That's why I don't get involved in Babylon 5 threads. If I liked it I'd watch it and talk about it.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Babylon 5, a show I've said I'll watch ever since 1993.
And yet, I've seen two whole episodes in my entire life. The first episode on Amazon last year-ish? The last episode in 1998, because a family member was over who was a fan and insisted we watch. And I saw part of an episode in 2002. It made me think, "I want to watch more!" and then it never happened.
I'm horrible like that. Too many people here, we have to get them to stop watching. With me, it's the exact opposite. You have to get me to start watching!
Thousands of years from now, I'll finally watch The Expanse. Just like I'll finally re-watch the Abrams Films. I had friends who were obsessed with Buffy the Vampire Slayer in 1997. Talked about it all the time. It took me until (drum-roll) 2011 before I gave it a look, after spending almost 15 years thinking, "I should watch it sometime to see what the big deal is!"
And yet, I've seen two whole episodes in my entire life. The first episode on Amazon last year-ish? The last episode in 1998, because a family member was over who was a fan and insisted we watch. And I saw part of an episode in 2002. It made me think, "I want to watch more!" and then it never happened.
I'm horrible like that. Too many people here, we have to get them to stop watching. With me, it's the exact opposite. You have to get me to start watching!
Thousands of years from now, I'll finally watch The Expanse. Just like I'll finally re-watch the Abrams Films. I had friends who were obsessed with Buffy the Vampire Slayer in 1997. Talked about it all the time. It took me until (drum-roll) 2011 before I gave it a look, after spending almost 15 years thinking, "I should watch it sometime to see what the big deal is!"
Last edited:
Same with me. And it is very, very, easy to oversell something and diminish my own willingness to try it. Like, I'll go "Sounds great. I'll eventually get around to it, someday.*"
*Properties on this include but are not limited to:
-Breaking Bad
-The Sopranos
-CSI
-Any DC show
-Game of Thrones
With the exception of GoT, I’m right there with you on every count. I’ll add Mad Men to that as well.
That one as well for me. I forgot that one.
Biting my tongue on Mad Men here... 
I really, really love that show.
I think Lorca was like the Don Draper of Star Trek. Right down to the machismo, making the moves on Cornwell, the mysteriousness, and pretending to be someone he wasn't. And he pushed Burnham like (fans of Mad Men will know what I'm talking about) like Don Draper pushed Peggy Olson. Mudd saying Lorca abandoned the Buran also reminded me of Don Draper deserting Korea. The parallels go on and on.
I really, really love that show.
I think Lorca was like the Don Draper of Star Trek. Right down to the machismo, making the moves on Cornwell, the mysteriousness, and pretending to be someone he wasn't. And he pushed Burnham like (fans of Mad Men will know what I'm talking about) like Don Draper pushed Peggy Olson. Mudd saying Lorca abandoned the Buran also reminded me of Don Draper deserting Korea. The parallels go on and on.
Last edited:
I'm not going to get into it (I want to get on with writing my fanfic). I'm new to this forum and wanted to know the vibes here to what people thought about NuTrek. Like are the vibes r/startrek OR r/star_trek.
If these replies are any indication (practically copy pasta defences from what I can read on Twitter), then all the best YouTube explainer videos have either not made it to this forum or are being ignored. Better people than me have explained why NuTrek isn't Trek. Personally, if they said it was a reboot I wouldn't mind so much.
I will answer fireproof78's question with regard to "how" and then I'll say no more. "Nitpicking Nerd" on Youtube does a brilliant job of explaining WITHOUT crapping on NuTrek either (he offers decent explainers and critiques the writing - no abusement towards anybody).
Spock is undermined in S3 of STD because it was Michael Burnham's idea all along for inspiring HIM to do the things he did through his life as we watched him in TOS > TOS movies then Unification.
This upends the character of Spock and in the process the Burnham character is written in a way to borrow Spock's legitimacy/legacy to fuel her own importance/achievements.
OH this character, this secret sister never mentioned is the one who set him on the path that he took. It was never Spock himself. That's taking the proverbial baseball bat to classic trek. The CBS writers write the idea that their character should get all the credit for stories, charcter arcs/motivations from the very first TOS episode aired.
If these replies are any indication (practically copy pasta defences from what I can read on Twitter), then all the best YouTube explainer videos have either not made it to this forum or are being ignored. Better people than me have explained why NuTrek isn't Trek. Personally, if they said it was a reboot I wouldn't mind so much.
I will answer fireproof78's question with regard to "how" and then I'll say no more. "Nitpicking Nerd" on Youtube does a brilliant job of explaining WITHOUT crapping on NuTrek either (he offers decent explainers and critiques the writing - no abusement towards anybody).
