Starfleet Academy General Discussion Thread

[eschaton]

The difference between the two was that Discovery's stuff often just didn't make sense within the greater context of the Star Trek universe so it came off as Soapboxing.

I think there's a ton of stuff within Discovery that you can argue "doesn't make sense within the greater context of the Star Trek universe." However, very little of it had to do with the presence of gay people, trans people, women, etc.

If I squint and look at Discovery the right way, certainly it can provide the impression that it was made for a certain kind of person after Season 3. And things like casting Stacy Abrams as the President of Earth in Season 4 were meant to send a message. All of it just comes down to vibes, TBH. People are upset that they don't see Trek being made for "people like them" and thus claim it boils down to "politics."

Again, I feel like there's just a category error by both the networks and the chuds about what politics is. Political shows are not shows which get you plaudits with one side and hate for the other. Political shows engage in political themes.

 

[Santa Kang]

Nope.

While Star Trek, pre Discovery, might have been blunt and hit you in the face with a thing it didn't really soapbox because the issues it brought up were done organically in the episode.

 

[SantaEddie74]

Trek before 2017 was sometimes about as subtle as hot, scalding water thrown on your face.

 

[Santa Kang]

Trek before 2017 was sometimes about as subtle as hot, scalding water thrown on your face.

And then they hit you with the pot.

 

[SantaEddie74]

Two of them. Trek has never been "less political" as a franchise.

 

[eschaton]

Two of them. Trek has never been "less political" as a franchise.

I'd really be interested with a list of what "politics" are in Discovery. Again, all I got is:

• Genociding your enemies is bad.
• However, installing a dictator who threatens to genocide her own people via use of a Federation-provided WMD is good.
• Something something I feel seen, something something connection.

 

[Santa Kang]

Two of them. Trek has never been "less political" as a franchise.

The pots are black on one side and white on the other. But not the same sides.

 

[eschaton]

Anyway, trying to tie this back into Starfleet Academy, an interesting idea I had that would fit the series is ... what about a transporter-facilitated eating disorder?

Seems to me that it would be possible to engage in binge eating, and then beam your stomach contents into space, waste disposal, whatever. Bulimia without all the muss and fuss. Except, of course, a young person probably won't be able to do things perfectly with the transporter, and thus could end up with all sorts of side effects from the process. Which would provide the ability to discuss a contemporary issue that impacts young people within the framework of Star Trek, while putting a sci-fi spin on it.

 

[bdub76]

The pots are black on one side and white on the other. But not the same sides.

The question is really if it's political enough to impact ratings negatively. That's all that really matters these days. Pretty sure the network is going to want to maximize subs.

 

[Santa Kang]

The question is really if it's political enough to impact ratings negatively. That's all that really matters these days. Pretty sure the network is going to want to maximize subs.

So, the same as in the 20th Century.

 

[SantaEddie74]

Trek is a big IP. Political or not, Paramount will want it on their platform.

And it's been political since 1966. The ratings aren't really about how an episode or series tackles a current day issue in a future setting.

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

Trek is a big IP. Political or not, Paramount will want it on their platform.

And it's been political since 1966. The ratings aren't really about how an episode or series tackles a current day issue in a future setting.

It's not that difficult to understand. Appeal to the broadest possible audience to entertain as many as possible. For every "Let that Be Your Last Battlefield" there's an "Omega Glory." "For every Who Watches the Watcher's" there's the wonderful "Symbiosis" with its drug use PSA.

Discovery played a little bit higher up with the themes, including the basics of Trek, "leave any bigotry in your quarters" style, as well as the no negotiating with terrorists style like the Maquis and the Emerald Chain.

 

[Firebird]

Nope.

While Star Trek, pre Discovery, might have been blunt and hit you in the face with a thing it didn't really soapbox because the issues it brought up were done organically in the episode.

Right, because TNG's "Just Say No" ad they shoved into "Symbiosis" was the height of subtlety.

 

[Tuskin38]

Are you talking about the hand held weapons or the ship weapons?

I said in my post, space weapons.

DSC only used pulses for capital ships in Season 1. In Season 2 capital ships used beams, while fighter craft still used pulses (which didn't look much different from WoK's phasers). Same with Seasons 3-5.

