Why so much negativity?

[DaveyNY]

I'm too passionate about star trek, and science ok?

It's ok to be 'passionate' about something, just don't let that passion overwhelm your respect for other's valid opinions.
In other words, try not to be overly obnoxious and/or rude about it.

Remember it's just a conversation with strangers.

We are all ...

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm passionate about Star Trek to the point where I write fan films and have spent more than 20 years posting on a Star Trek message board. But I try to avoid going too overboard.

Nerd.

 

[cooleddie74]

My Captain Kirk Underoos gave me away.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

You're not gonna get me saying that Discovery isn't objectively stunning to look at.

You're not gonna hear me say that the actors themselves aren't for the most part objectively talented and likable.

You're not gonna get me to understand what the word "objectively" means, copper!

None of this is a criticism of the cast, acting ability, or graphical quality of the show, BTW, just a criticism that your argument is bunk.

 

[SalyutBuran]

Do you have specifics relevant to this discussion to demonstrate this objective standard related to the topic at hand? If not, then sending me to do my own research doesn't prove anything. Art is subjective, and value taken from different shows is in no way comparable to nutrition science.

If I tell you a piece of music is off time and out of tune, and you ask me to point out a peer reviewed journal to explain to you why, all I can tell you is it just is, or that you should pick up a guitar and work on your ear training.

Being able to perceive something takes work to figure out. That is why talent/skill is something you develop over time.

If you're asking me to point to a 10 minute clip of his work to break it down for you you're out of luck.

It's a complicated subject. You need to do the work to understand it.

https://www.richroll.com/podcast/andrew-huberman-533/

This is a good primer, it's a start.

If you got 2 hours to spend on it, I'd check it out, ideally watch it 2-3 times over and watch some more of his work.

But again if you're not gonna invest the time into it, you're not gonna get the knowledge.

Would you expect someone to give you a pamphlet on how to write a story, and for you to be good at it on your first take?

Probably, yes. I don't like it much, and I know a couple of people who don't care for it, find it annoying or boring.

It's subjective.

Subjective as in how you're built determines whether or not you like it.

It objectively is well made though, which is the context, not liking something doesn't mean how you feel about it changes how it was constructed.

 

[fireproof78]

But again if you're not gonna invest the time into it, you're not gonna get the knowledge.

So, the answer is no. You have no evidence or standard to apply except to become an expert.

So, largely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

It objectively is well made though, which is the context, not liking something doesn't mean how you feel about it changes how it was constructed.

The standard is so nebulous as to be irrelevant because it isn't being shared. This is becoming the "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it" type rule.

 

[cooleddie74]

We know what we like and what we find to be good television and a lot of Star Trek episodes across the decades don't fall into either category.

 

[ELCHawk]

I guess one thing that gets me mad is how far certain fans will go out of the way to proclaim their hatred for NuTrek. Don't like it? That is fine. But you don't have to say it 1000 times.

 

[Noname Given]

...STD represents the people who watch twitch streams while old fans prefer books.


Star Trek Discovery does some very obvious blatant things to turn off old fans.

And again the biggest frustration is that it seems to be so obviously driven by corporate politics. Bryan Fuhler is a highly competent writer, his work on Hannibal was a master piece.

Yet he didn't want to turn star trek into star wars and he had to leave. Instead we got a crew of producers who aren't capable of producing high quality art.

You're not gonna get a pyscologist to sign off on the idea the STD crew are well adjusted people. They all suffer from a number of personality disorders/flaws in their professionalism. Star trek up until that point was basically the opposite. For whatever magic of mental health starfleet officers were able to keep it together and act like disciplined adults.

At best people like seeing people with mental health issues running a ship. I don't have a problem with this if its battlestar galactica(a show I love) but that isn't star trek.

The studio got what it wanted, eye candy, with some teen drama elements to capture a younger audience.

It's fundamentally an immature show, there's nothing wrong with that, I don't take myself that serious.

But again why did you burn down a forest to build a McDonalds!!!!!

Been watching Star Trek first run since 1969 on NBC (I was 6 and the first episode I ever saw was TOS S3 "Elaan Of Troyius"). To this day I still think TOS is the best and purest form of Star Trek.

I didn't hold GR in high in regard in 1987 because I already knew a lot of his past oh, so when TNG came out and he was trying to claim this was what Star Trek always was I thought it was a load of BS. I eventually came to like aspects of Star Trek TNG, but overall today I still find it largely un-watchable compared to TOS.

Of the Berman Trek era I think DS9 is the best of the bunch, and I also enjoyed seasons 3 and especially season 4 of "Star Trek: Enterprise" ( read once Manny Coto who is obviously atos fan unlike mr. Berman and mr. Braga took over the writer's room). To this day I still can't watch avy of Star Trek Voyager ( I gave that one full season but quit after the episode "The 37's". I've seen some of the later seasons episodes here and there oh, but I still really dislike the show most of the afternoon and think it is garbage.

As far as what current fans like to call "Nu Trek" - I very much enjoyed the first two j.j. Abrams films; and like the third one but one not as much as the first two. I enjoyed Star Trek Discovery's first season, but really very much enjoyed Star Trek Discovery's second season and think it's the best season of Star Trek since TOS season 1.

