What do older fans think?

[diankra]

53, didn't like TOS in the 70s (mainly because the BBC kept repeating it, mainly season three, while not repeating Who and B7. Now understand the differing rights issues behind that, but at the time having Spock's Brain presented as if it was better...)
Then TNG came along, and like every new Doctor, each series is a reinvention. Some are better than others, if you don't like the current one wait for the next.

 

[seigezunt]

Once again, Greg Cox puts it well.

As somebody who (dimly) remembers watching TOS on its original run on NBC, I'm quite enjoying DISCO. It's the show I wanted ENTERPRISE to be: a bold attempt to reinvent STAR TREK for the 21st century.

The visual upgrades don't bother me nor do I require an in-universe "explanation." Sometimes a change in art direction is just a change in art direction and it's not as though Trek is a historical documentary. I don't expect a TV show in 2020 to zealous recreate the look of a 1960's TV pilot.

And as for the Klingons . . . well, if we survived the Klingons getting a major makeover in 1979, we can survive some new, new Klingons now. There's no such thing as a "real" Klingon.

I am an obsessive TOS fan, who later came around to liking and loving other parts of the franchise. I've been a fan since TAS first showed up while I, a seven-year-old, was busy wolfing down sugary cereal on a Saturday morning. Watched TOS daily on WPIX-11, and grabbed any kind of additional media that I could grab in the 70s. I enjoyed TNG during its run, but it took the lead up to the 2009 movie to get me interested in finally watching all the rest of the franchise, especially after the lackluster TNG movies.

I'm always ambivalent about having to produce those creds, like it's some sort of card I need to show, when I say I love DSC! I think because TOS is "my" Trek, I am predisposed to prefer the stuff that's TOS-adjacent. It was probably a smart move on their part to put it in that setting, as I'm not sure I'd jump to watch the show in the setting it's going to now. But now I love these characters, so I'm aboard for the ride.

I find it perplexing how downright angry some people of my generation get about the continuity inconsistencies in DSC (though, I've generally observed it's more the TNG generation viewers that seem to get more wound up about it). TOS was routinely inconsistent with itself, and my experience is that people, while pointing these out, would generally try to make up ways to make it work, for fun, instead of going ballistic. Generally.

You'd think that anyone who grew up with Gold Key Comics, Power Records, and the Bantam Novels would be less disposed towards getting their shorts in a bunch about how Klingons look (I don't recall anyone storming out of viewings of TMP in 1979), or previously unmentioned siblings (hey, it's Sybok!) showing up. You'd think that anyone who has seen Gene's Vision-tm tinkered with so much between 1979 and 2002 would be more chill about a new iteration of the show.

For me it boils down to my enjoyment. I regret I didn't watch ENT back in the day because somebody convinced me it had to look like Forbidden Planet. It's now one of my favorites. I was determined to give DSC a shot.

And I liked it. I've found it the most consistently entertaining first two seasons in the franchise since TOS. TMP and on, I never lasted much more than one season during their first run, and only came back to them later (DS9 is probably my favorite of the era). DSC, I've been hanging on every episode. It's not perfect, but it's fun: and that's what got me into Trek.

ETA: Oh, and about Picard. I've been finding that I'm getting emotional about seeing the return of characters whom I was not that emotional about in their first run. I'm enjoying it immensely, although I'm finding it less daring than DSC, which is probably intentional, given how prickly TNG fans have been about DSC.

 

[seigezunt]

I think my problem with the bridge is that it is over lit and too large. Like a lot of things in the show, it feels so close to being great but there’s just something that throws it completely off kilter.

It's funny, I was watching my beloved TOS the other night, and that bridge was looking positively cramped lol.

 

[BillJ]

It's funny, I was watching my beloved TOS the other night, and that bridge was looking positively cramped lol.

I prefer intimate.

 

[Jinn]

I've been finding that I'm getting emotional about seeing the return of characters whom I was not that emotional about in their first run.

