Only until the next one comes out.
Is Discovery the most polarizing Trek property ever?
- Thread starter TheMadCloner
- Start date
I definitely see the opinion on TNG swing negatively these days, especially after the 2005-2009 hiatus.
Bingo.
Here's the thing: If you approach DISCO from an adversarial position, scowling at the screen with your arms crossed atop your chest, ever on look-out for “canon violations” or whatever, ready to pounce on the slightest perceived defect, and practically daring the show to win you over despite your many, many reservations . . . well, yeah, you’re probably going to find things to carp about . . . as with every other version of STAR TREK ever produced.
But if you don’t obsess over whether it’s 100% authentic STAR TREK according to your own personal definition, it’s a cool, compelling new take on STAR TREK.
Honestly, it’s what I wanted ENTERPRISE to be.
And right there shows the hypocrisy...
The only difference thematically (well not the only difference but for purposes of this argument...) between Burnham and Ro is that we saw Burnham’s crime first hand as it happened. We never saw the events that led to Ro’s court martial. And in fact going by the myriad complaints leveled against Burnham, Ro should be even more hated because not only did she disobey orders which led to the death of her first captain and away team, after being given a second chance by Picard (everyone’s ultimate space dad) she turned around and stabbed him in the back.
So what’s the difference between the two, as every complaint directed towards Michael Burnham could just as easily be directed towards Ro, yet here you are insisting she’s a “fan favorite” but Burnham is “divisive”.
Even MSTies had their Joe vs Mike shitstorm in the 90s. I hope the new guy gets an easier time on Satellite of Love. Fandom doesn't always have the most socially stable people in its midst.
I pretty much like all trek. There are episodes I'm not crazy about and its had its weak periods.
I do not understand people who like something, but vehemently dislike some part of that something so much that they spend a lot of time to let people know about it. I know it's a fandom thing. I would not care too much but when I do see this show bashed for things that were previously commonplace on other trek series, I don't let it slide, either.
I pretty much like all trek. There are episodes I'm not crazy about and its had its weak periods.
I do not understand people who like something, but vehemently dislike some part of that something so much that they spend a lot of time to let people know about it. I know it's a fandom thing. I would not care too much but when I do see this show bashed for things that were previously commonplace on other trek series, I don't let it slide, either.
I think social media tends to magnify the voice of the hard-liners. And my experience is that the hate against the new movies has been more venomous than what DSC is getting. I think it's just a toxicity that is happening in all fandoms because of how social media works. I don't think DSC is hated in number much more significant than what Enterprise or TNG saw.
Still, there may be an argument made that as a franchise ages and piles up more screen canon, which is by nature inconsistent, it may be inevitable that it will accrue more fans who watch with a checklist in hand instead of watching with an open mind.
I just wish that people would take the time to ponder that, if you hate something so much, why participate? Who needs that stress?
Still, there may be an argument made that as a franchise ages and piles up more screen canon, which is by nature inconsistent, it may be inevitable that it will accrue more fans who watch with a checklist in hand instead of watching with an open mind.
I just wish that people would take the time to ponder that, if you hate something so much, why participate? Who needs that stress?
Probably true. Though in the case of the movies I think it's legitimate: I hate the JJ films (along with many of his contemporaries) on more general grounds - the lack of originality in so many recent movies involving classic Sci-Fi/Superheroes (seen in Superman Returns - Lex Luthor destroys land in Superman The Movie, creates new land in Superman Returns *yawn*, re-using Khan in ST *yawn*) and the bang-crash-wallop of recent ones - how many ST and similar recent movies have long suspenseful sequences like the Battle in the Mutara Nebula. Yes, maybe this is just old-fart syndrome but DSC at least has stories to think about, and isn't just an excuse for showing what CGI can do these days.
As franchises endure, you also get generational rifts. Want to start a fight? Go to a comic-book message board and ask who the "real" Green Lantern or Batgirl is. Chances are, passions will erupt along generational lines, depending on who you grew up reading.
At this point, "STAR TREK" is not really one unified thing. It's seven TV shows and thirteen movies made by scores of different people over the course of fifty-plus years. Plus, decades of novels, comics, technical manuals, "fanon," and so on.
I grew up on the Original Series so that's where my brain automatically goes when I think of "Star Trek," but I certainly understand why younger fans, who grew up on TNG and its spin-offs, use that as their gold standard for STAR TREK. Fifteen years from now, tomorrow's fans will remember DISCO with misty-eyed nostalgia--and insist that the latest STAR TREK is a disgrace and a travesty.
There's no such thing as "true" or "real" STAR TREK. Just lots of different flavors.
At this point, "STAR TREK" is not really one unified thing. It's seven TV shows and thirteen movies made by scores of different people over the course of fifty-plus years. Plus, decades of novels, comics, technical manuals, "fanon," and so on.
I grew up on the Original Series so that's where my brain automatically goes when I think of "Star Trek," but I certainly understand why younger fans, who grew up on TNG and its spin-offs, use that as their gold standard for STAR TREK. Fifteen years from now, tomorrow's fans will remember DISCO with misty-eyed nostalgia--and insist that the latest STAR TREK is a disgrace and a travesty.
There's no such thing as "true" or "real" STAR TREK. Just lots of different flavors.
Last edited:
The exact answer everyone involved with the show should have given when asked what universe it takes place in. They created much of this discussion by claiming it fits in the Prime universe then changing things like the D-7.
I'd say the original is "true" Star Trek, it is the one that created all of this to begin with.
Well, you can apply a lot of adjectives to it other than "true" - it's seminal and essential, obviously.
I've enjoyed a lot of Trek, but the original TV series - not the TOS-based movies - is the only one I'd truly mourn if it all disappeared tomorrow. Mainly, I suppose, because it's a piece of childhood and was the only real moment of discovery - sorry - that Trek ever represented for me.
Everything else is fading variations on an old, old theme.
I think there is certainly a lot of silence out there for Disco. I don't know if it's the majority who loved the old guard or not but the 2009 movie and Abrams and his faction has certainly fractured the fan base. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it is what it is and what he's gotten away with and quite frankly all that we know and can ever hope to achieve. Lots of fans just don't care anymore and are ambivalant. Once again, not necessarily a bad thing, just way different. Like totally.
Hahahahahaha! You have GOT to be joking?
Considering ST:TMP was a $40m million dollar remake of the second season TOS episode - "The Changeling" I wouldn't call it an 'evolution". Plus 2001: A Space Odyssey was still less then a decade old when pre-production on this started and the suits at Paramount were attempting to remake Star Trek more in that vein for this film (and they failed at it IMO - and I say that as a HUGE TOS fan.)
ST:TMP was a rehash on many levels with big budget visual SFX that were in fact rushed to meet a release hard date; and were mor expensive and looked bad in spots as a result.).
So - genuine/classic Star Trek then, in the age old 50+ year tradition...got it.
Nope.
A glittering, steaming Gary Sue with no dramatic tension? Hard pass.
You can't be serious. Eight million dollars per episode? Every sushi restaurant in LA is going to see their profits skyrocket!
It's rare you get to actually see someone's last few iotas of credibility vanish in real-time. Thank you. This is like being present for a solar eclipse.
Spending other people's money, stealing IP and setting themselves up with a studio?
Star Trek Continues looked exactly as it was supposed to. It was a labor of love, a true fan production.
Axanar with 8 million might have been Alex Peters with 6 million in pocket, a 1.5 million dollar studio with offices and a second $500,000 trailer. Oh and it would have killed off all future fan productions. No wait he did that anyway.
Last edited:
Similar threads
