They really didn't say anything about the season at all which wasn't already discussed to death on this forum.
RED LETTER MEDIA SEASON 2 REVIEW
- Thread starter JamesRye
- Start date
They really didn't say anything about the season at all which wasn't already discussed to death on this forum.
Without watching the video (for fear of what it will do to my feed) I will say the undercurrent that I am picking up is one of lamenting over the "good old days" of Trek and how dare these new people come in. Yes, that's a bit of a generalization, but that's the feel I get.
Which, confuses me to no end with this fan base in particular. I get told again and again that Star Trek showcased an optimistic future where skin color and gender didn't matter and you could succeed and be welcomed in. And yet, the moment that Star Trek moves towards appealing to more than just those like me (who grew up with TOS on VHS and watched series premiers of DS9, VOY and ENT), to include people like my mom or my wife who are not fans of SF, but were willing to try things like Kelvin Trek and DSC, the criticism starts.
That bothers me. What bothers me even more is the insistence upon griping that a new show hasn't hit the heights of the best of Trek. That is irrational.
Which, confuses me to no end with this fan base in particular. I get told again and again that Star Trek showcased an optimistic future where skin color and gender didn't matter and you could succeed and be welcomed in. And yet, the moment that Star Trek moves towards appealing to more than just those like me (who grew up with TOS on VHS and watched series premiers of DS9, VOY and ENT), to include people like my mom or my wife who are not fans of SF, but were willing to try things like Kelvin Trek and DSC, the criticism starts.
That bothers me. What bothers me even more is the insistence upon griping that a new show hasn't hit the heights of the best of Trek. That is irrational.
I really liked Calypso. It was close in my opinion to those highs. I think it's the best episode of DSC.
sorry for that, my bad.
I didn't have a point to make. I was just sharing what I thought was an interesting review from a very popular reviewer. In this case, it summarised what I felt regarding Season 2.
For the record, I enjoy reading reviews that I disagree with. Certainly, I don't blindly agree with Red Letter Media and/or it's conclusions. But I do really enjoy their reviews, particularly the ones on Star Wars and Star Trek. I'd always loved First Contact and still enjoy it, but their articulate commentary on that film made me look at it in a different way and altered my opinion of the movie.
I don't buy those 19 % or to be more precise they offered contradictory information. The Klingons nearly conquered/destroyed the Earth which must have been one of the most defended planets of the whole Federation and it is also in the middle of the Federation. If they got so far, they must have conquered quite a lot of space of the Federation before.
That said among the numerous plot holes and other weaknesses of DIS, this was a minor one. The way they ended the war was for example much more idiotic with everything depending on L'Rell to act stupid and suddenly "nice" towards the Federation.
I think people who aren't into DSC's main storylines are going to have a hard time finding episodes to like.
If you don't like Michael Burnham, you're fucked. There's no two ways about it.
If you're not into the Klingons or the Mirror Universe, that knocks out all of Season 1 except for "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" and "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum". If you're not into the Mycellial Network, the Red Angel, Section 31, or Control that knocks out the entire second season except where it's a tangential focus and not the main focus, like "New Eden" and "The Sound of Thunder". Not a lot to go on. Basically, if you don't like what DSC is focusing on, you're not really going to like the vast majority of it.
And let's look at those four episodes that are left: "Magic", "Si Vis Pacem", "New Eden", and "Sound of Thunder". If you want to get down to the classic, traditional "This is what Star Trek's all about!" approach, then it's easy to see why people who don't like DSC gravitate toward "New Eden".
"If Memory Serves" is heavily intertwined in the ongoing storylines of DSC S2 and it's really the celebration of TOS that makes people overlook it who otherwise aren't too thrilled about the season or series.
Then there's Short Treks. If you can't stand Tilly, you're out of luck with "Runaway". If you think Saru's backstory is boring, you're not going to like "The Brightest Star". So all you have is Harry Mudd-centered "The Escape Artist" and "Calypso" which stars no one from the actual series.
So if you don't like the main characters or the main storyline, then there's no way to get into Disco unless it's not about those. The episodes can be great but it still won't be your cup of tea. And the material that doesn't focus on them will only be cited as the exceptions that prove the rule.
If you don't like Michael Burnham, you're fucked. There's no two ways about it.
If you're not into the Klingons or the Mirror Universe, that knocks out all of Season 1 except for "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" and "Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum". If you're not into the Mycellial Network, the Red Angel, Section 31, or Control that knocks out the entire second season except where it's a tangential focus and not the main focus, like "New Eden" and "The Sound of Thunder". Not a lot to go on. Basically, if you don't like what DSC is focusing on, you're not really going to like the vast majority of it.
And let's look at those four episodes that are left: "Magic", "Si Vis Pacem", "New Eden", and "Sound of Thunder". If you want to get down to the classic, traditional "This is what Star Trek's all about!" approach, then it's easy to see why people who don't like DSC gravitate toward "New Eden".
"If Memory Serves" is heavily intertwined in the ongoing storylines of DSC S2 and it's really the celebration of TOS that makes people overlook it who otherwise aren't too thrilled about the season or series.