Spock is undermined in S3 of STD because it was Michael Burnham's idea all along for inspiring HIM to do the things he did through his life as we watched him in TOS > TOS movies then Unification.
This upends the character of Spock and in the process the Burnham character is written in a way to borrow Spock's legitimacy/legacy to fuel her own importance/achievements.
OH this character, this secret sister never mentioned is the one who set him on the path that he took. It was never Spock himself. That's taking the proverbial baseball bat to classic trek. The CBS writers write the idea that their character should get all the credit for stories, charcter arcs/motivations from the very first TOS episode aired.
They didn't even know who Romulans were in Burnham's time, let alone anything about reunification. That was all Spock.
That's bullshit and you know it. Burnham didn't tell Spock to make peace with the Romulans. She probably wasn't even thinking about Romulans at all. So please tone down the "Burnham ruined everything!!!!" hyperbole. You're just looking for excuses to turn her into a scapegoat.
Burnham told Spock to seek out a friend who would guide him. That friend turned out to be Kirk. She didn't say anything about "Make peace with the Romulans!"
So the reasons are a YouTube Channel's and not yours. I prefer to come to my own conclusions and not let others do it for me. Do you realize those channels are all monetized and have to be negative no matter what to satisfy their subscriber base? You were predisposed to be negative in the first place, so you took to their spin immediately. But it's all spin. All of it.
It's not just Discovery, they'll never say anything positive about any new Star Trek ever again, long after DSC is over and Alex Kurtzman is gone. Because those channels' jobs are to trash new Trek no matter what. If they say anything positive, it'll cause their subscribers to tune out and thus damage their business model. And here you are, buying right into it. Lining their pockets, because they make money off clicks. Instead of getting real jobs, they make money off hatred for a living. Their artificial hatred is what keeps fueling your real hatred.
EDITED TO ADD: Discovery was a visual reboot. That means the visuals of the mid-23rd Century were updated but the overall story was still the same.
There were always tense and uneasy relations with the Klingons in the 23rd Century, so the fact that an actual war broke out for a year isn't much of a stretch. They encountered the Mirror Universe, but it was also classified. So Kirk never knew about it in TOS until "Mirror, Mirror". Section 31 might've been out in the open in the mid-23rd Century, but they also could've been on a "need to know" basis. Either way, DSC's first two seasons took place 120 years before DS9's last two seasons. How much do you know about 1900? Be honest. Probably not much. So memory of it and common knowledge about Section 31 faded after they went deeper underground. The Spore Drive? All information about it was repressed. Again, it would fade to the point of myth.
And from the third season on, DSC no longer even takes place in the 23rd Century. It'll stay in the 32nd Century for the rest of its run. So no more "harming" TOS. The "sanctity" of Holy Canon is preserved. Holy Canon that TOS itself trampled over while it was figuring itself out early on. So kind of a weird series to hold up as a pillar for Star Trek as a Religion.
But maybe Discovery legitimately isn't your cup of tea. Fine. How about Strange New Worlds? It looks like it'll very much be in the style of TOS, TNG, and VOY, doing "Planet of the Week" type stories. It's even in the title. Strange New Worlds.
For all you know, SNW could have solid classics. SNW could have episodes as good as "The City on the Edge of Forever" or "The Inner Light". Could. And are you saying that you'll think they're shit just because they updated the look of the Enterprise? That you won't even give them a chance? That means that entertainment comes second, and even quality comes second, and that all you care about -- at the end of the day -- is canon. Like it's the only thing that matters and absolutely nothing else. That's a shame. Because you could be missing out.
Last edited:
Wow.
Who cares if it was Michael who provided some vague, generalized inspiration to Spock? Everyone gets inspired by someone. What difference does it make? It doesn't diminish Spock's life or career at all.
That doesn't actually answer the question at all. That is no more taking a baseball bat than Nimoy stating that Spock's Vulcan salute was inspired by a Jewish blessing. That's drawing inspiration. People draw inspiration from various sources and being inspired doesn't impact legacy. Certainly not Star Trek's legacy. That's rather set in cement and there is not a thing newer Trek can do to take away from it.
Again, no baseball bat because Spock still made his choices to do what he did.
Random Youtubers are not convincing to me. I have no doubt that many out there feel that NuTrek isn't Trek. Which is a specious argument on its face. Star Trek means different things to different people and declaring something "not Trek" just because they don't like it or it doesn't fit with preconceived notions is not sufficient for dismissing whole works.
Heck, I couldn't tell that the command gold and operations salmon were different colors when I was watching WNMHGB in the mid- 1980s. They both just looked gold to me.
If you replace the word "Klingon" with any sort of real world ethnicity, the racism behind that line becomes clear.
I think the Monster Maroons were used on TNG just because:
A) The costume department already had lots of them on hand (always a useful thing for a show on a tight budget).
