Stonkingly?
Stonkingly.
Spoilers Rank the first seasons...
- Thread starter BlueStuff
- Start date
Stonkingly.
Google tells me that it's a real word, but a Britishism.
Okay then!
It's a perfectly cromulent word, I'm sure.
Don't you law enforcement people have anything better to do?
People are dying (... inside... ) in TNZ, you know.
Not our jurisdiction, thank god. 
1. TOS
(Wide margin)
2. TNG (I know, I know. It had some major problems, but out of all the Berman era first seasons it did the most that wasn't just trying to mimic its predecessors.)
3. DSC (The first series since TNG whose first season wasn't trying to clone TNG)
4. VOY
5. DS9
(Wide margin)
6. ENT (Completely unwatchable.)
(Wide margin)
2. TNG (I know, I know. It had some major problems, but out of all the Berman era first seasons it did the most that wasn't just trying to mimic its predecessors.)
3. DSC (The first series since TNG whose first season wasn't trying to clone TNG)
4. VOY
5. DS9
(Wide margin)
6. ENT (Completely unwatchable.)
...I far more often see the exact opposite criticism, that it goes against fan desires too much.
Are we watching the same show? The only real name drops are Sarek and Mudd. All the fanwank accusations make absolutely zero sense to me. Making Star Trek darker is inherently anti-fanwank.
I think Discovery has had some major issues with writing in some episodes and with some major story decisions, but it's certainly not fanwank. And why *shouldn't* Discovery get value out of the beautiful universe previous shows has built? As long as they have something new to say about it. Hell, why even use the name 'Star Trek' if you're not going to leverage the value that previous writers built up for you?
"Fanwank" is a lazy criticism word anyway, a cheap way to dismiss counterarguments without addressing them. Nobody in history has ever complained about fanwank when it's the fanwank they asked for themselves.
Sarek and Mudd and Amanda Grayson and the Enterprise and Christopher Pike and Matt Decker and the Tribble... and the list goes on. Stories that centered on the Klingons and the Mirror Universe.
There's a lot of fanwank there.
Nods are nice, and can enrich the story. They shouldn't be the story.
The Borg, Wolf 359, Captain Picard, Locutus of Borg, Chief O'Brien, the Enterprise-D itself, Q, Vash, The Ferengi, Lwaxana Troi... oh wait, that's not the 'fanwank' in the first season of Discovery, that was the 'fanwank' in the first season of Deep Space Nine.
On the plus side I did learn a new word today.
What the hell did I just watch?
It was catchy enough to make it to the end but man, that was "something" else.
Sounds like a stonkin' good idea!
1) TOS - lightning in a bottle
2) DSC - despite behind the scenes issues and some uneven episodes, the producers knew where they were going, for the most part. Didn't feel made up as it went along and it showed.
3) DS9 - strong pilot but unlike DSC, each week could feel like a different show. Tough to break a winning format (TNG) without a plan. Duet is doing a lot of work here pulling up the average. My favorite series FWIW.
4) TNG - Pretty rough in hindsight but I'm nostalgic about it. The early installment weirdness is part of the charm to me.
5) VOY - The best pilot IMO. Rest of the season was utterly forgettable.
6) ENT - Decent pilot but like VOY's 1st, stale and forgettable.
2) DSC - despite behind the scenes issues and some uneven episodes, the producers knew where they were going, for the most part. Didn't feel made up as it went along and it showed.
3) DS9 - strong pilot but unlike DSC, each week could feel like a different show. Tough to break a winning format (TNG) without a plan. Duet is doing a lot of work here pulling up the average. My favorite series FWIW.
4) TNG - Pretty rough in hindsight but I'm nostalgic about it. The early installment weirdness is part of the charm to me.
5) VOY - The best pilot IMO. Rest of the season was utterly forgettable.
6) ENT - Decent pilot but like VOY's 1st, stale and forgettable.
Klingons are in all Star Trek. That doesn't really count. Star Trek without Klingons is like Battlestar Galactica without Cylons, Doctor Who without Daleks, or Star Wars without the Sith. They're a major part of Star Trek. To expect there to not be Klingons in a Star Trek series is unrealistic.
The fact that they're there shouldn't be in question. How they're used and how much they're used is a different story.
Those were just name-drops, they weren't the story. The computer could've listed Captain Hook or Captain Kangaroo as captains Saru should compare himself to and it wouldn't have made a difference. Otherwise, mentioning Captain Archer or even acknowledging the extistence of anything outside of Discovery is "fanwank".
That's using the term "fanwank" far too liberally. DSC doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's the sixth series. It's a spin-off. It can't just pretend the other five don't exist. Especially the one that takes place before it (ENT) and the one takes place right next to it (TOS). Otherwise, they might as well have just had a flat-out reboot (which is what a lot of people probably wanted or would've preferred, but anyway... ). Should Better Call Saul not acknowledge anything at all from Breaking Bad?
Fanwank is Voyager time-travels to the 23rd Century, has an adventure with Discovery, and then they run into Gary 7's great-great-grandson who warns them about a Section 31 plot involving Q. That's fanwank.
So far, I don't think the TOS/DSC crossover level is any worse than TNG/DS9, which makes sense because they don't exist in a vacuum and they take place in similar time-frames. I think of DSC as a TOS Spin-off (with updated visuals) the same way DS9 and VOY are TNG Spin-offs.
Last edited:
You do realize there is a lot of Star Trek that doesn't have Klingons? They only appeared seven times in TOS. Less than 10% of the series.
^ Yes, but are you trying to argue that the appearance of any Klingons in DSC at all is fanwank? At all. Even Joe Schmoe off the street has heard of Klingons. The first things he thinks of when he hears Star Trek is: "Kirk, Spock, beam me up Scotty, redshirts, it's the Klingons!!!"
I think you've summarized it perfectly.
Also, it's so clear that one's opinion and stance on the series factors heavily into how this kind of stuff is categorized.
If I LIKE something, I will say that these kinds of things are tributes and draw continuity for the fans.
If I don't like something, those exact same things are lame fanwanky garbage, apparently.
It's yet another fan double standard assessment, weighted entirely on what conclusion best services my needs and justifies my opinions.
Similar threads
