It's one of my favorites.
Spoilers Star Trek: Starfleet Academy 1x03 – “Vitus Reflux”
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
I watched it twice to make sure I hadn't missed something. I didn't dislike it as much the second time.
BUtttttt....
My biggest issue with this episode is probably the unearned ending. Basically, the show is all about the prank war that is straight from Revenge of the Nerds or Animal House and it ends just like those other college movies where the jocks get horribly pranked in return. Audrey the Venus Flytrap has ruined their frathouse.
Cue everyone jumping in the air and freeze frame to John Parr's "Saint Elmo's Fire."
Except the episode...doesn't end there.
No, instead, Chancellor Ake talks about how they won the conflict by empathy and understanding which ABSOLUTELY THEY DID NOT DO. They ended the conflict by destroying a massive amount of Starfleet propery. There was no understanding or growth or reaching out to find common ground with the War College kids.
It's like ending Caddyshack after the "We're all going to get laid" scene with them congratulating Rodney Dangerfield by growing as a person and befriending the Country Club snobs.
BUtttttt....
My biggest issue with this episode is probably the unearned ending. Basically, the show is all about the prank war that is straight from Revenge of the Nerds or Animal House and it ends just like those other college movies where the jocks get horribly pranked in return. Audrey the Venus Flytrap has ruined their frathouse.
Cue everyone jumping in the air and freeze frame to John Parr's "Saint Elmo's Fire."
Except the episode...doesn't end there.
No, instead, Chancellor Ake talks about how they won the conflict by empathy and understanding which ABSOLUTELY THEY DID NOT DO. They ended the conflict by destroying a massive amount of Starfleet propery. There was no understanding or growth or reaching out to find common ground with the War College kids.
It's like ending Caddyshack after the "We're all going to get laid" scene with them congratulating Rodney Dangerfield by growing as a person and befriending the Country Club snobs.
Indeed, that ending DEFINITELY was not earned. Like I said in my review, the actions betray the words.
Again, they chose this setting. This is a TV show and they made all this stuff up. Don’t judge the viewer for having a brain in their head.
I get it, you like the show so you’re attacking the others. That’s not going to make this show any better.
We can talk about those other shows though. I don’t have any rosy colored glasses about them, but it’s interesting how fans of different ones do seem to have them for their favorites and questionable interpretations of the others.
Nah. The previous two weren’t as bad but I can’t say I wouldn’t have minded waiting to binge the season and forget it.
Come to the Zoom meetings btw, you’ll get a diverse set of opinions, and I’d like to hear more of yours.
Bro you're talking to someone who watched first run Voyager as a teenager, loved it and spent literal hours defending it online. So don't presume to make assumptions about what I like or dislike. I'm not attacking anything, but stating facts that none of the series are perfect and some that are now considered 'classic' had glaring flaws. Like I said. I am old enough to remember how hostile the fanbase were to Enterprise, how maligned Voyager was and the constant comparisons between TNG and DS9. I also remember the continual calls for Rick Berman and Brannon Braga to be replaced.
The arguments being made against new trek are the exact same as the ones that were being made towards 90's trek. It's just the same shit repeated ad nauseum. I have my criticisms of each series, but I also genuinely enjoy them all and I don't understand the need to tear down the latest franchise offering because of some arbitrary, inconsistent and down right hypocritical set of criteria.
Last edited:
It is fair to say that the show (so far) doesn't seem interested in using its post-apocalyptic setting, but that's something I'm liking about it honestly. It wants to be a breezy comedy and it's not gonna let something inherited from another series get in the way.
You could say that they should focus on it even in a comedic way or integrate it into character backstories better, but I actually like the balls on them for just outright disregarding it thus far; the fact it barely makes sense in-universe just makes it even funnier.
Then again, I was really happy that Voyager never focused on the boring Maquis shit it inherited from TNG/DS9, outside plots where it made sense.
No the same arguments arent being made. None of those shows broke Canon as badly. Also none were hated as much as any Kurtzman Trek. Look at the fan ratings on rotten tomatoes for Voyager. 80%. Except for picard season 3 and SNW most Kurtzman live action is poorly rated by fans. The ones hes showrunner on anyway. The mistake that was made with this show is that they wanted to bring in new younger fans. So they choose a Dawson's creek style show. Why? When I first discovered trek I was 5 years old. I watched Kirk have his adventures. He was nearing middle age. That didnt matter it was all about the excellent writing(sorry but SFA cannot anywhere near measure up) drama the action and adventure. You dont need kids staring in a Trek to bring in younger fans. You just need good writing and consistency of plots and respect of the source material. This show does not have any of that.
The Federation didnt use a distributed economy like that, the only things that were planet dependant were luxuray goods.
Please keep in mind here that by the late 24th centuary Starships could replicate full warp capable shuttle craft in a matter of minutes.
That was research that was conducted after Vulcan withdrew from the Federation.
What are you even talking about? You're literally making the same nonsense arguments about 'canon' that were made about Enterprise (or should i call it akiraprise). Voyager was frequently criticised and still is for not even adhering to it's own internal canon. So stop with this revisionist bullshit.
You can rant and rave about how much you hate it, but you're the one choosing to watch it for some reason.
No it wasn't. Ni'Var thought that SB-19 caused the Burn and that is part of the reason they left the Federation. Vance states that the SB-19 data can no longer be accessed because Ni'var left the Federation and kept the data. But the Federation were the ones who forced Ni'var to continue research on SB-19 even though Ni'var thought it was too dangerous. So the federation had to have access to the data at one point. There is no mention of the research being from post-secession and it would make zero sense for Vance to know this information if that was the case.
