I don't think Trek is as consistent as we like to think it is.
Is star trek as we knew it in the 90's dead? lets ask the spirit guides.
- Thread starter WildManWizard
- Start date
Yeah neither was 90s Trek consistent with TOS nor were the 90s shows even "99%" consistent with each other. Not even remotely.
I know I'm definitely missing the glory days of 2019. And there's a sentence I never expected to write.
Man, one has to be impressed at how well Star Trek fans glance over inconsistencies over the years to think it was 99% consistent.
Since it took them 30 years to explain the ever-changing look of the Klingons, perhaps you just need to chill for a few decades
I doubt it's Rick Berman anyone wants back, it's Michael Okuda, Doug Drexler and that lot so all their control consoles and ship size comparison charts will be "correct"
You know, all that stuff that doesn't really matter.
You know, all that stuff that doesn't really matter.
Since it took them 30 years to explain the ever-changing look of the Klingons, perhaps you just need to chill for a few decades
Really though I don't have a big problem with Klingons looking different as long as those appearances are not exclusionary. It makes sense the a large interstellar empire would be represented by different species. "Klingon" should be a political descriptor, not merely an ethnic one.
However, you do realize how much it really does matter when you have a hundred copy and paste ships as your fleet, and copy and past shuttles from a show that is supposed to be set one hundred years prior, and
the Big Bad is just giant space tentacles
It can often make or break the suspension of disbelief. Though YMMV of course.
Last edited:
I just think their stuff looks massively better than anything put out by the All-Access shows to this point. More money definitely doesn’t equate to more creativity.
Yep. That's how it is.
I already miss the glory days of 2020..... whaddya mean its only April?
Based upon what exactly? Your own personal distaste for the current product?
Exactly...at the time, DS9 was the whipping post and poster child for "NAWT TEH REEL STAR TRAK!!" Ironic that now it is the show everyone points to as the shining example of what Star Trek should be. Again, it's just a factor of nostalgia and "frozen in time" expectations. The new shows have plenty of issues. No doubt....
But so has all of Star Trek. Even the most universally beloved versions.
It's a cute little show. Nothing to get too excited about, though. Certainly nothing that is going to inspire the levels of discussion and passion that Star Trek, in ANY incarnation, has inspired. And, by the accounts I've read, they're looking to do more action/adventure serious stuff next season and less humor, pretty much taking away its only (and admittedly dubious) distinction from the source material it is derived from.
Also, moving to Hulu....which I do not (and won't) subscribe to. I won't miss it. I enjoyed it. I watched every episode. But, I could care less about it.
Based on the fact that the narrative structure is objectively bad. Its full of holes and doesn't make logical sense. That doesn't mean people can't like it or think its fun. Its perfectly fine if people enjoy the spectacle. It also doesn't mean there aren't some good things in it. But major part of the story don't make sense.
Don't make me walk though with you the massive amounts of contrivances, plot holes, idiot science, and general foolishness that inhabits universally-beloved installments like "Wrath of Khan" "Undiscovered Country" or "First Contact" to prove that you're holding this iteration of Star Trek to a standard that other iterations would never hold up under.
Meh, it all looks essentially the same to me. I was never fond of Voyager, the Defiant or the NX-01 myself. And personally I think Discovery's control interfaces look awesome.
Star Trek as a whole is objectively bad. Prove me wrong, if you want to show your argument means anything at all.
Alright....I couldn't resist....Lockdown boredom and all....
NOW, understand, TWOK is my favorite Star Trek movie, and probably one of my favorite movies of all time. So all this (below) is just to illustrate how plot holes and narrative gibberish probably aren't the best standards to hold newer iterations of Star Trek to....at least not without being dismissive of about 80% of the rest of the franchise, including may of it's cornerstone productions.
Wrath of Khan Contrivances / Plot Holes / Foolishness / Things That Don’t Make Sense / Idiot Science
- The Enterprise, which was in the very last movie, the most up-to-date starship in known space, is now a training vessel relegated to sitting in dock until it’s time for ferrying around cadets.
