Late to Discovery but finally saw it

[Vger23]

They're confused on purpose. If you explain anything to them, they'll reject it so they can continue to be "confused".

And if you use examples of any Star Trek from 1966 to 2005 to back you up, they'll reinterpret it so they can continue to bash whatever Discovery (or Picard) is doing. Doesn't matter if that reinterpretation means they're misrepresenting Old Trek. That's collateral damage if they accomplish their objective which is to "Bash any new Star Trek at all costs."

There are surprisingly more people who take great exception with the argument that "Star Trek has always had these flaws" than I ever would have thought possible.

I think it's weird thing to bristle at. Sure, I can accept and acknowledge PIC and DSC have their flaws, but why is it so wrong to point out, particularly to a franchise fan, that the flaws they are talking about (in this hypothetical example) have been there time and again in other/all iterations of Trek? It just seems odd to get pissed about. To me, it seems like a completely valid and sane element to engage in discussion on.

 

[Alan Roi]

There are surprisingly more people who take great exception with the argument that "Star Trek has always had these flaws" than I ever would have thought possible.

I think it's weird thing to bristle at. Sure, I can accept and acknowledge PIC and DSC have their flaws, but why is it so wrong to point out, particularly to a franchise fan, that the flaws they are talking about (in this hypothetical example) have been there time and again in other/all iterations of Trek? It just seems odd to get pissed about. To me, it seems like a completely valid and sane element to engage in discussion on.

The general response is: This is a new show, that should exist in some kind of rarefied space and be an idealized version of whatever the person considers the 'perfect' Star Trek show should be. WIth all the prior examples being not Star Trek, but what was wrong with all the Star Trek's that came before.

 

[Vger23]

The general response is: This is a new show, that should exist in some kind of rarefied space and be an idealized version of whatever the person considers the 'perfect' Star Trek show should be. WIth all the prior examples being not Star Trek, but what was wrong with all the Star Trek's that came before.

Yeah, I know. I guess...

My point is never really to say "you're a hypocrite," but more to just point out that the franchise they've always loved and accepted has had those same warts for 50 years...why not relax and enjoy this version like you've typically done in the past?

 

[Alan Roi]

Yeah, I know. I guess...

My point is never really to say "you're a hypocrite," but more to just point out that the franchise they've always loved and accepted has had those same warts for 50 years...why not relax and enjoy this version like you've typically done in the past?

its how it's always been with such folks.

I mean, Why relax and enjoy one's self with the best starts of any the Franchise since TOS, when perceived canon violation outrage can be touched off by the sight of a Vulcan wearing sunglasses!!

 

[fireproof78]

More irritatingly is that somehow pointing that all shows have done this somehow doesn't make it acceptable in new shows. As if, some how, new shows made by entirely new production teams are to learn all the mistakes made from past shows and never make them again...

 

[trash80]

I finally got around to watching DSC yesterday, its pretty good though the Klingons look like they've raided the wardrobe from Game of Thrones

 

[SJGardner]

More irritatingly is that somehow pointing that all shows have done this somehow doesn't make it acceptable in new shows. As if, some how, new shows made by entirely new production teams are to learn all the mistakes made from past shows and never make them again...

I just can't help but love the amounts of doublethink involved in this. Whenever old Trek does these mistakes, it's a part of the franchise's camp charm, a funny in-joke or a meme that actually adds to our experience and makes Star Trek overall more enjoyable. But when Discovery does the exact same things, it's suddenly Kurtzman/CBS utterly refusing to learn a single thing about Star Trek, they're pissing on Gene's vision, he's rolling in his grave, #NotMyStarTrek and so on. When the Enterprise-D fires phasers from its torpedo tubes, it's a funny error that gets some tongue-in-cheek commentary. But when the Discovery fires torpedoes from its nacelles, it's a sign of everything that's wrong with nuTrek. It's almost as if some people don't even deign to give Discovery a chance.

This reminds me of some of the rather simple criticisms the Red Letter Media guys came up with. "They say thing X / do thing Y and then never mention it again!!!" and of course "Nothing makes sense!!!", which were widely parroted among HateTubers and other assorted "fans" all over the web. While careful watching and paying attention to the dialogue takes care of most of the alleged problems, as demonstrated by the work of more even headed Fans who took the time to clarify most misconceptions, through either videos or in forums. But nothing works, because hate sells. I fear the "25%ers", as I like to call them, will stay a part of the Fandom.

