• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Things that grind my gears about S3

Honestly, my main gripe with was little to do with the stories and more to do with the characters. Archer is a jerk to Vulcans and stumbled his way through at times, T'Pol pushes right back by being insufferably arrogant and irritating. And the characters I am more interested in rarely got to participate, like Hoshi, Reed and Mayweather. So, it simply didn't resonate with me and I passed on it. Didn't help that I was complete done with Klingons and what does the first episode involve? :klingon:

Though, interestingly enough, that gives me a bit of pause regarding people wanting more of Discovery's bridge crew. I guess they like them more than the mains. Fascinating. :vulcan:
 
I think the Berman Trek trap - which only DS9 really escaped - is there are a finite number of episodic plots available within the Trekverse.

I mean, there are some plots which just don't work by virtue of Trek's premise. And if you commit to largely static characters, who do not grow and change based upon earlier experiences, there's a limit to how deeply you can really explore characters, because whatever realization/developments happen in an earlier episode will seldom to never be revisited again.

So you fall back on the same tropes again and again. Some sort of "anomaly" which impacts the ship. Meeting an alien race exactly like bland 20th century Californians except for one weird trick. Some sort of "monster" onboard the ship. Given the crew will continue to respond in the same tired ways to the same tired problems...it's tiring.
 
You can still have episodic plots with overarchingly changing characters. In fact one of the main turnoffs of both the first two seasons of discovery (but really not the third!) and especially picard for me is how every episode seems a costant "middle", with no clear beginning or ending. At least for me, most of the times there is just no payoff and no real interest in how things will evolve, as it invariably feels as if there isn't that much planning either and everything will be solved with something really underwhelming.

If anything, it reminds me a lot of when I was reading old comics such as the original flash gordon (especially after the first few years) or the '80s superman: sometimes there were really great stories in there but they always tried to keep you hooked by never quite providing an ending, introducing new and new situations that brought the characters in new places while partly forgetting the old ones.

This of course makes a lot of sense if you have to keep people paying to get new issues or renew streaming contracts, but doesn't really work that much for me.

Now, Lower Decks seems to want to have a kind of episodic storytelling that doesn't necessarily leave the characters where they were. We'll see how it develops in future seasons, but so far I'm enjoying this much more.

Bringing it to another level, Babylon V is famous for these: there you have characters that can change a lot over time and situations that take year to evolve, yet almost every episode had a clear beginning and a payoff ending and was viewable even by someone who barely knew the show.
 
I've seen episodic done well with character development, but it is less common. So, even if a middle part feels like it doesn't have an end (common in my experience with streaming) I can usually find satisfaction on rewatch. I guess once it ends there is that framework for me to then draw upon and revisit. Which works for me because I am a person who rewatches shows again and again.
 
I don't know about that. I just remember when it aired everyone called it The Worst Star Trek Ever, then when Enterprise was on, it became The Worst Star Trek ever, with Voyager suddenly being remembered fondly.

Really, the whole thing kind of reminds me of how my uncle describes Doctor Who fans back in the 1980s. The current episodes were considered utter shit until five years later when they got reassessed and determined to actually be decent episodes which were misunderstood at the time they originally aired and are far superior to the utter shit which is currently airing.

The same thing with the Star Wars prequals.
 
In my experience yes, people are a lot kinder to the prequels and direct all their hate towards the new trilogy.
 
Online the prequels are now much beloved. It's BS but it definitely is happening.

The prequels are still awful, but at least they're awful in a unique way that most modern Hollywood movies are not.

That said, I think most of the growing appeal is not because of how bad Disney Star Wars is. It's because the people who watched the movies when they were young are now early middle age, and things you found laughably awful as a teenager have a certain nostalgic charm when you're pushing 40.
 
The prequels are still awful, but at least they're awful in a unique way that most modern Hollywood movies are not.

That said, I think most of the growing appeal is not because of how bad Disney Star Wars is. It's because the people who watched the movies when they were young are now early middle age, and things you found laughably awful as a teenager have a certain nostalgic charm when you're pushing 40.
I'm sure that has a part of growing up with the PT. But, I was a young teen when the PT came out and the only nostalgia I have is for the merchandise.
 
I subjected to the prequels again a couple of years ago (first time I watch episode III trough the end, actually: I stopped midway trough with disgust when they broadcasted it back then) and well...they are a lot worse than what I remembered!

as many, I didn’t enjoy much the new trilogy, yet I’m loving the mandalorian, which seem to be a very common situation...still it’s something new and daring for a Star Wars product, so perhaps it’s not just “hating the new thing”.
 
I subjected to the prequels again a couple of years ago (first time I watch episode III trough the end, actually: I stopped midway trough with disgust when they broadcasted it back then) and well...they are a lot worse than what I remembered!
Yeah, my wife and I attempted a rewatch last year. She made it through-I did not. My emotions around them have not largely changed since I was a teen. There are parts I like and there are many that I just don't find appealing.
as many, I didn’t enjoy much the new trilogy, yet I’m loving the mandalorian, which seem to be a very common situation...still it’s something new and daring for a Star Wars product, so perhaps it’s not just “hating the new thing”.
Here's my thing, accurate or not. One, I think it is more than just hating the new thing, though I think that is part of it. I think it also not fulfilling what preconceived notions fans have around a particular property. The Mandalorian is trading heavily in the tropes that made SW Star Wars, i.e. westerns, serialized movies. Combine that with the scoundrel with a heart of gold trope and it's pretty much the OT except with Han Solo as the lead character, not Luke. I don't think it is that daring. It fits in to the SW box quite comfortably for many.

Discovery and the ST don't. Neither did TPM. Sam Witwer, whom I have a great respect for, noted that TPM was the first of a story type that allowed expansion of that universe. Before that, stories largely were confided to conflict between the Rebels and the Empire, either a remnant, or former ally of the Imperials. TPM showed that it was possible to tell a more political type story. It might not have been well received but it was different enough.

The ST was also different enough, though it tried to do both, by playing it safe and being different. And I think the fact that it's a subject of disagreement indicates that there is still variety in terms of opinions and reception. But, unlike the PT, the ST went against preconceived notions of the SW box with these characters. That is going to rub people the wrong way. Are there legitimate criticism? Yes, but I think it also struck nerves because "Luke shouldn't be treated this way!" type arguments. And I think that holds weight because of just how much stock people go with the Mandalorian.

Discovery is in a similar boat. It isn't doing the ensemble piece that people expect (and demand at some points). It is not following the rules of Star Trek of showing less conflict, having technology be a benefit, etc. Again, there are legitimate criticisms, but when I hear some things repeated it makes me pause and go maybe it's just more different than people want..

tl: dr-No, it's not just that it's the new thing. It's also that it is the different thing.
 
What about lower decks, then? It’s the expected things for the looks and the morals, maybe, but very different for everything else.
 
and matter gets reconverted into energy, so technically it might be true. Still gross and out of the place statement.

I think he made that statement deliberately to get under her skin.

still better than the destroyed wasteland they might have went with.

Besides, things change over the centuries, quite a lot. Stories are primarily about conflicts or struggles. And as we've seen with Trek before, the best way to show the Roddenberry ideology prevail is to test it, question it or confront it.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top