- The Reliant can’t figure out which planet is Ceti Alpha V vs. VI? Can’t scan evidence that an entire planet exploded (!)? That’s utter nonsense…and a point of nonsense that the entire plot hinges upon.
- Chekov doesn’t say anything about the history of this system to Terrell? Doesn’t recognize the cargo containers immediately? Doesn’t call for beam up immediately upon realizing what is happening?
- Chekov is immediately recognized by Khan, despite not having been in the episode “Space Seed” (maybe why he didn’t recognize the cargo containers immediately).
- The Enterprise JUST HAPPENS to be headed out on a training cruise, with all the original officers (including Kirk) all visiting, at the exact same time (the EXACT SAME TIME) as Khan is escaping his exile and plotting his elaborate revenge?
- Carol Marcus, the project lead for the most important and dangerous technology ever developed in Federation history, just happens to be Kirk’s ex lover and baby mama?
- The Reliant, which is of course the starship that Khan commandeers, just happens to be assigned to this project
- The Enterprise, a training vessel, just happens to be the only Federation Starship capable of responding to the Regula 1 distress call…a distress call coming from the laboratory that is responsible for developing the most important and dangerous technology in Federation history. A laboratory and project that is somehow not under guard or protection of any kind, whatsoever.
- The Enterprise is attacked in deep space, en route to Regula 1. They are 12 hours and 43 min away at Warp 5 when Kirk gathers Spock and McCoy to view the Genesis tape, which is essentially a 5-6 min scene. The Reliant intercepts them during that discussion and knocks out their Warp Drive. Next scene, we are pulling up to the space station…happy as can be. Complete non-sense.
- Somehow, the Genesis matrix is capable of creating an entire Earth-normal oxygen / gravity environment deep inside a planetoid. With plants and water and all kinds of interesting stuff….but no access to sunlight (other than some strange unexplained light source in a matte painting, which is itself ludicrous). Absolutely, positively stupid and implausible.
- There is a nebula “boundary” (which is a laughable concept in itself) 3-4 min from orbit of the Regula planetoid at sublight speeds. Amazing!
- Chekov, an officer who was just under mind-control, is responsible in no small part for the situation they are all in, and had a massive physical trauma mere MINUTES ago, is allowed to take a post on the bridge of the Enterprise during a life-or-death crisis at none other than the weapons/defense console.
- The Genesis device, set to detonate, cannot be disarmed? It can’t be beamed into space on wide dispersal like Nomad?
- How can the Genesis effect, which was specifically designed and calibrated to transform a planet, explode in a nebula and then somehow reverse and coalesce into a fully-formed class-M planet, which also just happens to be in the goldilocks zone of an appropriate star type? Remember, the Reliant was apparently on an exhaustive mission to find the precise type of planet that would be suitable for a test....if it was as easy as detonating the thing under less-than-ideal circumstances in the nebula 3 min away....what the hell was the point of all that?
- We are going to launch a photon torpedo into a planet, and somehow the torpedo is going to land without a scratch on it? It’s not going to burn up? It’s not going to have a dent? Maybe a scuff mark?
Now, there's plenty of reasons for someone to have personal dislike or objection to the new Treks (or any Treks for that matter)....but I always get a belly laugh when "TEH SLAPPY RIGHTING" or "plot holes" gets brought up as one of those reasons. Star Trek is filled with sloppy writing and plot holes, all of which are generally overlooked. The tone, aesthetics, characters, general story being told, etc....are all completely understandable criticisms. Not everything is going to be to everyone's tastes, especially when there is a purposeful effort to make these iterations different from what came before. But trying to pass off the flaws in the narrative construct as "objectively bad" while giving other franchise gems the (presumed) "pass'.....no sir, I don't like it.
"A major part of the story doesn't make sense" is literally a foundational hallmark of Star Trek, especially any iteration that is going to be scrutinized (and particularly scrutinized from an inherently negatively-biased positon) heavily by fans.
I never said the other iterations were flawless.
There are some episodes that have objectively bad writing. Though I don't know if you could say that Star Trek as a franchise is overall good or bad. I think each iteration has to be examined on its own. "Star Trek as a whole is objectively bad, " is just to broad of a generalization.
