek” list, lol).
They have an unhealthy obsession with their childhood because their adulthood isn't what they hoped it would be. I, on the other hand, have no use for my childhood.
I started watching Star Trek in the 70s and it was one of my earliest memories (in fact, my dad putting me in front of WNMHGB so he and my mom could cook dinner in peace is probably my earliest memory). I wasn't old enough to see TMP in the theaters (I was 4), but I not only remember TMP being released theatrically (and watching it at 8pm when it first premiered on HBO)...but I definitely remember being confused with the onslaught of promotional material that had the crew in different uniforms, the ship looking different, the McDonald's Happy Meals, Scotty's moustache, etc. This just goes to show how early I started watching the show and how much a part of my childhood it was. I used to watch a TOS double feature every day in the late afternoon timeframe on Boston's WLVI 56. I had VHS tapes I recorded of episodes, and we'd get together and watch them at sleepovers and stuff, because all my buddies were into the show.
There's never been a point in my life where Star Trek wasn't a part of it. I guess there was some time in the early 2000's where I was just kind of cooked, and I wasn't watching VOY or ENT much (although I certainly watched them from time-to-time).
I also had a reasonable childhood and was a normal, well-adjusted kid with great friends and a balance of social / athletic activities. I was very, very fortunate in that regard.
All that is to say that none of this affects my opinions on the "latest versions" of Star Trek from a nostalgia or bias standpoint in a negative way. I love Star Trek, and I want it to be something I personally enjoy. That's basically it for me. I don't give a rat's ass about continuity, honoring this or that, etc. etc. etc. I like starships, phasers, Vulcans, transporters and Klingons. I could care less about how dark the bridge is, what the uniforms look like, the design of the communicators, the opening music, serialized vs. episodic, Roddenberry's Vision, starship design, the font used in the title sequence, alien makeup etc etc etc. I just don't give a shit.
I've always said that I'm very resilient to "change" in the franchise because of how I grew up experiencing it. I saw nothing but change growing up. TOS became TMP. TMP became (a very retooled) TWOK. Then they killed Spock and brought him back...just like they stole the ship, blew it up, and got a new one all between TWOK and TVH. Then TNG came, and that was different too. After TNG, because we had 4 shows running simultaneously / back-to-back that were all written produced and designed by the same team (essentially), it created this illusion that everything in Trek is very tidy and continuous. But to me, it's not...and it never has been. I think people who grew up on the TNG era have very much the opposite experience to me, and therefore different expectations. Star Trek from 1987 to 2004 was massively homogenized from a design, style, and storytelling format standpoint.
I think that's why (and where) you see the most (but not all) pushback....it's from people whose formative experiences as fans was watching the show when it presented the illusion of a homogenized, comfortable, consistent experience. I'm kind of the opposite. I like Trek to be different and push things in unique directions, and take big risks... because that was my perception of the franchise due to the way I've always experienced it.
I like DSC to varying, relatively high degrees. I absolutely loved S1 and 2, despite knowing that they were flawed in certain ways. S3 and 4 I've continued to watch faithfully, but the shift in the show's premise, style and setting have admittedly take a toll on me, and I haven't found it as fun and engaging as I did in the earlier years. I also like and enjoy the Kelvinverse movies, although they don't rank massively high relative to the rest of the franchise for me. I enjoy PIC as well...and I'd place what we've seen of that series so far as "not quite as good as S1 and S2 of DSC" but "better than S3 and S4 of DSC." The animated shows are fine and I watch them both regularly...but I don't really care about them like the life-action stuff. I'd put PRO lightyears ahead of LD, though.
There's never been a point in my life where Star Trek wasn't a part of it. I guess there was some time in the early 2000's where I was just kind of cooked, and I wasn't watching VOY or ENT much (although I certainly watched them from time-to-time).
I also had a reasonable childhood and was a normal, well-adjusted kid with great friends and a balance of social / athletic activities. I was very, very fortunate in that regard.
All that is to say that none of this affects my opinions on the "latest versions" of Star Trek from a nostalgia or bias standpoint in a negative way. I love Star Trek, and I want it to be something I personally enjoy. That's basically it for me. I don't give a rat's ass about continuity, honoring this or that, etc. etc. etc. I like starships, phasers, Vulcans, transporters and Klingons. I could care less about how dark the bridge is, what the uniforms look like, the design of the communicators, the opening music, serialized vs. episodic, Roddenberry's Vision, starship design, the font used in the title sequence, alien makeup etc etc etc. I just don't give a shit.