B) They were an easy shorthand for "This is from an era before TNG."
There's a S3 episode of TOS ("Spock's Brian", I think) where Kirk and his landing party adjust the thermal controls on their uniforms after beaming down to an arctic planet.
I fantasize about Gene Coon still being alive in the late 70s to rewrite TMP before they started shooting.
I'm the same way. It takes me forever to start on new shows that I don't start watching right from the beginning. Like, I don't doubt that The Sopranos is great, but I'm probably not going to sit down and watch the entire series at this point.
This is a very interesting parallel! Lorca was my favorite ST Captain in a long time, so I both loved and hated the big twist with him midseason.
I'll be the first one here to say there are aspects of DISCOVERY and PICARD I don't like. A couple things even grate me to the point that I may never get past it.
But there is a lot about both series I DO love. Will it be enough to make either in my top 3 STAR TREK shows list? I won't know that until they end their runs.
But neither have not made me think they don't belong in the STAR TREK universe. DISCOVERY had a rough start, but so did almost every spinoff. PICARD's first season ending might have had a few aspects that underwhelm the show, but that's true of almost every spinoff. Both shows have more than enough within it to have earned their place in the STAR TREK universe and franchise. And LOWER DECKS... I just love that show. Another worthy entry.
And your argument of Burnham dismantling all that Spock accomplished is completely wrong. While I don't like certain aspects of her character, such as even when she is in the wrong she somehow ends up as in the right, I think she is overall a good addition to the franchise. I don't see her as the reason Spock went and did all he did in his later years. And even if she was his inspiration, what difference does it make? How does the person who inspired one to do great things diminish or deconstruct all they did? Would knowing who inspired Nelson Mandela change his accomplishments? Would finding out who inspired Jonas Salk to go into medicine deconstruct the fact he brought a polio vaccine to the world? Would the inspiration of Leonardo da Vinci be the true person to congratulate instead of the man himself and all he did? Should we erase everything Marie Curie herself did and instead give all her accolades and accomplishments to the one who inspired her?
And what about all the people who have been inspired by STAR TREK? Engineers, doctors, scientists, astronauts... these people and what they do don't matter because they were inspired to go into a field that they saw was interesting on a tv show, so they decide to go and be that very thing, helping to change the world for the better?
If THAT is one of your reasons to not like a current era set of shows, then you are missing the point of them entirely. And I'm sorry to say, you are missing the point and the spirit of STAR TREK itself.
Definitely being ignored. I make my own choices about what I enjoy, I don't need to be told by anyone
The single departure, where the parallel ends, is that I don't think Don Draper would have a romantic relationship with Peggy (his "daughter" figure) or Sally (his actual daughter). It's something I took issue with during the first season, when they had the reveal about Lorca and Burnham. Though, in retrospect, I think it adds to "Context Is for Kings" that Lorca would find out where Burnham is and try to get her out of there and make her work for him.
But, to be honest, I don't see chemistry between Lorca and Burnham in the romantic way. Lorca and Landry, I could see. Lorca and Cornwell, we saw, and I can easily buy. The only way I buy Lorca/Burnham in the Mirror Universe (or any universe) is if he was trying to make Georgiou angry and get a reaction out of her. Which is something I wouldn't put passed him.
Last edited:
DSC had the worst luck when it came to YouTube Channels. ENT was cancelled the year before YouTube became a thing and the Abrams Films came out too infrequently to properly fuel The Fandom Menace. DSC was the first Star Trek series to properly fit the bill while they were totally up-and-running. PIC is somewhat shielded because of Patrick Stewart and TNG is the Star Trek most of these people grew up with. And LD won't draw their ire, or as much of it, because it's a cartoon. So Discovery gets the full brunt with no filter.
Had YouTube existed in the '90s, the vitriol the Fandom Menace would've had for DS9 and VOY would've given the vitriol they have for Discovery a serious run for its money.
Had YouTube existed in the '90s, the vitriol the Fandom Menace would've had for DS9 and VOY would've given the vitriol they have for Discovery a serious run for its money.
KIRK: Suit temperatures to seventy two.
...
CHEKOV: ...Temperature, a high maximum of forty. Livable.
KIRK: You have a thick skin.
I never noticed that line, before. Thanks. I'm glad they still use Fahrenheit as its standard measure of temperature. ...
CHEKOV: ...Temperature, a high maximum of forty. Livable.
KIRK: You have a thick skin.
If you want to get along here, you might start by not calling Discovery "STD". DSC or even Disco are good, but "STD" is a deliberate slam against the show, and tends to piss people off.
Last edited:
Not weighing in on NuTrek or Orville, but that's hardly the best metric of quality, as the live action Transformers films have taught us.
Similar threads
- Locked