My favorite version of this was when it went beyond throwing dirt on things that could be readily inferred from the episode and didn't merit being explained by the dialogue at all, such as why certain characters are serving on the Discovery. There were multiple examples in both seasons where a plot hole that people kept pointing out as an undeniable sign of Discovery's abysmal writing or as an unacceptable deviation from Trek's true message was addressed and resolved in the very next episode, and people still keep bringing them up as unexplained plot holes.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I just can't help but love the amounts of doublethink involved in this. Whenever old Trek does these mistakes, it's a part of the franchise's camp charm, a funny in-joke or a meme that actually adds to our experience and makes Star Trek overall more enjoyable. But when Discovery does the exact same things, it's suddenly Kurtzman/CBS utterly refusing to learn a single thing about Star Trek, they're pissing on Gene's vision, he's rolling in his grave, #NotMyStarTrek and so on. When the Enterprise-D fires phasers from its torpedo tubes, it's a funny error that gets some tongue-in-cheek commentary. But when the Discovery fires torpedoes from its nacelles, it's a sign of everything that's wrong with nuTrek. It's almost as if some people don't even deign to give Discovery a chance.

I don't think it is ironic at all. It is a strategy to take something one disagrees with by putting it into a distant past that has questionable relevance for today's world. These supposed critiques always paint Star Trek's obvious liberal bent as something different from today's progressivism. They also tend to try to portray the current set of Star Trek creators for not following Gene Roddenberry's ideas and models to the bone. We have a choice, apparently: we are either a cult, wherein we can only be blindly obedient, or we are only entertainment. Then there's the relentless nitpicking of things that really don't matter. Does anyone remember when nitpicking was fun, pointing out the flaws in something that we loved but which we knew were just mistakes?

 

[Mudd]

It's a terrible series and has never gotten much better.

 

[Rao Van Tickle]

It's a terrible series and has never gotten much better.

How eloquently put. I like that went out of your way to point out specific points of terribleness. That really should shut up all of the people lamenting about the always same unqualified kinds of criticism of DSC, including myself. /s

Try maybe adding "The creators have never watched Star Trek!". That would give your comment at least some haiku-like elegance.

 

[Rao Van Tickle]

I finally got around to watching DSC yesterday, its pretty good though the Klingons look like they've raided the wardrobe from Game of Thrones

This is something that gave me a bit of a pause for a while too. The houses outside of T'Kuvma's sect do have those lether straps and parts of body armour which look kind of like chain scale mail. But Klingons are usually portrayed as preferring "primitive" gear (we've seen furs and leathery cloaks in the past) according to a philosophy of a more personal style of fighting, and living in a way. I couldn't imagine them in high tech suits. Even the pretty subdued but obviously more "techy" gear the Romulan assassins wear in PIC would look out of place on a Klingon in my eyes.

As for T'Kuvma sect, their outfit seems to be mainly ceremonial in nature, looks pretty unwieldy in hand to hand combat.

Aaaand this is where I notice that I fell into the "planet of the hats" trope trap. Klingons as mainly and almost exclusively a warrior race. The more important it seems to me to show other parts of Klingon society, even more so after all these decades.

 

[Rao Van Tickle]

My favorite version of this was when it went beyond throwing dirt on things that could be readily inferred from the episode and didn't merit being explained by the dialogue at all, such as why certain characters are serving on the Discovery.

Oh yeah, that's a classic. It's hard to believe anybody could be seriously expecting an explanation for every single detail, no matter the importance to the story. Seeing a character in any random movie arrive by cab without having seen them hailing and entering the cab? Plot hole!

 

[trash80]

Aaaand this is where I notice that I fell into the "planet of the hats" trope trap. Klingons as mainly and almost exclusively a warrior race. The more important it seems to me to show other parts of Klingon society, even more so after all these decades.

Oh yeah i'm enjoying the variety, it was just the first thing i thought of when i saw the T'Kuvma sect.

Lack of hair too, could be explained by the ongoing treatment to restore the cranial ridges i suppose.

 

[Vger23]

This is something that gave me a bit of a pause for a while too. The houses outside of T'Kuvma's sect do have those lether straps and parts of body armour which look kind of like chain scale mail. But Klingons are usually portrayed as preferring "primitive" gear (we've seen furs and leathery cloaks in the past) according to a philosophy of a more personal style of fighting, and living in a way. I couldn't imagine them in high tech suits. Even the pretty subdued but obviously more "techy" gear the Romulan assassins wear in PIC would look out of place on a Klingon in my eyes.