I've always said that I'm very resilient to "change" in the franchise because of how I grew up experiencing it. I saw nothing but change growing up. TOS became TMP. TMP became (a very retooled) TWOK. Then they killed Spock and brought him back...just like they stole the ship, blew it up, and got a new one all between TWOK and TVH. Then TNG came, and that was different too. After TNG, because we had 4 shows running simultaneously / back-to-back that were all written produced and designed by the same team (essentially), it created this illusion that everything in Trek is very tidy and continuous. But to me, it's not...and it never has been. I think people who grew up on the TNG era have very much the opposite experience to me, and therefore different expectations. Star Trek from 1987 to 2004 was massively homogenized from a design, style, and storytelling format standpoint.
I think that's why (and where) you see the most (but not all) pushback....it's from people whose formative experiences as fans was watching the show when it presented the illusion of a homogenized, comfortable, consistent experience. I'm kind of the opposite. I like Trek to be different and push things in unique directions, and take big risks... because that was my perception of the franchise due to the way I've always experienced it.
I like DSC to varying, relatively high degrees. I absolutely loved S1 and 2, despite knowing that they were flawed in certain ways. S3 and 4 I've continued to watch faithfully, but the shift in the show's premise, style and setting have admittedly take a toll on me, and I haven't found it as fun and engaging as I did in the earlier years. I also like and enjoy the Kelvinverse movies, although they don't rank massively high relative to the rest of the franchise for me. I enjoy PIC as well...and I'd place what we've seen of that series so far as "not quite as good as S1 and S2 of DSC" but "better than S3 and S4 of DSC." The animated shows are fine and I watch them both regularly...but I don't really care about them like the life-action stuff. I'd put PRO lightyears ahead of LD, though.
Last edited:
(Some of you have seen versions of this rant before and can safely skip ahead to the next post.)
I'm 59. I remember there was a loud minority of TOS fans who couldn't stand TNG. But in the years since, it seems like most of the "I'm a Star Trek fan but that Star Trek show you like isn't real Star Trek, it's garbage" stuff comes from people who, at an early age, imprinted on TNG as the ideal form of Star Trek. And that's kind of understandable. Sure, at its peak, TNG was huge, more popular than the shows that followed, more successful on TV than the ones before it. But it is also the show that every Star Trek show since has tried not to be, because Roddenberry's conflict-free perfect humans in their perfect world eliminated too many story and character development possibilities. Every other show, to varying degrees, has gone back to the TOS model of imperfect characters trying to make that perfect future rather than perfectly evolved characters lazing around in it. So if you think of TNG's flaws as virtues, the Trek shows before and after TNG don't give you what you think Star Trek should be about.
This is a perfect companion piece to my post above. Totally agreed.
Well, I suppose I'm one of that generation - I'm 48. And while I'm grateful for the Trek legacy and 'island of stability' I got in TNG when growing up, I also recognize that change is very much a fundamental constant of life. A series (franchise) that doesn't change from time to time, never challenges itself, is essentially dead. Which means that some old episode of TNG can be 'comfort food' for me in the way that a DIS episode is not (and probably will never be since watching it isn't quite as relaxed as watching an old TNG or DS9), I also see that it's a very much a product of a bygone time, and that the current Trek series are more fitting for the current time, more advanced in several respects (not just VFX, but also in areas such as narrative structure and techniques), regardless of my personal like or dislikes of them, and that they have grown out of the earlier Treks.
Last edited:
Good point here....and really, quite honestly, in the 1998-2004 timeframe, it was definitely dying slowly and painfully because of the lack of any significant "real" change.
Funny thing is, people often complain when they have the feeling a status quo is maintained too much within a series (e.g. the complaints about Voyager pushing the reset button after a lot of episodes, lack of character growth, etc. ), but on a more 'meta' level (e.g. between different series) they pretty much expect things to stay the same.
Ooh, that's an interesting observation. So dynamic within the franchises, but each series must be different?
No wonder it's so hard.
I'm 42 and I watched the job lot from TOS/TAS-Movies-'Berman' between 2005-2009. There's so much of a continuity of aesthetics through the Berman stuff and there's so much of it that it's easy to see why many default to that as 'Star Trek' in their minds. I think Discovery hurt itself with fans coming out of the gate with:
a) the Klingon redesign.
b) the TMP like aesthetic, given the year it was set in.
c) the Spore Drive.
d) Michael being Spock's sister.
That's like a list of things that fans were obviously going to get up in arms about and it was all just put out there like 'that' in the first few episodes.
I'm not talking about how I feel, because for the most part I got over the above, but in terms of longterm Star Trek fans I don't think any of the above was exactly welcome or even wanted.