Strange New Worlds, been a while since I watched Season 1, but IIRC in one episode the Enterprise did use pulses, but every other episode since in the series it has used beams.

Pulse weapons make more sense on the ground as they'd allow you to use cover better. A beam weapon you have to stay exposed way too long.

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

Right, because TNG's "Just Say No" ad they shoved into "Symbiosis" was the height of subtlety.

 

[TRON JA307020]

I said in my post, space weapons.

DSC only used pulses for capital ships in Season 1. In Season 2 capital ships used beams, while fighter craft still used pulses (which didn't look much different from WoK's phasers). Same with Seasons 3-5.

Strange New Worlds, been a while since I watched Season 1, but IIRC in one episode the Enterprise did use pulses, but every other episode since in the series it has used beams.

Pulse weapons make more sense on the ground as they'd allow you to use cover better. A beam weapon you have to stay exposed way too long.

Ok. I was talking more about the hand held phasers. I miss the phaser beam on those. It was unique to star trek for the most part. The pew pew star wars laser blasters don't really feel right.

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

Ok. I was talking more about the hand held phasers. I miss the phaser beam on those. It was unique to star trek for the most part. The pew pew star wars laser blasters don't really feel right.

Watching people stand still to get shot is really fun...

 

[StarTrek1701]

I must admit while I found the clip not brilliant (I rarely like clips released like that, as that's not really the way it's intended to be seen), I liked the trailer and have been intrigued by the concept for the series.

However, I do feel worn down. I am finding the online debate around this show, especially on reddit but everywhere really, to be very very negative. I have been surprised by this - this kind of hateful fatalism and vindictiveness, a burning contempt that doesn't feel like it's going away.

Were you on Reddit around 2017? Nobody could criticise DSC, if you did even the most far fetched way you'd get banned immediately then muted.
After they had a staff overhaul a lot of fans were unbanned from r/startrek but by then the damage was done and a lot never returned.
What you are seeing on Reddit now are some of the fans that are just fed up with Nu-Trek and how everything it has done has failed pretty badly.
I am looking forward to ACA obviously but nothing until now is giving me the idea that it'll be good but I hope to be proven wrong.

Of course you find it in many online fanbases, it feels, at the moment. But I don't know how one is meant to navigate it, keep optimistic, remain enthused. And to express positivity, patience, nuance - you get shouted down, ostracized, etc, in some spaces.

Unfortunately this is what happens when the pendulum swings back.
Until 2023 you couldn't criticize Nu-Trek on Reddit, but now people can and they are showing their displeasure about the direction of the franchise.

I would be surprised how today's negative trek fanbase would have responded to the early previews of TNG's or DS9's mostly difficult first seasons, for example. Of course a different context, a much more limited online culture then (although the preservation of early online chats by Google reveals many similar styles of conversation!)

Early fan reaction to TNG was more vitriolic than anything currently on any space.
Current fans however would be apathetic after being ground down by stupid Trek for nearly a decade.

 

[StarTrek1701]

In a way, you can use the MCU as an analogue, insofar as there were some movies which still did well despite notable flaws/mixed critical/fan response (MoM, Quantumania, Love and Thunder) until it got to the point where people wouldn't show up in the theaters for genuinely good movies like Thunderbolts.

Turning to Trek in particular, remember that the most recent new project in Trek was the Section 31 TV movie. It's something that largely happened because Kurtzman had been pushing for it since Discovery's second season wrapped up, and was so into the idea he refused to let it die even after the writers who pitched the original series idea quit. And it was awful.

This is another project that exists largely because Kurtzman thought it was a good idea, and wanted to find a way to launch it.

It's kinda sad, but with these kind of big franchises, it's just subtractive, not additive over time, unless you bring something pretty unique to the table. Each new project alienates some folks, which results in an even smaller audience for what comes next.

If we are using the MCU as an analogue then look no further than what they did just today LOL.
Fan apathy for Phases 4 and 5 have finally dawned upon Disney.

 

[Christmas Canon Spock]

What you are seeing on Reddit now are some of the fans that are just fed up with Nu-Trek and how everything it has done has failed pretty badly.

Ignoring it would really do wonders for their mental health. Peeking in to Reddit Star Trek subs is like a bash session.