Then there's Short Treks. If you can't stand Tilly, you're out of luck with "Runaway". If you think Saru's backstory is boring, you're not going to like "The Brightest Star". So all you have is Harry Mudd-centered "The Escape Artist" and "Calypso" which stars no one from the actual series.
So if you don't like the main characters or the main storyline, then there's no way to get into Disco unless it's not about those. The episodes can be great but it still won't be your cup of tea. And the material that doesn't focus on them will only be cited as the exceptions that prove the rule.
Last edited:
I've liked Star Trek since I was 3 years old...and I played Strong Safety in college (football) and was a pretty decent baseball player up through high school. I also coached football at the high school level for over 2 decades. So, I've never considered Star Trek "something just for nerds," and I guess I'm that invading jock everyone hates. Oh well.
It might also explain why the butthurt elitism always pisses me off.
That's what YouTube is about anymore it seems along with social media too. Pander to the extremes of whatever you cover. Entertainment, politics etc. People love others confirming their beliefs.
I'm pretty sure when they say "jock", they mean "someone who picked on me in school". Which is incredibly ironic. The attacks on DSC have been pretty vicious. The complaints about "Mary Sue" and "SJWs" strike me as the picking on and the bullying.
Worse is when someone says that it "used to be for nerds", that basically means "it used to be for people like me". So they're being intolerant about other people liking any part of a franchise that's supposed to be about tolerance.
I record sports. Most of the kids are pretty good. And they're doing physical activity. This isn't like the Old Days. Kids are on their phone, they're online, they're playing videogames, there's not a lot of moving around, people eat out a lot more with food that has larger and larger portions and calories. Between the more sedentary life-style and the worse diets, kids need to do stuff that gets them to move around more. And when both parents are working, after-school activities become even more important. My niece, who's going into first grade, takes dancing.
EDIT: In the past, NuKirk has been accused of being like the Stereotypical Jock. The Abrams Films have been criticized for having constant, non-stop action. I personally think Nemesis out-did all three in the Non-Stop Action Department, but that's another story. It's not about what I think, it's about what they think.
It sounds to me like, in some cases, RLM is just cutting-and-pasting criticisms they had of the Kelvin Films onto Discovery and just changing the names. I've seen that done by some posters here. So this might be the same thing. If their criticisms sound "lazy", as was mentioned upthread, then cutting-and-pasting would fit that MO.
Some of that cutting-and-pasting makes no sense. Sure, a lot of people went to see the Abrams Films who weren't normally Star Trek fans; but those are the types who go into a theater to be entertained for two hours and that's it. They're not subscribing to CBSAA and watching Discovery every week. That takes someone more dedicated than someone going to see a movie for two hours. Sure, there are some people who are fans of DSC who started with the Abrams Films before discovering other Trek, but that's not the composition of most of the audience. So it's not as if the audience for DSC is all "jocks" (quotations deliberate) and that they've taken over. That's a gross distortion of facts and a horrible mis-characterization. And it also does a disservice to most of the average movie-going audience who went to see the films.
You shouldn't judge someone based solely on what films or shows they watch and assume you're getting the whole picture of who someone is, based off that. To do that is also lazy.
Worse is when someone says that it "used to be for nerds", that basically means "it used to be for people like me". So they're being intolerant about other people liking any part of a franchise that's supposed to be about tolerance.
I record sports. Most of the kids are pretty good. And they're doing physical activity. This isn't like the Old Days. Kids are on their phone, they're online, they're playing videogames, there's not a lot of moving around, people eat out a lot more with food that has larger and larger portions and calories. Between the more sedentary life-style and the worse diets, kids need to do stuff that gets them to move around more. And when both parents are working, after-school activities become even more important. My niece, who's going into first grade, takes dancing.
EDIT: In the past, NuKirk has been accused of being like the Stereotypical Jock. The Abrams Films have been criticized for having constant, non-stop action. I personally think Nemesis out-did all three in the Non-Stop Action Department, but that's another story. It's not about what I think, it's about what they think.
It sounds to me like, in some cases, RLM is just cutting-and-pasting criticisms they had of the Kelvin Films onto Discovery and just changing the names. I've seen that done by some posters here. So this might be the same thing. If their criticisms sound "lazy", as was mentioned upthread, then cutting-and-pasting would fit that MO.
Some of that cutting-and-pasting makes no sense. Sure, a lot of people went to see the Abrams Films who weren't normally Star Trek fans; but those are the types who go into a theater to be entertained for two hours and that's it. They're not subscribing to CBSAA and watching Discovery every week. That takes someone more dedicated than someone going to see a movie for two hours. Sure, there are some people who are fans of DSC who started with the Abrams Films before discovering other Trek, but that's not the composition of most of the audience. So it's not as if the audience for DSC is all "jocks" (quotations deliberate) and that they've taken over. That's a gross distortion of facts and a horrible mis-characterization. And it also does a disservice to most of the average movie-going audience who went to see the films.
