RED LETTER MEDIA SEASON 2 REVIEW
- Thread starter JamesRye
- Start date
I very much agree with all their observations. I don't agree with their opinions.
Like they said: the main story arc makes no freakin' sense, and is the (very) low point of the season. And for a show so focused on characters emotions (aka "the soap-y stuff") - it surprisingly struggles with very basic emotions and all the "heavy" moments feel strangely hollow.
And yes, these are the very same complaints that we hear time and again. But that's not because of an agenda. It's simply because these things hold true.
Where I differ is - I still like to watch it. I get annoyed when it drops the ball. But this season had quite a few highpoints as well - and for a great Star Trek episode, I have no problems suffering through half a dozen bad ones. That kinda' comes with the franchise.
Interesting. That's probably a good explanation for why I always agree with all your points - yet have oftentimes wildly different opinions about these points: Because I'm a Watsonian, through and through. I like to analyze the Doylist view, but when it comes down to it, the work stands on it's own. I'm not that pre-occupied with what Doyle thought about when creating Sherlock, or which of his predjudices and fallacies went into the character, nor what Rodenberry envisioned Spock to be - these characters hit a nerve with millions of people, because they saw more in them than what any one person could have possibly imagined.
But that's also why I can absolutely get "burned" on characters or stories. If Sisko fires WMD's on civilians in one episode - that character is a war criminal and should stand trial. I don't care that this was just an unintended result of the writers trying to make thing "edgy", and just went a bit too far an episode (really - take that episode out, and they got the amount of "edgy" pretty right) - but I can't. I think within this work. And in-universe, that character belongs in front of a UN court. Or why I don't care about Star Wars anymore. The original trilogy (and, to an extent, the prequels) were a story. A good one. But then "Force Awakens" came, and completely reset everything in that story - the characters, the universe. And I don't care about the same story twice. Thats why I also have an immense distate for reboots - the only times I "allow" them are if either the reboot does something completely fresh with the property (like BSG), or SO much time has passed, that most people haven't seen the original anymore (ST09 is not my favourite movie - but the time was ripe for another Kirk & Spock. DiscoSpock is a nuisance though - the last iteration is less than 10 years old!).
This thread is filled with hate against people above 30 or 40 (agism) which is not only unfair, but also extremely naive. Being above 30 or 40 means you have watched so much sci-fi (if you were always a sci-fi fan) that you become EXTREMELY critical and picky about what you watch.
Sure, they weren't perfectly technically correct in their criticism but they were spot on about what made the new Star Trek incarnation mediocre and forgettable.
If I were to make a tl;dr of it I'd say the show tries too much to be "THANOS, THE TV SERIES". In other words we live in an era that the money people consider it a cash cow to spam more and more Star War-esque Capeshit-esque war stories that are mostly fighting sequences and the story is extremely banal, artificial, on the surface.
The sad part is, the movie scene itself has become extremely stale and repetitive (it sounds unrelated but it's the same culture). e.g. we are being spammed EVERY SINGLE MONTH with a new cookie-cutter movie about superheroes that could in theory be a solid 8 or 7 out of 10 if it were alone in the year but when it's happening every single month it becomes banal, repetitive, and its flaws are magnified.
Sure, they weren't perfectly technically correct in their criticism but they were spot on about what made the new Star Trek incarnation mediocre and forgettable.
If I were to make a tl;dr of it I'd say the show tries too much to be "THANOS, THE TV SERIES". In other words we live in an era that the money people consider it a cash cow to spam more and more Star War-esque Capeshit-esque war stories that are mostly fighting sequences and the story is extremely banal, artificial, on the surface.
The sad part is, the movie scene itself has become extremely stale and repetitive (it sounds unrelated but it's the same culture). e.g. we are being spammed EVERY SINGLE MONTH with a new cookie-cutter movie about superheroes that could in theory be a solid 8 or 7 out of 10 if it were alone in the year but when it's happening every single month it becomes banal, repetitive, and its flaws are magnified.
Last edited:
I'm 35. No, it doesn't. And disagreeing with people doesn't make it agism. This post makes no sense.
I don't think it really has been working. It's just that the way CBS All Access' business model works, Discovery can get by being a "loss leader" for a while. It's in too-big-to-fail territory as CBS feels they have to keep doubling down because they have nothing else to fall back on as a tent-pole.
First off. I am 40. Well, technically I'll be turning 40 in less than a month, but that's splitting hairs at this point. I think I'm in a position where I can criticize other 40-somethings, almost being one myself.
Second off, I don't watch or like Superhero movies. I've seen four in this entire decade. To push it even further back than just the last 10 years: I'll take Tim Burton's Batman films over Christopher Nolan's any time, any day.
Third off, though it has nothing to do with this discussion: I'm not a fan of Rick Berman, and I'm not some super-huge excited fan of the JJ Abrams films.
To top it all off, I used to moderate the TOS Forum on this board way back when. You can see the latest version of the FAQ that I wrote pinned toward the top of the forum even to this very day.