Oh, I remember that. When Twitch showed all of Classic Doctor Who for like three weeks, I wasn't emotional at all about the Brig during the Third Doctor era, and everytime he guest starred later I got really emotional, even though he was a series regular like three days ago

 

[DarKush]

It’s crazy that I’m an older fan now, but I’ve been a Trek fan since the late ‘80s; time does fly. Though my favorite Trek series is Deep Space Nine, and Discovery perhaps is the most like DS9 (albeit for the third season of ENT) it has yet to grip me like DS9 eventually did. Though I’m still holding out hope, because I didn’t really get into DS9 until the Dominion War. It was a good show up to that, but then it went to the next level. Like with TNG’s Season 3 and “Best of Both Worlds” or ENT Season 3, though starting with “The Expanse”. I haven’t had an episode or shift yet on Discovery for me like that. That being said, I thought it had better first seasons than TNG (definitely) or even DS9. While I don’t think Season 2 was as strong story wise, it did better with characterization.


So far it’s a mixed bag when it comes to DISCO. I love the production values for DISCO. Each episode looks like a movie. It’s just a gorgeous show to look at. I like Sonequa Martin-Green in the lead role, though I don’t always jibe with the Burnham character. I did feel, and liked, how the character’s unevenness was worked into the story in Season 1. The search for Spock plot (as well as the search for a conflict between Spock and Burnham) was stretched out way too much in the second season though. I think Martin-Green is giving her all, however the character doesn’t always resonate with me. I feel even more so that way with just about all of rest of the characters, with some of the outright being annoying, but most are underdeveloped and some are just there.


Like other Trek fans I’m sure, I have issues with how DISCO deals with canon. I don’t buy that this series takes place only 10 years before TOS. I think some of the design/creative choices work much better if this series was set in the 24th (after Nemesis) or 25th century, or even in the era between TOS and TNG, to give them some space to explain away the changes in the Klingons, Starfleet uniforms and starships. Also the role of Section 31. The show felt shoehorned in. But that being said, I also liked that we are getting to see more of the TOS/pre-TOS era. I thought the casting for Pike and Number One was very good, and while I prefer Quinto to Peck when it comes to non-Nimoy Spock, Peck works well enough with what he was given.


For me, the major issues are the premise and the execution. The show even feels misnamed. I mean, why name a show “Discovery” and the first season is mostly about a war and the second season is largely about a mystery? Perhaps they could’ve named it after the unused “Federation” concept, and just called “Federation,” since the ideals of the Federation are being questioned, challenged, and examined on this series, and look to be even more so in the third season. Making it “Federation” wouldn’t have tied it to just one ship either.


There’s also an issue with the tone. The focus is much more on big action and big moments, without taking the time to build up the characters so you care when there is big action and big moments. I think Season 2 did a better job of introducing the Discovery crew to us, but I wish more had been done there. Pike was a welcome shot in the arm for the show, but even here, since we knew he was a temporary character, might that time not been better spent having a permanent, or more permanent captain onboard? Rebecca Romjin’s Number One could’ve been made captain. Just have her take control of the ship and later on decide to stay aboard for the time jump. There was zero in canon for her history after “The Cage” and this would’ve provided DISCO with a female captain, since the show is still resistant to putting Burnham in charge, as it seems determined to hold on the idea of a series about a junior officer. Answering the captain question allows them to move on to gelling the crew, with Number One perhaps even being an audience surrogate. We learn about this crew as she does, and vice versa, we are learning more about Number One along the way too.


For another choice, Robert April is just sitting out there, with even less backstory than Pike’s. Yes, CBS has made TAS canon now, but really, if he was on DISCO and was killed off during the series, how many people would really care enough to bring up the TAS episode, in light of all of the other tweaking of canon CBS has done with Discovery?