Then there's the fact that the show is actually difficult to get to grips with. It's the prequel show that's in the future now. It's refused (so far) to nail a captain down for more than a season. It's about the Klingon War, then it's about some stars and an angel, then it's about rebuilding the Federation in the 32nd Century... Of course DSCs erratic course has been caused by a lot of ruckus behind the scenes. I know that. But I understand how it could be alienating.
For me, with the above, I:
a) Got over it
b) Got used to it
c) Think it's kinda cool
d) Well, at least it was a key instigator in making SNW happen
I like the cast, the characters and the ship. I really liked Season 3 and haven't watched Season 4 yet. I don't think it's controversial to say i wish this show had been in a Post-Burn 32nd Century from the start, with the Spore Drive as a dilithium-free way to rebuild the Federation then I think a lot of so-called haters might not be hating', but like Phase II and Spock on the Grassy Knoll, that's just a daydream in an old fans' mind now.
I've no doubt there are dickheads who don't like the show because they are bigoted. But I don't think the bad taste in the mouth some of fandom has for Discovery is composed entirely of bigots. In fact I'd say they make up a minority of that number. I like Discovery. I like how brave it is. I like how it refuses to be nailed down. I like that I don't know what it's going to do from one season to the next.
I'm also aware though that not entirely of its' own making, DSC is a deeply flawed show. It is far from perfect, which is maybe why I like it, but I can understand many of the critical voices out there. It's a show with a bunch of characters who were designed to tell in story in Season 1 who've been slowly made redundant when removed from their context. It's a show that has gone further than ever before into the future and then, arguably, been quite tame in showing that to us.
When Discovery is on fire, it hits it out of the park. There are some incredible episodes. But sometimes it just sort of simmers for an episode.
I hope I don't sound like a hater. I like more in Discovery than I don't, but I wouldn't be so quick to equate not liking the show with being a bigot. It's more complex and nuanced than that I think.
a) the Klingon redesign.
b) the TMP like aesthetic, given the year it was set in.
c) the Spore Drive.
d) Michael being Spock's sister.
That's like a list of things that fans were obviously going to get up in arms about and it was all just put out there like 'that' in the first few episodes.
I'm not talking about how I feel, because for the most part I got over the above, but in terms of longterm Star Trek fans I don't think any of the above was exactly welcome or even wanted.
Then there's the fact that the show is actually difficult to get to grips with. It's the prequel show that's in the future now. It's refused (so far) to nail a captain down for more than a season. It's about the Klingon War, then it's about some stars and an angel, then it's about rebuilding the Federation in the 32nd Century... Of course DSCs erratic course has been caused by a lot of ruckus behind the scenes. I know that. But I understand how it could be alienating.
For me, with the above, I:
a) Got over it
b) Got used to it
c) Think it's kinda cool
d) Well, at least it was a key instigator in making SNW happen
I like the cast, the characters and the ship. I really liked Season 3 and haven't watched Season 4 yet. I don't think it's controversial to say i wish this show had been in a Post-Burn 32nd Century from the start, with the Spore Drive as a dilithium-free way to rebuild the Federation then I think a lot of so-called haters might not be hating', but like Phase II and Spock on the Grassy Knoll, that's just a daydream in an old fans' mind now.
I've no doubt there are dickheads who don't like the show because they are bigoted. But I don't think the bad taste in the mouth some of fandom has for Discovery is composed entirely of bigots. In fact I'd say they make up a minority of that number. I like Discovery. I like how brave it is. I like how it refuses to be nailed down. I like that I don't know what it's going to do from one season to the next.
I'm also aware though that not entirely of its' own making, DSC is a deeply flawed show. It is far from perfect, which is maybe why I like it, but I can understand many of the critical voices out there. It's a show with a bunch of characters who were designed to tell in story in Season 1 who've been slowly made redundant when removed from their context. It's a show that has gone further than ever before into the future and then, arguably, been quite tame in showing that to us.
When Discovery is on fire, it hits it out of the park. There are some incredible episodes. But sometimes it just sort of simmers for an episode.
I hope I don't sound like a hater. I like more in Discovery than I don't, but I wouldn't be so quick to equate not liking the show with being a bigot. It's more complex and nuanced than that I think.
How can anyone not understand their hate. They constantly state how over and over and over. All you gotta do to understand is to read what they write.
And they write everywhere. Not sure why yet another place for them to write the same crap yet again was necessary.
And they write everywhere. Not sure why yet another place for them to write the same crap yet again was necessary.