Last edited:
Hey we're just having a discussion. No reason to get angry. Voyager did very well and lasted 7 seasons. The criticism was nowhere near what this show is getting. I know you love this show but that doesnt change what's happening. Its not a hit. Shows like Landman are considered hits. That's means theres something not clicking with this show. Here's an article.
Star Trek’s Divisive New Series Surges on Streaming After Addressing 60-Year Franchise Debate
The new Star Trek show's roller coaster ride on the streaming charts continues.
www.cbr.com
Voyager was actually in trouble with declining ratings in Season 3. It was the whole reason Seven of Nine was introduced, which helped to revitalise the show and also caused Kate Mulgrew to hate Ryan for years.Hey we're just having a discussion. No reason to get angry. Voyager did very well and lasted 7 seasons. The criticism was nowhere near what this show is getting. I know you love this show but that doesnt change what's happening. Its not a hit. Shows like Landman are considered hits. That's means theres something not clicking with this show. Here's an article.
Star Trek’s Divisive New Series Surges on Streaming After Addressing 60-Year Franchise Debate
The new Star Trek show's roller coaster ride on the streaming charts continues.
And the criticism being lobbed at Academy is exactly the same as it has always been. You can keep trying to revise history and gaslight all you want.
The show is 3 episodes old. It's like trying to judge TNG on 3 episodes of it's first season.
But again your choosing to watch something you hate and spending time online telling strangers how much you hate it when you could literally be doing anything else. Meanwhile I'm over here loving all and enjoying all the trek that comes my way.
I mean based on the article the show is doing alright it's in the top 10 shows being viewed and critics are loving it. A lower audience score can't be taken seriously though given the propensity of toxic fans to review bomb 'woke' shows.
Yeah, and the rest of the world when see those American shows is like "When these people study?!?"
I found that indeed problematic. It's the same idea as using Grok to undress people or creating revenge gorn. I don't understand why nudity without consent gets a pass in Star Trek.In LDS, they had holographic representations of the crew in explicit orgies that people were watching from outside, and most people found it fun and no problem at all
More like trying to judge TNG by episode 9.
One of the many negative of the 10 episode season is that you dont get as much leeway for stinkers.
Neilsen ratings aren't going to be released for another 2 weeks.
People trying to get a normal degree in Botany or Physics and not get involved in silly frat wars = off-campus Muggles.
In LDS, they had holographic representations of the crew in explicit orgies that people were watching from outside, and most people found it fun and no problem at all
I wouldn’t fault anyone for not remembering the exact circumstances of “I, Excretus”, but it’s probably worth pointing out that the “Naked Time” simulation in that episode is framed as rigged and manipulated by a corrupt instructor who leaves Starfleet over her irregular conduct at the end of the episode. Sure, we don’t have Mariner or any of the other Starfleet characters literally react with a sober “What the hell? This clearly violates people’s privacy and raises concerns over consent and boundaries!”, but we should not forget the format of the show is of course that of a comedy. It’s meant to be humorous, but it’s not portrayed as being just “fun” or “okay” in-universe.And from most of the fans. "Don't be such a prude!"
And also, the way I remember fan reactions, the “Don’t be such a prude” discussions were mostly directed at viewers who were against Trek portraying nudeness, sex positivity, and queerness in such a liberal way. Mostly it centered around people who were outraged at the (censored) visual of Boimler spreading his butt, not because it portrayed a future where violating a person’s privacy by showing them naked was somehow okay, but because they didn’t want nude and sex positive depictions in Trek period.
Yes, thank you!
I remember on TOS, TNG,VOY, ENT we were always hyped to see some famous Trek races - because it was such a rare occurrence.
This obsession with lore & canon is breaking the franchise - and very very weirdly, this time that obsession comes from the creators. Ever since they wrote ST09's plot basically around having a lore accurate kinda-reboot, they seem to be more focused on lore than on their actual stories (what is CumberKhan if you're not familiar with the lore?).
Ironically the most beloved new series is SNW - which just doesn't give too much of a shit about lore & canon, if it stands in the way of the twilight-zone-like story they want to tell this week. And it works. Because it feels they actually put their heart into the stories they tell, instead of getting approval from corporate and fans.
I think the only "sacrosanct" thing you're not allowed to break is the Treknology. E.g. beaming through shields, mixing up warp & impulse speed, unclear rules for holograms, power scaling. Because they are the story rules, if you break them, there's no tension, because the plot could always have been solved at any moment otherwise. Like a crime show forgetting people have mobile phones.
Also very important - and in my opinion the one, big, giant point where nuTrek is actually a lot better than "classic" Trek.Exactly. You don't want things (and people) to get so "evolved" and "futuristic" and "utopian" that we can't relate to the characters.
So, Kirk drinks coffee and eats chicken sandwichs and gripes when McCoy tells him to eat more salads, etc. And people occasionally swear and squabble and lose their tempers, and college kids are sometimes immature and make bad decisions . . . .
It's funny. Some years back, I wrote a YA fantasy novel about a runaway princess. At one point, my editor complained that the heroine was being reckless and impulsive and not always doing the smart, sensible thing.
I was like: "She's a teenager."
It's also IMO the most realistic. Same for historicals - like the life of a Roman Centurion is so wildly different from my daily life, from the stories he knows, the tools he uses, to the societal rules he follows.
But what will he spend the majority of his day with? He will have opinions about his food, struggling with his duties, get drunk, trying to get laid, play games, spend time with his friends.
We're all just humans after all.
Well we fill in the blanks in using in universe logic. Its not just our canon, people are using in universe rules that they were given and trying to extrapolate what is likely the reason or outcome. So when you have pretty big contradictions it makes it difficult to connect the dots and have what is being presented make sense.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