 

[Nerys Myk]

For another choice, Robert April is just sitting out there, with even less backstory than Pike’s. Yes, CBS has made TAS canon now, but really, if he was on DISCO and was killed off during the series, how many people would really care enough to bring up the TAS episode, in light of all of the other tweaking of canon CBS has done with Discovery?

Few, but they would loud and persistent.

 

[Uhura's Song]

To judge like for like and just take the first 2 seasons TNG didn't have any characters as strong as Stamets or Saru

Nor TOS much beyond Kirk, Spock, McCoy.

This is a fair critique. Heck, the reason Crosby left was because Gene told her she was window dressing. They got better as it went along.

DS9 did the best job with developing the supporting cast. Though one can go a bit too far. Rom's love life, the Grand Nagus, and the adventures Julian & the Chief were a bit too far afield for me at times.

A lot of how I feel about each show does center on how I feel about the main characters/captain. Picard is my favorite captain (though it took awhile). Kirk/Spock/McCoy my favorite trio. And Picard/Data or Kirk/Spock my favorite pair.

I liked Janeway better than Sisko, but the relative strength of the ensemble (especially Kira/Odo) & the political intrigue lifts DS9 above Voyager.

 

[Steve Roby]

I joined these forums because of Picard, but I've been a Trekkie since the 90's. I've enjoyed evwry series except for the animated one, I couldn't get into that. What do older fans think of Discovery?

Older fan here. I'm 57 and have been a Star Trek fan since the early 1970s. I've been online since... well, it was before DS9 and B5 premiered, anyway. It strikes me as odd to see people who started with TNG or later thinking of themselves as older fans.

I love the first season. Couple non-spoiler things I want to adress. I love our main character. Second series with a female lead, and I don't mind her being a Marry Sue.

She's no Mary Sue. She's an emotionally damaged person who fucks up bigtime when we first see her, who is wracked by guilt but works her ass off even when she believes she's going to prison, who has more character growth in two short seasons than most TNG characters had in seven.

What thw fudge happened to the Klingons? Seriously, what the fudge?

Yeah, you're definitely a newer fan. Go take a look at this article: https://www.herocollector.com/en-gb/Article/star-trek-the-many-faces-of-the-klingon, which, among other things, shows how many different looks the Klingons had in TOS alone.

Does anyone mind the "visual reboot?"

Nope. I like the Discovery style more than the JJTrek style, but both try to make something based on the original but in the 21st century. It also doesn't bother me that 23rd century male characters don't bother with eye shadow any more, and that 23rd century female characters don't wear baskets on their heads.

For hardcore Trekkies, how does this show line up with franchise continuity? I'm curious what the super Trekkies have to say here.

As well as any other Trek series. Enterprise introduced the notion that 22nd Vulcan society was completely different from 23rd century Vulcan society, even though a lot of the Vulcans alive in the 23rd century were around in the 22nd. I'd expect a society with longer-lived individuals to have less dramatic and speedy cultural change. Seems logical to me, anyway. And Voyager undercut almost everything established about the Borg in TNG, though TNG was pretty inconsistent there itself.

Star Trek works best as a television series, and this older fan is happy to see a time when we have two ongoing and very different Star Trek series with more on the way. I miss the glory days of the Pocket Star Trek novels, but otherwise, this is a damn good time to be a Star Trek fan.

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

At 73, I believe I'm the official relic among regular posters. I saw some of TOS in first run including the pilot on September 8, 1966 (I was 20). I've been able to enjoy each series as its own show and particularly like both Discovery and Picard. My secret is not giving two shits about "canon", I find it an invention in peoples minds used to start arguments about some kind of purity. Piss on that and just watch the show.

 

[Dale Sams]

At 73, I believe I'm the official relic among regular posters. I saw some of TOS in first run including the pilot on September 8, 1966 (I was 20). I've been able to enjoy each series as its own show and particularly like both Discovery and Picard. My secret is not giving two shits about "canon", I find it an invention in peoples minds used to start arguments about some kind of purity. Piss on that and just watch the show.