We have objective criteria for what makes good stories and what makes bad stories. So applying those criteria to episodes, or serialized stories would let us know if they are good or bad.
Of course you didn't. I recognize that.
So I'm sure you're prepared to explain to us how you also judge"Wrath of Khan," "Undiscovered Country, "First Contact" and "Voyage Home," all of which are overflowing with narrative idiocy, as also objectively bad and, as such, are surely viewed as the Star Trek Holiday Specials nowadays....?
It's no secret I like the Kurtzman Era better than the Berman Era.
BUT
I just watched the first season of ENT. I rated the episodes as I went along. Because I wanted to compare it with what I thought of everything else. For some perspective, I also just finished re-watching TNG before Picard and did similar. I rated each episode on a four-star scale. These are how I rated the each season of TNG and the first season of ENT.
TNG S1 --> 2.52
TNG S2 --> 2.70
TNG S3 --> 3.02
TNG S4 --> 3.08
TNG S5 --> 2.96
TNG S6 --> 3.06
TNG S7 --> 2.90
ENT S1 --> 2.46
What does this tell you? I like the first season of ENT about as much as the first season of TNG. Doesn't sound too good, does it? But look closer. I gave them both two-and-a-half stars. Whereas I gave most seasons of TNG three stars.
So it's true, I didn't like ENT or the first season of TNG as much as the other seasons. But the gap between them was less than arguments of TrekBBS would imply. The internet has a bad habit of exaggerating what's out there and exaggerating our perspectives.
I also ranked ENT on a 10-scale at the same time. Which is what I use for DSC and PIC. So how did the first season of ENT compare to the three seasons of CBS All Access Star Trek?
ENT S1 --> 7.0
DSC S1 --> 8.4
DSC S2 --> 8.7
PIC S1 --> 8.7
Once again, while it's still true I like DSC and PIC better (which will surprise absolutely no one who's even remotely familiar with my posts), the gap in my opinion of them isn't as much as I thought it would be. I like some Star Trek better than other Star Trek. But it doesn't mean the Star Trek I like less is total garbage and it doesn't mean that I can't recognize any of what's good in it.
To flip it around: I think some people's perceptions between the differences in quality are also exaggerated. Do you really, honestly think the Kurtzman Era series are that much worse? Really? Or is it the perception online that takes on a life of its own that's what's really fueling it?
BUT
I just watched the first season of ENT. I rated the episodes as I went along. Because I wanted to compare it with what I thought of everything else. For some perspective, I also just finished re-watching TNG before Picard and did similar. I rated each episode on a four-star scale. These are how I rated the each season of TNG and the first season of ENT.
TNG S1 --> 2.52
TNG S2 --> 2.70
TNG S3 --> 3.02
TNG S4 --> 3.08
TNG S5 --> 2.96
TNG S6 --> 3.06
TNG S7 --> 2.90
ENT S1 --> 2.46
What does this tell you? I like the first season of ENT about as much as the first season of TNG. Doesn't sound too good, does it? But look closer. I gave them both two-and-a-half stars. Whereas I gave most seasons of TNG three stars.
So it's true, I didn't like ENT or the first season of TNG as much as the other seasons. But the gap between them was less than arguments of TrekBBS would imply. The internet has a bad habit of exaggerating what's out there and exaggerating our perspectives.
I also ranked ENT on a 10-scale at the same time. Which is what I use for DSC and PIC. So how did the first season of ENT compare to the three seasons of CBS All Access Star Trek?
ENT S1 --> 7.0
DSC S1 --> 8.4
DSC S2 --> 8.7
PIC S1 --> 8.7
Once again, while it's still true I like DSC and PIC better (which will surprise absolutely no one who's even remotely familiar with my posts), the gap in my opinion of them isn't as much as I thought it would be. I like some Star Trek better than other Star Trek. But it doesn't mean the Star Trek I like less is total garbage and it doesn't mean that I can't recognize any of what's good in it.
To flip it around: I think some people's perceptions between the differences in quality are also exaggerated. Do you really, honestly think the Kurtzman Era series are that much worse? Really? Or is it the perception online that takes on a life of its own that's what's really fueling it?
Last edited:
Similar threads
