Star Trek has always been trite -- especially when it gets really soapboxy.
What was "The Burn" and what caused it?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Thats bull though as all of those things are full of protagonists who are flawed or have no more foresight than you or I and have to act within the constraints of the universe. It would be very easy in DIS to throw the odd bone to someone else or not set up needless confrontation all the time just to prove how smart and right and awesome the hero is in every little insignificant moment.
NEXT!!!!
Burnham is flawed.
Massively flawed. And those flaws are overtly pointed out with amazing frequency.
Steamed yams
Fried spam
Canned clams on the Sandman make for a Spider-Man that hates his fans.*
*I guess what I'm saying is Spider-Man 3 sucked.
*I guess what I'm saying is Spider-Man 3 sucked.
Any more trite than the countless TNG episodes where after 40 minutes of board room style hand wringing over the anomaly of the week, they ultimately "re-modulate the Deflector Dish" to emit the magic "Anti->particle of the week<" to ultimately fix the "anomaly of the week..."?
Yeah, when TNG did is that's: "Classic Star Trek..."
When ST: D does it, it's "Alec Kurtzman and his gang of hacks who obviously never watched actual Star Trek..."
This is my biggest point of frustration. I get that TNG is older but that doesn't excuse it since people still watch it.
I've always maintained: It's ok to think Star Trek's writing is hacky and flawed...because it IS.
But...if you're going to judge one series or movie for it, you have to be prepared to judge the entire franchise by those same standards.
It's a thing these days to rip on "the writers" for some reason. Because everyone's idealized version of Star Trek is clearly what SHOULD be written, and not these flawed, childhood-murdering stories that everyone everywhere in the science fiction and fantasy genres seem to be dishing out these days.
Like I said...YEP...it's flawed up the wazoo. But so is the rest of Star Trek. So, let's not go saying "Star Trek : Series A sucks because TEH SH!T WRITING" when, honestly, you would not tolerate the franchise (let alone be a FAN) if that were your consistent criteria for enjoyment.
Last edited:
That's all I want. Be consistent.
The first time ever I saw Data in an episode, I didn't know who or what he was, I didn't even know what the show was about just that it was sci. fi. I thought he was some guy with Asperger's and a weird fetish about painting his face yellow. I never would have guessed that he was supposed to be a robot.
Every Trek series has embarrassing writing and bad character development. That's not just Star Trek, that's any franchise or any series. When you have multiple writers or far more penning scripts to a TV series or television franchise that can last years if not decades you're going to have some pretty terrible and predictable writing at times and writing that doubles down on the worst aspects of that series or franchise.
Enough for what? What are "Earth needs" if they are isolated and don't go anywhere?
You'd think they could at a minimum say travel to Vulcan? ... or find Star Fleet? ....