Couple things:

Its the internets fault plain and simple. *My* encounters with canon between TOS and TNG? Encounter at Farpoint: (We see McCoy) "Whattt?? (hah ha) he was the oldest one!!" Doesn't defy canon, we just thought it was amusing. The Naked Now: Riker says something like "Some captain, a James Kirk??" That was irksome. Please. Like everyone wouldn't know who Kirk was.

And that was it!! No real internet presence to fuel the flames. We made our observations and moved on. There were certainly bigger fish to fry in those shows,

NOW as for canon. There's 'Hey, Pikes bridge doesn't look anything like TOS. Thats a shame cause we've seen that the audience will accept TOS-affections, Oh well' level of canon.

And then there's 'Why do these Amphibians calling themselves Klingons have cloaking tech in the very first GD episode and why did you bother to set the show pre TOS if you're going to pull this?" level of canon busting.

There's canon and then there's 'Why even do a Trek show if this is what you're doing?'

 

[fireproof78]

And then there's 'Why do these Amphibians calling themselves Klingons have cloaking tech in the very first GD episode and why did you bother to set the show pre TOS if you're going to pull this?" level of canon busting.

And there is the Trek's fans ability to rationalize it away.

And so I do.

 

[Dale Sams]

And there is the Trek's fans ability to rationalize it away.

And so I do.

How did you rationalize the cloaking tech? Admit it!! You didn't! You just ignored it.

But seriously, I've been telling people for ages that every new show can do whatever they want since we're living in like the third or fourth altered timeline and NOT a Trek predestination time travel timeline.

Heh. Fifth now. I forgot the Mirror events of S1 polluted an already altered timeline.

 

[fireproof78]

How did you rationalize the cloaking tech? Admit it!! You didn't! You just ignored it.

But seriously, I've been telling people for ages that every new show can do whatever they want since we're living in like the third or fourth altered timeline and NOT a Trek predestination time travel timeline.

Heh. Fifth now. I forgot the Mirror events of S1 polluted an already altered timeline.

Temporal Cold War.

Good to go.

 

[Vger23]

I am an obsessive TOS fan, who later came around to liking and loving other parts of the franchise. I've been a fan since TAS first showed up while I, a seven-year-old, was busy wolfing down sugary cereal on a Saturday morning. Watched TOS daily on WPIX-11, and grabbed any kind of additional media that I could grab in the 70s. I enjoyed TNG during its run, but it took the lead up to the 2009 movie to get me interested in finally watching all the rest of the franchise, especially after the lackluster TNG movies..

Almost exactly what my journey was. When I was a kid, I watched the hell out of TOS, TAS (reruns- I was born in the mid 70's) and, even though I thought it was a major step down in "entertainment value," TNG. I couldn't hold on to DS9, despite my thinking that the pilot episode was brilliant. I tried to come back around "Way of the Warrior," but the serialization killed it for me, as I felt like I had missed too much. VOY didn't last 6-7 episodes and I bounced on that. ENT I barely watched. Since the 2009 timeframe, I've since gone back and watched (and loved) all of DS9 and really liked ENT as well (although not as anything other than casual comfort food). VOY I still can't do. And God knows I've tried.

I find it perplexing how downright angry some people of my generation get about the continuity inconsistencies in DSC (though, I've generally observed it's more the TNG generation viewers that seem to get more wound up about it). TOS was routinely inconsistent with itself, and my experience is that people, while pointing these out, would generally try to make up ways to make it work, for fun, instead of going ballistic. Generally..

It is odd that it is mainly the TNG fans who lose their minds about this stuff....but (see my next response)

You'd think that anyone who grew up with Gold Key Comics, Power Records, and the Bantam Novels would be less disposed towards getting their shorts in a bunch about how Klingons look (I don't recall anyone storming out of viewings of TMP in 1979), or previously unmentioned siblings (hey, it's Sybok!) showing up. You'd think that anyone who has seen Gene's Vision-tm tinkered with so much between 1979 and 2002 would be more chill about a new iteration of the show..