People gloss over the inconsistencies in the Berman era because so much time has gone by. In "Q Who," Q introduces the Federation to the Borg who, we're led to believe, the Federation would not otherwise have encountered for a very long time, because they're thousands of light years away. Kind of makes Q look dumb not realizing that the Hansen family's already met them. And then Enterprise has Archer's gang meet them, too. Not to mention that the Borg in "Q Who" raise Borg babies and don't have any interest in assimilating people. Then there's all the differences between the Trill in TNG's "The Host" and the Trill in DS9.
Enterprise makes as many big changes as Discovery did. It completely changes Vulcan society. Remember, Vulcans have long lives, and by Vulcan standards Enterprise isn't set long before TOS, which means a lot of the Vulcan characters we saw in TOS grew up in a time when Sarek didn't matter, Vulcans were arrogant and dishonorable, and mind melds were virtually unknown. Enterprise also gives us first contact with a few species whose canonical first contacts happened in other series set decades later, using the "well, we didn't get their names, so nobody in the 23rd or 24th century will be able to find our logs of this encounter" shtick. Enterprise also tried so hard to be "not your father's Star Trek" that it dropped Star Trek from the series name for a couple of years, and used a pop ballad recycled from a nonTrek movie soundtrack as its theme instead of doing the usual orchestral music. Discovery, while it looked and felt different, kept finding ways to lean in hard to Star Trek history, dropping in all kinds of Easter eggs and featuring Klingons, the Mirror Universe, and Harry Mudd in the first season alone.
For that matter, if you want to talk about how Discovery did a season with Klingon war and mirror universe arcs, followed by the Red Angel and Control arc, followed by the trip forward in time, Enterprise did a couple of seasons occasionally remembering it had a Temporal Cold War arc and otherwise just stumbling around, followed by a more serialized Xindi arc about an area of space and a major alien species relatively close to Earth but never mentioned in later years, followed by a series of short arcs of fanwank.
As for Michael being Spock's adopted sister: each of these was a surprise to other characters (and viewers) at the time:
- Spock's mother was human. He didn't tell anyone any details about that until she popped up on the ship.
- Spock's father was a prominent ambassador. He didn't tell anyone that until his dad popped up on the ship.
- Spock was so loyal to Christopher Pike that he planned to take over the Enterprise and kidnap Pike back to Talos IV. He didn't tell anyone about that until his plan failed.
- Spock was betrothed to T'Pring. He didn't tell anyone about that until he had to.
- Spock had an older half-brother. He didn't tell anyone about that until Sybok popped up.
- Spock was actively involved in the Romulan reunification movement and went there to get actively involved. He didn't tell anyone about that until it was discovered that he was missing.
Nobody's equating not liking the show with being a bigot. But there is a considerable overlap between people who actively hate the show and bigots. I don't much like the NCIS shows that my wife enjoyed. But I didn't hate them and rant about them online. "Not liking" and "hating" are two different things.
^^^
Agreed with @Steve Roby above on all points. There's a considerable number of posters on this board who labour under the misapprehension that in 20 years time all Kurtzman Trek will be forgotten. It will not. Discovery provokes so much discussion. Season 1 has its' fans, there are those who love Season 2 and like myself who really felt Season 3 finally put the show in an interesting setting.
If we're still talking about why Harry Kim never got promoted 25 years after the fact, we'll definitely be reevaluating Kurtzman Trek 20 years down the line. For all it's faults, DSC is a thematically rich show that is often visually stunning, with a great cast who ar led by a writers team who are always trying to push the show somewhere new.
One of Discovery's defining features is that it pushes representation to the forefront, but I think sometimes doing so blinds some to the subtler themes that underlie the show. DSC at it's heart is about choices, grief, repentance, trust, faith and love. When you dig into it, it's a show that rewards.
Agreed with @Steve Roby above on all points. There's a considerable number of posters on this board who labour under the misapprehension that in 20 years time all Kurtzman Trek will be forgotten. It will not. Discovery provokes so much discussion. Season 1 has its' fans, there are those who love Season 2 and like myself who really felt Season 3 finally put the show in an interesting setting.
If we're still talking about why Harry Kim never got promoted 25 years after the fact, we'll definitely be reevaluating Kurtzman Trek 20 years down the line. For all it's faults, DSC is a thematically rich show that is often visually stunning, with a great cast who ar led by a writers team who are always trying to push the show somewhere new.
One of Discovery's defining features is that it pushes representation to the forefront, but I think sometimes doing so blinds some to the subtler themes that underlie the show. DSC at it's heart is about choices, grief, repentance, trust, faith and love. When you dig into it, it's a show that rewards.
