Should I Give It A Punt?

I stopped watching DS9 after "Emissary". I didn't look at it again until TNG ended. I needed my Trek fix one way or another. "The Search" grabbed me, then I didn't look back.

 

Captain Georgiou stating that no one has seen a Klingon in 100 years, as in no one has seen a Klingon period – face to face contact or otherwise - when it was established that relations between Federation and the Klingons had been deteriorating since 2223 in TUC, and the DSC S1 finale further supports that part of history to be in line with continuity, sums up the writing of DSC S1 for me. Just because DSC S1 also featured the mirror universe doesn’t make it good.

Also, VOY has quite a few classic episodes.

That's a very good reason to watch PIC.

 

Something can follow "canon" to a perfect T and still suck. On the other hand, it can fudge things and still be good. I watched TUC in the theater when I was 12. I was super-excited to see it. Spock says, "An end to almost 70 years of unremitting hostility" in regards to the Klingons. I'm a huge fan of TUC. Do I throw up my hands and say "This sucks! Oh my God! This is so terrible!" when DSC says there's been no direct contact with them for 100 years? No. Because unlike some other people, I personally like to look at the entire thing I'm watching, instead of zeroing in on just one item while ignoring literally everything else the series has to offer.

But, if you want to be needlessly harsh just for the sake of being needlessly harsh, they do cover their ass and say "outside of a few skirmishes" and you'll note that T'Kuvma mentioned Donatu V, which was an incident referenced in a TOS episode, "The Trouble With Tribbles". But you either forgot, or you ignored it because it messes up your point so you didn't want to mention it. I'm leaning towards you just forgot. I like to give the benefit of the doubt. Both to people and the things I watch.

Also, the Klingons killed Burnham's parents. So she certainly saw them. So did her parents. "But Georgiou said!" Maybe Burnham should've better filled Georgiou in on what happened to her parents. Or Georgiou didn't think to put two-and-two together in the heat of the moment. That happens. I know it's amazing, but there you have it.

 

Not sure where the harshness is. It’s a critique more that anything else.

And I listen to those that like DSC and those that don’t. I tend to be fair in my observations, since DSC did good things as well. And let’s be fair that the writers may have forgot themselves when writing that particular scene.

 

I no more judge a season of DSC on how it adheres to Trek continuity than I would for any other part of the franchise. If that was a main criteria for the quality of a season of Star Trek, we would have folded up tent a LONG time ago.

I never remember suggesting that the Mirror Universe made it a good season, so I'm not sure where that comes from.

 

Repeating what I posted in another thread, it seems like a lot of people's enjoyment or disgust for a TV show or movie these days comes down to nothing more than facts -- not emotion, not interpretation, not journey, not character. But if the canonical facts line up it is therefore good, even if it's not.

 

Slavish adherence to continuity minutiae has nothing to do with whether it's a good show in its own right or not.

Kor

 

Continuity becomes a factor once you focus on making a prequel. That’s why the focus should always be the future and what comes next. There won't be as much criticism.

Discovery was doing what was considered popular, and the mirror universe rose in popularity due to IAMD. Therefore, it is expected fans will follow and like the show because it has done something that was popular. It was used as a gimmick; that's my point.

I don't dislike everything about DSC S1; I like the theme song for the show when it first played, and like that it was broken up into two chapters, and liked that the focus was not on the captain. But I will also acknowledge criticisms as well if necessary.

 

Discovery used what fans liked to try to make fans like Discovery? Forgive me if I don't find this shocking nor gimmicky. Last I checked it was called "giving the customers what they want."

 

Nothing wrong "giving the customers what they want." The producer did what ideas were considered popular at the time of DSC’s release. But the season wasn’t as loved by the fans as it was by the critics, even though those popular ideas were added to the show.

 

Since my favorite shows are Mad Men and Better Call Saul, I guess I'm more in-tune with what critics think than what fans think. Not a bad place to be.

I don't agree with them about The Sopranos, though. Couldn't get into it. I think it's overrated. But that drives me back to Star Trek: Picard. I think Picard is Star Trek's answer to Prestige TV and said the same back in January...

 

Of this I am aware and highly amused by as the concepts in DSC has been what fandom has been showing CBS what they will buy for the last ten years.

It's an interesting conundrum, to say the least...

 

I'm a massive TOS fan, and I saw nothing regarding continuity that was egregious enough to cause me to believe anything other that DSC Season 1 was the best freshman season of Star Trek since 1966.

I think 90's era Trek fans get hung up more in continuity than anyone who was raised on TOS. I feel like I am far more used to the idea that continuity takes a back seat to doing something fresh and entertaining than most of the fans who hopped aboard in the 90's.

Being a prequel, sequel, or simulquil has absolutely nothing to do with how I feel about a Star Trek production. Neither does what timeline or era it is set in. I just don't give a shit about that stuff. I think fans allow that pedantry to become the thief of joy far too often.

 

I think something's terribly wrong when even critics are more forgiving than people who claim to be fans.

 

Well, that's what it has come to though. Critics don't care about what kind of socks Klingons are supposed to wear in the pre-TOS era, or what brand of deodorant Picard is supposed to use, or what color the touch screen LCARS buttons are in 10-forward..or even about "Gene's Vision"....while "fans" will base their entire experience on whether or not a production meets their level of expectations in these areas.

 

To be fair, it seems very common now that if a series is beloved by fans, reviewers hate it, and vice versa.

To give one example, season 1 of Altered Carbon was planned by critics, but generally got good fan ratings. Reviewers thought the second season was a big step forward, but it got very mixed fan reviews.

 

"Now" is the key word. I've been noticing this with Star Trek for 20 years. Why do you think I distanced myself from ENT Bashers in the early-2000s? It wasn't for my health. I didn't like it because I thought it was dull and stale. They didn't like it because of "canon" and raised all kinds of Hell because of it. No one sane would want to be associated with that.

These people are like the boy who cried "Wolf!" They say everything is terrible. Without fail. Then one day something actually will be terrible, but there's no way I'll listen to them if I haven't seen it first, because I'm not going to believe anything they say.

Neither will anyone else. We'll think, "They'll hate it no matter what, so why should we take any of what they say into account?" If they turn out to be right, that a Star Trek project actually sucked, it's not because they're right. It's because they just got lucky. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Not because of anything they thought, but because it was a coincidence.

 

I think I'm already there. People say they hate DSC or PIC and I'll not take it seriously.