As for T'Kuvma sect, their outfit seems to be mainly ceremonial in nature, looks pretty unwieldy in hand to hand combat.

Aaaand this is where I notice that I fell into the "planet of the hats" trope trap. Klingons as mainly and almost exclusively a warrior race. The more important it seems to me to show other parts of Klingon society, even more so after all these decades.

At least they weren't all wearing the same exact costume nearly every Klingon character has worn since Dec 1979. Man, they got a lot of mileage out of those things!

 

[fireproof78]

It's almost as if some people don't even deign to give Discovery a chance.

It seems that way, yes.

Does anyone remember when nitpicking was fun, pointing out the flaws in something that we loved but which we knew were just mistakes?

No, actually. It's been so long...

At least they weren't all wearing the same exact costume nearly every Klingon character has worn since Dec 1979. Man, they got a lot of mileage out of those things!

Star Trek: cutting costs at every possible corner

 

[BillJ]

It's almost as if some people don't even deign to give Discovery a chance.

I have, and it just doesn't engage me on any story level. It feels like a bolt-on afterthought to TOS. A way to leverage that popularity to give the show credibility with the fans. I've watched both seasons and find myself cringing a lot more than I have with any other version of Trek. The show overall feels poorly thought out. They did have a great sci-fi concept in the Mycelial Network, but chose to use it as a gateway to fan service versus actually exploring what such a revolutionary concept would mean to the universe.

And those uniforms. I cringe every time I see one. Looks like someone let a kid go wild with glitter and the Starfleet Bedazzler.

 

[XCV330]

I have, and it just doesn't engage me on any story level. It feels like a bolt-on afterthought to TOS. A way to leverage that popularity to give the show credibility with the fans. I've watched both seasons and find myself cringing a lot more than I have with any other version of Trek. The show overall feels poorly thought out. They did have a great sci-fi concept in the Mycelial Network, but chose to use it as a gateway to fan service versus actually exploring what such a revolutionary concept would mean to the universe.

And those uniforms. I cringe every time I see one. Looks like someone let a kid go wild with glitter and the Starfleet Bedazzler.

they would have looked better with black trousers and simple black boots. its a sign of the show's weakness: they just go to 11 when they should stay around 9

 

[Cyrus]

I think the season would've worked better for me if "Context is for Kings" had been the first episode, and "The Vulcan Hello"/"The Battle at the Binary Stars" had been chopped up and used as flashbacks throughout the season.

That was the original plan.

 

[Alan Roi]

I have, and it just doesn't engage me on any story level. It feels like a bolt-on afterthought to TOS. A way to leverage that popularity to give the show credibility with the fans. I've watched both seasons and find myself cringing a lot more than I have with any other version of Trek. The show overall feels poorly thought out. They did have a great sci-fi concept in the Mycelial Network, but chose to use it as a gateway to fan service versus actually exploring what such a revolutionary concept would mean to the universe.

And those uniforms. I cringe every time I see one. Looks like someone let a kid go wild with glitter and the Starfleet Bedazzler.

I find it the result of a woefully limited mindset to look at deconstructionism and claim it to be fanservice. The writers of Discovery deliberately reinterpret whatever legacy material they work with from different perspectives than they were originally cast in to shed new light on them, forcing the audience to reevaluate their original impressions. That is the exact opposite of fanservice.

 

[BillJ]

I find it the result of a woefully limited mindset to look at deconstructionism and claim it to be fanservice.

I saw nothing deconstructionist about Discovery. Every element played just like it had in other shows, from the monotonous "honor" of the Klingons and the camp of the Mirror universe, I guess we should applaud them for stealing from other franchises with the Control storyline. If anything, it just played like a Cliff Note's version of the other shows, from Ripper being a copy of the Horta from "The Devil in the Dark", complete with Spock family bolt-on realizing that it isn't evil, just misunderstood. To playing up the Federation ban on augmentation, only to ignore it when convenient. To replaying DS9's Section 31 storyline about using genocide to win a war, but to far lesser effect.

"Oh look, they eat people, they must be evil!", I guess they get some kind of repetitive kudos for getting to use that gem with both the Klingons and the Mirror universe Terrans.