Indeed, yes. Despite ups and downs, Discovery is something that I really appreciate. They went out of their way to be different and to stand out. And I prefer them to take a risk than to play it safe.
Star Trek is not safe.
Return to cheesy fun Star Trek?
- Thread starter TopperHenly
- Start date
Star Trek is not safe.
Yep. I did not like the comfort food aspect of some TNG and most of Voyager. Everyone behind the camera just seemed to be phoning it in. They found a formula that worked. And you can't really blame them. The bills were getting paid and advertisers seemed happy. It could not have been easy with those really long seasons.
DS9 tried to shake things up, but I'm under no illusions that if it had went on another two seasons half the episodes would have been holodeck casino stuff.
Yes. I can still enjoy the formulaic standard Star Trek stuff (I liked The Orville, which is a prime example), but it just doesn't stick with me in any meaningful way. It's like getting a cheeseburger at a basic restaurant. It's ok...pretty safe...but certainly not memorable.
At least with DSC and PIC, there's controversy there because of the narrative, character, thematic and even "franchise" choices....and I dig that, even when I don't agree with them. I'd rather disagree with risky choices than sit and watch comfort food every week that doesn't stir an ounce of passion in me.
if each series was a motor vehicle:
TOS: 1967 Corvette Stingray. It is awesome. It's value will only increase in time. It has design flaws, idiosyncrasies, and if you expect too much out of it, it will wrap you around a phone pole killing you and destroy itself. But that's okay, because it is that freaking awesome.
TAS: The Matchbox car of the Corvette Stingray your brother gave you because he was grown up and into girls now. It's still kind of cool. Not exactly the same. But you can pretend.
TNG: 1987 Honda Accord. No matter what happened it always got running. It may have had a few recalls at the beginning, but it never failed to get the job done, and it never broke down. Briefly out of style, it's now old enough to be retro cool again with ahem, and another generation ready to appreciate it.
DS9: Used Winnebago. Rarely does it go anywhere, but it's what happens inside that counts. There's a lot of chemistry and drama going on inside that home away from home. It isn't going across country to discover new things very often. It might even get dark in there, but there will be a laugh or two along the way. And violence. But you can handle it. You CAN handle it. No one will get why you like it.
VOY: 1998 Buick Park Avenue Ultra. Your aunt bought it and thinks it's cool. You better not tell her otherwise. You can't help noticing the air freshener pine tree hanging off the mirror is the same one that was the old Accord before you sold it. Not one like it.. the same damned air freshener. And it's not very fresh in there. You could build it into a hot rod but your aunt won't let you.
ENT: Pontiac Fiero GT. People were really excited until they saw how it looked. A few were still curious until they saw how it performed. Then hardly anyone wanted it. Three years later they upgraded it to a V6 and it all the flaws were fixed, but no one noticed and it sat at the dealers till it rusted. Sometimes found near the DS9 Winnebago.
DSC: Yamaha V-Max. What board room chaos led to a severely overpowered motor in an almost criminally underbuilt chassis? It reaches beyond its grasp. It punches above its weight. If it does anything beyond a straight line, it will probably kill you. The brakes are purely theoretical.
PIC: Cadillac Hearse. It has all the finest appointments. The attention to detail is all there. Power is smooth and confident, even if it never goes fast. People slow down to watch as you pass by in it. It seems to have a universal appeal that you can't quite put your finger on. Maybe if you could get out you could see it objectively from the outside, but for some reason you can't leave.
LD: Vespa GTS 300. No one takes it seriously. That's fine. It gets you around. It has room for everything, and if you look under the seat you might even find your old TAS matchbox car. But the quaint polite smiles drop when it disrespectfully blasts by a certain hearse at 90mph.
TOS: 1967 Corvette Stingray. It is awesome. It's value will only increase in time. It has design flaws, idiosyncrasies, and if you expect too much out of it, it will wrap you around a phone pole killing you and destroy itself. But that's okay, because it is that freaking awesome.