This is precisely why most "older fans" are ok with the Kelvinverse and CBSAA Trek productions. We're USED to the franchise being inconsistent and having pretty significant visual, continuity, and even tonal changes. Most TNG-first fans are ambivalent toward TOS, didn't grow up in that time frame, and sort of think of it all as a nice, cute prologue to "real Star Trek." What's more, they were completely spoiled by having a run of series and movies from 1987 through 2005 that were designed and managed by pretty much the exact same people...giving this wonderful but completely misleading image that Star Trek is meant to be one giant, interconnected epic story.

Which, of course, it was NEVER meant to be.

And I liked it. I've found it the most consistently entertaining first two seasons in the franchise since TOS. TMP and on, I never lasted much more than one season during their first run, and only came back to them later (DS9 is probably my favorite of the era). DSC, I've been hanging on every episode. It's not perfect, but it's fun: and that's what got me into Trek.

Agree...feel the exact same way.

ETA: Oh, and about Picard. I've been finding that I'm getting emotional about seeing the return of characters whom I was not that emotional about in their first run. I'm enjoying it immensely, although I'm finding it less daring than DSC, which is probably intentional, given how prickly TNG fans have been about DSC.

Agree....feel the exact same way.

 

[Mr_Sloan]

TV gots a lot more action & violance from year to year. But e.g. TNG wasn´t exactly free of violance for the 90th... e.g. the bluegills...

There are actually nice peacefull movie if you go sideways the mainstream.

My top 5 movies are 6 to 12 year age restriction and do actually not include a star trek movie anymore...

 

[fireproof78]

This is precisely why most "older fans" are ok with the Kelvinverse and CBSAA Trek productions. We're USED to the franchise being inconsistent and having pretty significant visual, continuity, and even tonal changes. Most TNG-first fans are ambivalent toward TOS, didn't grow up in that time frame, and sort of think of it all as a nice, cute prologue to "real Star Trek." What's more, they were completely spoiled by having a run of series and movies from 1987 through 2005 that were designed and managed by pretty much the exact same people...giving this wonderful but completely misleading image that Star Trek is meant to be one giant, interconnected epic story.

Which, of course, it was NEVER meant to be.

1000% this! This cannot be overstated!

 

[Dale Sams]

1000% this! This cannot be overstated!

My Kelvin objections are

They basically stripped the parts to make entertaining movies. I don't care about transporters that cover light years! Who cares, There are much bigger fish to fry. I can just ignore rejuvenating Khan blood.

The lens flare

The way Kirk was deconstructed. They inflated the myths and threw in a bunch of 'What REALLY should happen to Kirk is..." Yes yes...and Bond should be dead of liver failure.

But (2009) was very entertaining. Into Darkness was pretty and for all the hype about the third one being better than expected. I didn't see it...I'm just over the clumsy beats: destroying ANOTHER Enterprise, more Beastie Boys....etc...

But I'm glad people enjoyed it.

 

[fireproof78]

The way Kirk was deconstructed. They inflated the myths and threw in a bunch of 'What REALLY should happen to Kirk is..."

Except, with respect, that's not what happens. Kirk had a much different childhood than Prime Kirk and it shows. It is part of the theme of the movie, and Kirk's overall arc in the films.

 

[Vger23]

Except, with respect, that's not what happens. Kirk had a much different childhood than Prime Kirk and it shows. It is part of the theme of the movie, and Kirk's overall arc in the films.

Right. I mean, Kirk is my favorite fictional character of all time, and the portrayal of Kirk in those films does not bother me, because of this very reason. It's almost like the entire series of 3 films is an exploration of who Kirk would have been if he was raised without his original father, and how important his father was in who he eventually became.

A lot of the films are about Kirk's character trying to "find home" in this matter. How does he make up for / live up to the loss of his father?