I wouldnt consider RLM "assholes" they are genuine fans of Star Trek and they didn't bash discovery just said it wasn't for them
On topic, I will say this season Discovery has considerably improved, i'm actually enjoying it
Is the Picard show the "last chance saloon" for anyone else?
- Thread starter Infern0
- Start date
- Status
I wouldnt consider RLM "assholes" they are genuine fans of Star Trek and they didn't bash discovery just said it wasn't for them
On topic, I will say this season Discovery has considerably improved, i'm actually enjoying it
People want prime universe because they want continuity with a world that they spent 5 series, and hundreds of episodes in.
they can make changes, set it in a different time period, alter the visuals, but dont throw the baby out with the bathwater, rebooting isn't needed
Yet every single new Batman series is always set in it's own unique continuity and they remain popular. Last I checked, DC's Titans was the #1 streaming show worldwide, with Disco at #5. You could argue something like Justice League or Gotham happened in the past of that show's universe, but the details don't match up. And it's none the lesser for it.
I would suggest they've changed so much of Discovery that the same applies and it's a de facto reboot. The looks have changed, the backstory has changed, they're retconned all of Trek's technology into the pre-TOS period...
So I see it as it's own thing. And it's none the lesser for it. In fact, it removes all the headaches of trying to make them work together.
That's my feel as well. I find I just get aggravated trying to do mind twists to try to fit it 10 years pre-original series. There are so many contradictions and things that just don't work.
I find I can sit back and enjoy Discovery more if I just don't try. If I just treat it as it's own entity. Inspired by Star Trek, sharing things with Star Trek, like characters and institutions, and even the general outline of the ships. But I've gotten to thinking of it as a reboot.
I keep thinking to myself why the show runners didn't do that in the first place. It's clear they wanted to do their own thing. If they did a reboot then they wouldn't need to bother trying to explain how the spore drive was not in use 10 years later, or why Klingons look like something that Giger created.
I'm open minded enough that perhaps the Discovery show runners provide explanations for why there is such a disconnect, and maybe by the end of the show I'll be able to see it as a pre-TOS show. But for now, I find my watching pleasure is increased if I just think of it separate from the rest of the prime-universe. I imagine the show runners would probably tell those of us that feel that way if we enjoy it more thinking of it in those terms, then so be it. I'm sure their top priority is that the viewers enjoy it. How we view it is probably not as important to them.
Re: TNG, I find it amusing about people saying there were complaints when it came out about it being a reboot, or reimaging, or not being in the same continuity (however you want to call it). For me I never thought of it like that. It was 78 years post TVH so I figured any changes were because it was 78 years later. I frankly never gave the continuity issue much though. My initial thoughts had nothing whatsoever to do with that. It was because I wasn't sure Star Trek could exist without Kirk-Spock-McCoy et al. And the first season or so was a bit uneven story wise. But for me it was never about continuity, reboots, reimagings. It was those two things. Happily I came to love TNG and by the middle of the 2nd season I was very much looking forward to the next episode.
Yes, goooood. You are most worthy, my young disciple. Bring the unfaithful before me so that I may smite them with the raw power of GENE'S VISION™.
I know I'm going out on a limb by saying this, but is that sort of flamewar baiting (all the way through to your current avatar and byline) really becoming of a moderator? Moderators are supposed to referee, not pile on with one side or the other. I know ya can't fight city hall, but seriously. This only throws fuel onto these dumpster-fires.
Yes, and that's OK. Art is not static and exists not only with its own continuity but also the culture in which it is created. Even if Star Trek stopped being produced today it would still have a 50 year legacy and nothing can detract from that.
Personally, I would rather see art move and grow, shows inspired by Trek develop and change, than be bound to one vision of sci-fi/space fairing.
That's why it's ok for Star Trek not to be the top dog, and that's why it's ok for other shows to take that place. It is the nature of art and culture to continue on. This is why I have respect for DSC, even if I don't agree with all of the choices.
Yes, and he would be.
He's Just Another Poster in this forum. And if you have that strong of an issue with his post, send a Report, don't accuse another poster of flamewar baiting in the thread.
And for Christ's sake, it's obviously just a joke.
I don't care that they don't like Discovery, but Rich needs to STFD with his TRUE TREK nonsense. He doesn't get to define Star Trek for the rest of us.