TAS: The Matchbox car of the Corvette Stingray your brother gave you because he was grown up and into girls now. It's still kind of cool. Not exactly the same. But you can pretend.
TNG: 1987 Honda Accord. No matter what happened it always got running. It may have had a few recalls at the beginning, but it never failed to get the job done, and it never broke down. Briefly out of style, it's now old enough to be retro cool again with ahem, and another generation ready to appreciate it.
DS9: Used Winnebago. Rarely does it go anywhere, but it's what happens inside that counts. There's a lot of chemistry and drama going on inside that home away from home. It isn't going across country to discover new things very often. It might even get dark in there, but there will be a laugh or two along the way. And violence. But you can handle it. You CAN handle it. No one will get why you like it.
VOY: 1998 Buick Park Avenue Ultra. Your aunt bought it and thinks it's cool. You better not tell her otherwise. You can't help noticing the air freshener pine tree hanging off the mirror is the same one that was the old Accord before you sold it. Not one like it.. the same damned air freshener. And it's not very fresh in there. You could build it into a hot rod but your aunt won't let you.
ENT: Pontiac Fiero GT. People were really excited until they saw how it looked. A few were still curious until they saw how it performed. Then hardly anyone wanted it. Three years later they upgraded it to a V6 and it all the flaws were fixed, but no one noticed and it sat at the dealers till it rusted. Sometimes found near the DS9 Winnebago.
DSC: Yamaha V-Max. What board room chaos led to a severely overpowered motor in an almost criminally underbuilt chassis? It reaches beyond its grasp. It punches above its weight. If it does anything beyond a straight line, it will probably kill you. The brakes are purely theoretical.
PIC: Cadillac Hearse. It has all the finest appointments. The attention to detail is all there. Power is smooth and confident, even if it never goes fast. People slow down to watch as you pass by in it. It seems to have a universal appeal that you can't quite put your finger on. Maybe if you could get out you could see it objectively from the outside, but for some reason you can't leave.
LD: Vespa GTS 300. No one takes it seriously. That's fine. It gets you around. It has room for everything, and if you look under the seat you might even find your old TAS matchbox car. But the quaint polite smiles drop when it disrespectfully blasts by a certain hearse at 90mph.
I don't say that Star Trek shouldn't innovate or experiment.
I just say that I don't want all SciFi on TV to be freaking Star Trek. That'd be boring and monotonous as all hell after a while, no matter how much they innovate.
I just say that I don't want all SciFi on TV to be freaking Star Trek. That'd be boring and monotonous as all hell after a while, no matter how much they innovate.
Wait a minute. I just looked up what this one is. Morbid. Fitting, given what happens, but morbid.
I think, to a lot of people, that's what 1987-2004 felt like. I don't think it was intentional or "bad"...but it got to be too much of the same tone, look, feel, pacing, scoring, formula, etc and it got bland really fast.
I tend towards this way and I feel like Trek just didn't want to try anything new. It felt very samey, even with Enterprise being a prequel it still had a similar tone. And, I think that many who found that Trek to be appealing got used to it. Which is fine, but I think Trek has room for more.
I'd settle for a return to any kind of fun.
Lower Decks is a start...
Lower Decks is a start...
Last edited:
Oh I agree, by the time of Voyager they were just re-treading old and "comfortable" ground. Just look at the characters and storylines: you had the second character that's derivative of Data (the Doctor) the third series with Klingon character to do Klingon themed episodes, the same same type of storylines they had in TNG with the same approach. The same old type of holodeck episodes when it had really just devolved into an excuse to put the characters into costumes (the only decent one being Captain Proton) They even had to shove Q and the Ferengi into it. And then Enterprise was even more of the same, despite with how creative they could have gotten with that series, only now with characters that hated each other.
The same product every time.
The only 90s-Trek show after TNG that really feels like its own thing to me is Ds9.
So yes, innovate Star Trek, yes please. Lower Decks is my favourite show in the franchise now and it could have never existed in the Berman era. Just also keep making non-Star Trek/Star Wars/Doctor Who related scifi.