And my favorite TV series is Mad Men. Period. Exclamation Point. It didn't have high numbers like Breaking Bad or The Walking Dead, but it did have high prestige. So it's not like I have no taste.
In other words: My "street cred" is not on trial here. Liking Discovery won't change that. And I'm not back for CBSAA's entire line-up. If I don't like a series, I'll say so. But what I won't do -- unlike some others -- is constantly hang around long after I stopped watching.
No matter how much you've seen, I think there are other ways to prove "tru fan" status than to just nitpick the newest product to death. It's not a measure of how much of a fan you are. It's a measure of how much you know how to nitpick. And anyone can do that.
Last edited:
International licensing guarantees the show isn’t losing money. Add to that, they wouldn’t double-down on a show that they felt was damaging the brand.
Even as a loss-leader, they wouldn’t keep making it if it wasn’t doing its job: getting people to subscribe to All-Access.
If they were losing that kind of money, they'd back down on Star Trek and go with some other revival of an old property in a heart beat. Or they'd shockingly go with something new. I know Discohaters lay awake at night salivating and dreaming of failure scenarios for the show, but this is one of the weaker arguments. It lost all validity when they went all-in on a five show deal.
They could have easily flipped to Twilight Zone and dialed back Star Trek, letting it fade in to the background.
Instead, they hired Kurztman to a multi-year deal, appointed a Star Trek IP manager, and are making 4 shows, with the idea being Star Trek on All Access year round.
As others have said, I want to fail as hard as Star Trek has.
The five year deal was signed by a #MeToo offender. And they've ALREADY tried to revive another old property (the Twilight Zone) with dubious results. Discovery's budget has already strained CBSs purse-strings to the breaking point, which is currently starving Picard of resources. Look, I get it, you've drunk the kool-aid, but don't for a moment think there aren't signs that that Discovery is a failure.
There is evidence for both sides. We are filtering according to our beliefs.
Without hard numbers from CBS and their budget we'll never know the full story. The fact that they are throwing more money at it means they have confidence that it isn't a failure.
By all means, believe what you will. I'll just watch Star Trek.
ETA: A general musing-is there some benefit gained by insisting Discovery is failing? As long as the show is produced why not enjoy it?
Last edited:
I'm over 40 and I am certainly not extremely critical and picky with what I watch. Entertain me, that's all I care about.
I'm 35. No, it doesn't. And disagreeing with people doesn't make it agism. This post makes no sense.
Yep
There is evidence for both sides. We are filtering according to our beliefs.
Without hard numbers from CBS and their budget we'll never know the full story. The fact that they are throwing more money at it means they have confidence that it isn't a failure.
By all means, believe what you will. I'll just watch Star Trek.
ETA: A general musing-is there some benefit gained by insisting Discovery is failing? As long as the show is produced why not enjoy it?
Because if I can prove it is failing (which nobody can given the objective evidence in hand at the moment), my distaste for it is justified and my position vindicated.
Duh.
Can't we just dislike something because we dislike it?
Actually I wish DIS would be more like those "cookie-cutter movies about superheroes", because they are generally well written and entertaining. Especially Marvel gets it right. A nice mix between seriousness and humour, likeable characters and interesting stories.
You can be those things without being cookie cutter or about super-heroes. Marvel didn't invent it.
I couldn't disagree more. I have no time in my life for generic overblown CGI-o-ramas about people in tights and capes fighting off the bad guy of the week.
Different tastes I guess.
It's not a 100% of the time either, or even 50% of the time. What it comes down to is how people connect with the characters. If you don't connect with the characters (like what happened to me as the Marvel films wore on...ugh, "Civil War." Forget it) then engaging with the material is very difficult. Discovery is no different.
But, I'm at the point where I truly wish people would stop point to Marvel and go "Make more of that!" like Marvel somehow discovered the goose that laid the golden egg. They didn't. They are making decent stories that entertain large amounts of people. That means they are doing their job at movie making.
But, as people around here like to tell me, Star Trek isn't a blockbuster name and belongs on the small screen. Ok, then why are we comparing it to Marvel?
Fans are confusing.
Absolutely not! I need to be proven right to feel vindicated in all my online arguments I've had with you gusher scum balls over the past two years!!!!1!1!
I think Star Trek (2009) is actually the closest Star Trek has ever been to a superhero movie. This movie straight up could be a MARVEL movie. Right from it's "origin stories", the constant bickering, the generic badguy, to the worldending disaster. And out of the new movies it's... the most okay-ish one? Like, I really dig every single minute, every single moment, every single piece on screen of it. It just breaks down as a whole. Which... ugh... J.J. Abrams is probably one of the absolute best technical directors in Hollywood right now. Yet he has not done a. single. fucking. movie. where the plot makes ANY sense or the story amounts to anything beyond the absolute upper surface level. Which is a shame, because he handles a lot of properties I really care(d) for.
If I had to make my dream come true - I would like to have a Star Trek movie (or series season arc) based on an existing SF short story. Some high-concept head-scratcher, that give a good outline for the story. And than have a team like Abrams' and his writers to put every single story beat of that into an exciting scene.
Similar threads