You shouldn't judge someone based solely on what films or shows they watch and assume you're getting the whole picture of who someone is, based off that. To do that is also lazy.
Last edited:
For me, it's much less about the people who are enjoying the entertainment and much more about how the entertainment is designed to be enjoyed. Trek has often worn its influences on its sleeves, but it also has failed spectacularly when it loses its identity in favor of aping something else. (2001's influence on TMP is a good early example.) Personally, I think the high-water mark of the franchise was the maroon-uniform TOS movies, especially Khan, which was made on a relative shoestring after the relative financial disappointment of TMP. For a brief moment, Paramount was happy to have Trek movies that were relatively modest, but dependable, financial successes. Now, that's inadequate. The Kevin films, and now Discovery, are written on the modern blockbuster template. The universe is ending, the tears are huge, the CGI is blinding, there's some shallow talk of family or wub or somesuch -- and then they rinse and repeat. It's aiming for a big tent audience, but in a very rote way. I can understand why some folks feel something has been lost.
Last edited:
To be fair to the Kelvin movies, mid-market movies in general - and sci-fi in particular - have been vanishing. The rise of "peak TV" has moved a lot of projects which would have formerly been mid-market movies onto the small screen. These days blockbuster action moves - or movies attempting and failing to be blockbuster action movies - hyper-dominate the theaters. So if Trek was going to make a comeback, it would only be as an attempted blockbuster series.
This doesn't excuse the practice of mistakenly treating TV shows as also needing to be structured like blockbuster action movies. However, Discovery is far from alone in being treated like this.
Yeah, I don't really fault them for it. It's the way things are done these days. But that also makes for pretty meh Trek that is similar to a lot of other product on the shelves. I can see why some folks complain that something has been lost, that the nerd space has been invaded. I'm happy to have more people enjoy Star Trek, but maybe not if the cost is turning Trek into the Transformers movies.
Beyond that, I'm not convinced this is a viable way forward for the franchise in the long run. But it’ll work until it doesn’t, and then maybe we'll get another Star Trek II scenario where something great comes out of an abrupt change of course.
Beyond that, I'm not convinced this is a viable way forward for the franchise in the long run. But it’ll work until it doesn’t, and then maybe we'll get another Star Trek II scenario where something great comes out of an abrupt change of course.
Last edited:
With a consistent showrunner and production team I think we will see this.
I believe Kurtzman is being honest when he says the other Trek series will be very different in tone/content than Discovery. And if they're ultimately more successful, the studio will notice and alter the format to be something less generic.
Same here. I think that the stability will make the difference in the show, and those who do not like DSC will have other content to engage with, rather than feeling like they have to watch DSC because Star Trek.
I was wondering if someone would focus on their immutable characteristics on the first page and you didn't disappoint! Agism, racism, fat shaming, and sexism all in one post before you even mentioned a single thing about their actual content; you only missed criticizing them based on their most likely sexual orientation in your critique. I imagine if they were anything but that combination you wouldn't dare post that (and, no, whatever combination of the above you also identify with doesn't excuse it either).
Mixed feelings about RLM, and despite some quibbles with "plot holes" (some real, some not), Mike is right on the money that every damn thing about DSC is good to great... except the writing. I've heard enough apologists on this board and elsewhere try to talk it back, and yes, not every episode of every other series was amazing, but on a structural level, even Code of Honor was better crafted than at least half of DSCs episodes. But flash and shine and new have ardent defenders who will say Casablanca is bad just because it isn't any of those things.
I like just about all the things people criticize about DSC (excepting the writing), though I also am a nitpicker of the Phil Farrand school so even the best episodes will get torn apart with love. I like the new Klingons (even if I wish their mouths were a bit freer for acting purposes), I love the contentious Michael Burnham, I like the open shuttlebay (it looks cool!), etc, etc.
Nonetheless, DSC reeks of too many cooks, and though there's nothing wrong with the serial format, it totally fails to utilize the structure and function of episodes and seasons within that format.
There's hope, and a lot to love, but I think it isn't unreasonable to expect basic competency from professionals. Though I think none of them are truly outstanding (yes, Calypso is quite good), all the Short Treks so far, even with the weird logic here and there, demonstrated that this team CAN do better.
I like just about all the things people criticize about DSC (excepting the writing), though I also am a nitpicker of the Phil Farrand school so even the best episodes will get torn apart with love. I like the new Klingons (even if I wish their mouths were a bit freer for acting purposes), I love the contentious Michael Burnham, I like the open shuttlebay (it looks cool!), etc, etc.
Nonetheless, DSC reeks of too many cooks, and though there's nothing wrong with the serial format, it totally fails to utilize the structure and function of episodes and seasons within that format.
There's hope, and a lot to love, but I think it isn't unreasonable to expect basic competency from professionals. Though I think none of them are truly outstanding (yes, Calypso is quite good), all the Short Treks so far, even with the weird logic here and there, demonstrated that this team CAN do better.
No, it's not. But, given when they do do good work it gives me confidence they can do more and more forgiving when they struggle.
Perhaps I'm too forgiving but that's where I'm at.
Similar threads