Agree on DS9. Although the pacing, dialogue, scoring and aesthetics were not fresh....the themes, plots, settings and characters were all pretty "new and unique," and it was the last 90's era Trek that really captured my attention.
Another odd phenomenon I've noticed: I now, far in retrospect, like TNG S1 and S2 a fair amount better than most of the seasons that followed. I think it's a combination of having watched them fewer times through the last 2 decades...but also because those earlier seasons definitely had a different "feel" than the preponderance of Trek material that followed.
I like LD too....but LD is a massive "over-correction" in my book. I can barely take it seriously. I know lots of others are on the "it's real Star Trek and it's canon" boat (and I think that's the most "accurate" boat to be on given what the producers have said), but c'mon....so a Salt Vampire was inexplicably hanging out in the ship's 10-Forward lounge and hitting on Ransom (etc etc etc) for real?? No, it's all for laughs. And that's ok. But that's all it is. Absolutely nothing more to it.
It's a cute little show that is funny and has a ton of ironic and loving references poking fun at Star Trek....but it isn't anything I'd be passionate over. It's a joke (not in a bad way). Nothing more.
Last edited:
I'm split on that. I feel a lot of the plots and execution of Season 1 and 2 are pretty awful. But I do agree that there was a unique, "exotic" vibe in the first two seasons and while it was awkward how the characters sometimes seemed like they could barely stand to be in the same room together there seemed to be a kind of edge and untapped potential to many of them that was later forgotten or airbrushed away as the final couple seasons descended into late 80s/early 90s "beige".
When I watch LD I just adjust my brain to "this is a comedy" so stuff happens or is portrayed for comedic effect. I never worry whether it's "canon".
But I would have thought you'd like Mariner, considering that she's kind of a lot closer to how the TOS crew was portrayed than the 24th century "evolved" humans.
I approach it the same way, and I enjoy it quite a bit as such.
I do like Mariner ....but like I said, I think the character is an "over-correction" to the criticisms of the typical 24th century "evolved humans." She's a bit over-the-top to be taken seriously.
That said, and as you pointed out, I don't take the show seriously at all. And in that sense, it's quite enjoyable!
I think Trek became McDonald's sci-fi in the 90's when DS9 and Voyager launched. It became about making more Trek content to fulfill a contractual quota than telling meaningful stories. Which is exactly what's happening again today. Luckily, the last time enough entertaining content was produced (among lots of chaff) that we still talk about it now. Fingers crossed the CBS-AA stuff has a higher wheat/chaff ratio. So far so good, IMHO.
I think the nice thing is that they seem to understand the fact that, if they are going to churn out a number of shows, they need to be sufficiently different in order to justify their existence AND in order to avoid the staleness that creeped in during the mid-90's.
I think fans overworry nowadays about canon and canon status. To me, trying to pigeonhole every tiny bit of Trek is an exercise in both futility and taking the fun out of an entertainment franchise. If I am sitting there, watching a show, going "Hmm...I wonder if this is canon?" then I have pretty much stopped engaging with the show and moved on to more metatextual matters that the show really isn't there to address.
Lower Decks is a blast-and that's all it needs to be. It's a also a wonderful example of how Trek fans seem to wish and want name drops in every single episode. At some point in time Trek needs to be more than just self-referential name dropping moments. Thankfully, Lower Decks did more than that, but I see it as a perfect encapsulation of the constant "We need to see X in Star Trek" that gets tiresome.
I mean, yes, but that's a given. They accomplish that by having different Star Trek shows that appeal to different tastes so that you'll always be able to maintain an audience base. If you only appeal to one taste, then you're decreasing your potential subscriber base. There's really no contradiction between what you're saying and what I'm saying.
Again, why does fun have to mean cheesy? So many shows have managed to balance serious drama and social realism with a sense of genre fun. Why does Star Trek seem to target one or the other?
Similar threads
- Poll