I've always hated Seinfeld, because it's extremely annoying and obnoxious. What I don't do is rant about it. I also don't feel the need to chime in and inform (or remind) everyone that I hate the show anytime anyone posts a meme or any other thing about it. As a matter of fact, this could be the first time many if not all posters are even hearing that that show rubs me that way.
And of course, that's a figure of speech. It simply expresses my extreme dislike for the show and unwillingness to put up with it when it's on.
It's a shame that seems to be a problem.
Also, it's an absurd prescription. If I can't hate a show without being suspect, then how does it make sense to love it? You don't literally nurture or have sex with a show you love. It's a freaking figure of speech. Same with hate.
And of course, that's a figure of speech. It simply expresses my extreme dislike for the show and unwillingness to put up with it when it's on.
It's a shame that seems to be a problem.
Also, it's an absurd prescription. If I can't hate a show without being suspect, then how does it make sense to love it? You don't literally nurture or have sex with a show you love. It's a freaking figure of speech. Same with hate.
Last edited:
That makes more sense than using "hate" as a turn of phrase. "Hate" means so many different things to so many people it's become diluted in its use, especially in online discussion. If I metaphorically "hate" something (in quotes because I don't care for the term) then I don't talk about. I avoid it and don't engage with it.
Because I don't get why they devote time to something they reportedly hate. Instead of practicing what Trek preaches they have to revisit old wounds time and again. That's not just hating-that's threatening to hold your breath until you get your way style tantrum. It is a behavior that I struggle to find the purpose behind.How can anyone not understand their hate. They constantly state how over and over and over. All you gotta do to understand is to read what they write.
And they write everywhere. Not sure why yet another place for them to write the same crap yet again was necessary.
It's confusing, to say the least.
Fucking show off with your normal upbringing and social skills!
[/QUOTE]All that is to say that none of this affects my opinions on the "latest versions" of Star Trek from a nostalgia or bias standpoint in a negative way. I love Star Trek, and I want it to be something I personally enjoy. That's basically it for me. I don't give a rat's ass about continuity, honoring this or that, etc. etc. etc. I like starships, phasers, Vulcans, transporters and Klingons. I could care less about how dark the bridge is, what the uniforms look like, the design of the communicators, the opening music, serialized vs. episodic, Roddenberry's Vision, starship design, the font used in the title sequence, alien makeup etc etc etc. I just don't give a shit.
I've always said that I'm very resilient to "change" in the franchise because of how I grew up experiencing it. I saw nothing but change growing up. TOS became TMP. TMP became (a very retooled) TWOK. Then they killed Spock and brought him back...just like they stole the ship, blew it up, and got a new one all between TWOK and TVH. Then TNG came, and that was different too. After TNG, because we had 4 shows running simultaneously / back-to-back that were all written produced and designed by the same team (essentially), it created this illusion that everything in Trek is very tidy and continuous. But to me, it's not...and it never has been. I think people who grew up on the TNG era have very much the opposite experience to me, and therefore different expectations. Star Trek from 1987 to 2004 was massively homogenized from a design, style, and storytelling format standpoint.
I think that's why (and where) you see the most (but not all) pushback....it's from people whose formative experiences as fans was watching the show when it presented the illusion of a homogenized, comfortable, consistent experience. I'm kind of the opposite. I like Trek to be different and push things in unique directions, and take big risks... because that was my perception of the franchise due to the way I've always experienced it.
I like DSC to varying, relatively high degrees. I absolutely loved S1 and 2, despite knowing that they were flawed in certain ways. S3 and 4 I've continued to watch faithfully, but the shift in the show's premise, style and setting have admittedly take a toll on me, and I haven't found it as fun and engaging as I did in the earlier years. I also like and enjoy the Kelvinverse movies, although they don't rank massively high relative to the rest of the franchise for me. I enjoy PIC as well...and I'd place what we've seen of that series so far as "not quite as good as S1 and S2 of DSC" but "better than S3 and S4 of DSC." The animated shows are fine and I watch them both regularly...but I don't really care about them like the life-action stuff. I'd put PRO lightyears ahead of LD, though.[/QUOTE]
This is about as reasoned and well written a take on things as I think you can find.
The key here is that you aren't tearing down one thing to build another up and that is, in my opinion, how discourse should be.
Too often though - and I blame the Twitterification of discussion - opinions need to be shouted at 1000% and if one thing is good another must be "pyar shite".
It isn't a zero sum game and I think many forget there
- Status
Similar threads