I don't know what I'll think of the Picard Series, but it's not my Last Chance Saloon. I have Discovery. If I end up not liking the Picard Series, I'll be perfectly happy to stick with just DSC.
Any chance that just maybe you're taking all this a little too seriously?
GR wasn't a religious figure, he realised fans saw something in the show and modeled himself on the man they thought he was. I'm sorry to break this to you but much as I love trek it's easy to get lost in the fantasy and lose track of the reality of what is essentially just a particularly iconic TV show which carried a message which was as much the work of the small army of writers as it was GR.
It was bound to happen, sadly.
Star Trek has failed almost every chance I've given it past 2009 for me. A little late.
The reboot film totally set it off on a completely different foot this past decade. It's not even close to the Star Trek I've always loved.
That's not to say if someone else finally got the lead of the franchise (IE, please remove Kurtsman/Orci) to revitalize it to what it's always been: less action/SW fantasy and more hardcore political scifi morality plays, like if, and I can't believe I'm saying this, Seth McFarlane or some other hardcore fan, I'd still give it a chance and be optimistic. It can be saved, but this 'new' Trek needs to fail and die first. Or a CEO change at Paramount/CBS. Whichever comes first.
The reboot film totally set it off on a completely different foot this past decade. It's not even close to the Star Trek I've always loved.
That's not to say if someone else finally got the lead of the franchise (IE, please remove Kurtsman/Orci) to revitalize it to what it's always been: less action/SW fantasy and more hardcore political scifi morality plays, like if, and I can't believe I'm saying this, Seth McFarlane or some other hardcore fan, I'd still give it a chance and be optimistic. It can be saved, but this 'new' Trek needs to fail and die first. Or a CEO change at Paramount/CBS. Whichever comes first.
Have you actually watched TOS Trek (the era of the current show)?
I’d much rather it didn’t, actually.
Star Trek was originally pitched as such so I would appreciate if those elements remained.
Absolutely not. We do not need another rehash of a rehash made by a rabid fanboy. You got one, have fun enjoying it, and all the blessings to you. I hope MacFarlane's show lasts for many years and brings everyone much joy. I even wish him spin-offs and whatnot. You can keep it, though. I don't want it.
I'm honestly a little baffled, here. What is it? Is DSC "too political" or not political enough? All seems fair game when it's about complaining, but the inconsistency is what astounds me. It cannot be both.
Now, I'm not saying my opinion is better than anyone's or any such nonsense, but I seriously do not get how criticisms that rule each other out are all lobbed at the same show - and to me, none of them are even remotely true (my opinion, not the objective truth). ST has always mixed political messaging with scifi/fantasy spectacle, often with silly results (as I never tire of pontificating, the most popular movie is a space revenge story with a very stupid villain and lots of boom. It's not deep. It doesn't have to be to be good). DSC has found a good mix between politics, the wonders of space, action, and 3-dimensional characters (and actual character development, as well as consequences). You don't have to like it, nor are you in the wrong for not liking it. You can wish for a show that incorporates things you love, of course. That's totally legit. Everyone does that. However.
However.
Wishing a show to fail? Seriously? I think you're above that.
I may be mistaken, but when I look at some of these ill wishes, I cannot help but think that some people are projecting stuff that isn't even there. Maybe I'm fan myopic, but so are many of those who've hated DSC (or any new Trek as it popped up; remember when DS9 premiered? I do) from the get-go. Wear rose-coloured glasses where the other shows are concerned all you like - I know I do, and it's fun - but come on, bad science, stupid plots, and silly set-ups have always been a part of Trek. I think DSC manages to both have fun with that and avoid the worst (Code of Honour, anyone?). Wanting something that doesn't promote hate or intolerance in the slightest to actually fail is, I believe, taking it way too far.
The direction of it's politics. Too much of what it is doing, not enough of what it isn't.
Okay, fair enough; that's legit. I just get the feeling that some people complain about whatever suits them at the moment, even if those complaints contradict each other - also, there's the thing with the rose-coloured glasses (something I do in abundance, admittedly) throwing off perspective. Again, I'm not saying I'm right. At times, reactions just baffle me a bit - when they're not logical criticisms but unwarranted vitriol.
I'm not complaining about anything. I'm pretty casual when it comes to Trek; all I do know is Discovery is of zero interest to me because if I wanted to watch Star Wars, I'd watch that instead.
So I would seriously not mind it if Trek died for awhile, at least to end this current trend of where it's going.
- Status
Similar threads