I wasn't really happy with Star Trek Discovery third season oh, and they've done a little better with the fourth season, but I'm not a fan of jumping to the 32nd century because it just makes Humanity lest relatable in my opinion. That was my bed problem with Berman Trek in that Gene Roddenberry suddenly decided that Humanity had somehow perfected itself and there was no conflict between Star Fleet Cruise unless there was some ridiculous alien influence. The humans in TNG we're pretty much emotional mannequins in my opinion; and Picard was one of the biggest Hypocrites in that he always liked to claim that the Federation was very tolerant of other cultures but anytime Lieutenant Worf did something absolutely correct in Klingon culture oh, it usually ended up with him getting a big dressing down by Picard.

As for the other kurtzman era Trek, I absolutely love lower decks and have to say that if the 24th century was written like that back when Rick Berman ran the franchise oh, I would have enjoyed it a lot more.

My biggest disappointment has been Picard. I thought it started off strong, but the ending was pat TNG with Picard being proven absolutely right oh, and I refuse to believe that after 1200 years, the romulans would just give up and go home because Riker showed up with a few cut-and-paste Starships. I will give the writers credit for finally being able to write the character of Deanna Troi as an actual counselor. That was the first time she displayed the fact that she was a trained psychological counselor since the premiere of TNT in 1987.

And I haven't found a Prodigy to be that bad (much better than anything I saw on Voyager); but the recent episodes where they cut and pasted deceased actors lines in a Holodeck simulation to try and create new performances oh, really rubbed me the wrong way and I think whoever came up with that idea should be fired. I have a big problem with deceased actors performances being massively re-edited and taken out of context and that's exactly what they did here for that portion of the episode and I think it's shameful.

I'm really stoked and looking forward to the premiere of "Strange New Worlds".

Lastly oh, I've been working with computers in some form since 1975, and didn't the IT industry since the mid-1980s, and while I know I had to use and am acutely aware of various social media, aside from bbs's like this one, I have no desire to and have never used any form of social media nor do I really follow people on it as I think it's a complete waste of time, and I can't believe people are stupid enough to broadcast their personal information onto the internet.

So yeah, do me a favor and don't speak for me in your postings because your postings are full of crap with respect to quote what "older fans" like.

To make it absolutely clear I'd take JJ Trek and Kurtzman Trek over Berman era Trek including Seth MacFarlane, - and yes I did watch every episode - "The Orville') any day.

Bottom line: Your analysis of what "older fans like" is a load of crap and it just shows you've never really talked to any older Star Trek fans.

 

[cooleddie74]

I'm almost 50. I'm an "older fan." And almost nothing presented in this argument lines up with what I like or love and am attracted to. I'm drawn to Trek that grabs my passion and manages to keep my attention on a consistent basis. I don't care if it cost $190,000 per episode or $7 million.

When other fans gatekeep it's why Trek loses fans.

 

[SalyutBuran]

So, the answer is no. You have no evidence or standard to apply except to become an expert.

So, largely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

You don't need to be an expert, you need to understand some of the science and some of natural perception.

This is a very very basic concept in education.

You learn theory, you experiment to better understand that theory.

Do you think people studying acting, writing, and music are just indulging in subjective fantasies?

I'd love to know what you think goes on when people study these topics?

I'm not asking you to be an expert, but if you're dumbfounded why so many people feel it is bad, you need to respect that some people know why.

Again you actually have to put the effort into it if you want to know.

Can you even acknowledge that the narrative jumps around? Are you in denial of this?

The standard is so nebulous as to be irrelevant because it isn't being shared. This is becoming the "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it" type rule.

No, because masturbating doesn't make you better at that.

I use the example of playing a guitar, because

A) It's Art

B) There's objective qualities of music that make it more or less likely to be bad.

If you play guitar and learn music theory, you're far better to pick up on those things.

I get you might not have any respect for what producers/writers do for a profession.

But if you think they're just throwing things at a wall without immense skill, I'm sorry you need acknowledge where you're coming from.

You're asking me to give you a piece of paper so you can tell when something is out of tune or off time.

I'm telling you if you're not naturally adept at these things to pick up a guitar learn some music theory, and the what is obvious to some will become obvious to you.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Because it's a quite blatant example of a company burning an intellectual property to the ground using scorched earth tactics.

This is like being confused why people are mad when a property developer burnt down a forest to build a McDonald's.

I love me some cheap fast food, but not when it requires burning down a forest to make it happen.

It doesn't hurt when McDonald's lovers won't admit a Big mac has the nutritional value of a donut.

Star Trek Discovery in the most generous of terms is something that appeals to a very very limited demographic appeal.

STD represents the people who watch twitch streams while old fans prefer books.


Star Trek Discovery does some very obvious blatant things to turn off old fans.

And again the biggest frustration is that it seems to be so obviously driven by corporate politics. Bryan Fuhler is a highly competent writer, his work on Hannibal was a master piece.

Yet he didn't want to turn star trek into star wars and he had to leave. Instead we got a crew of producers who aren't capable of producing high quality art.

You're not gonna get a pyscologist to sign off on the idea the STD crew are well adjusted people. They all suffer from a number of personality disorders/flaws in their professionalism. Star trek up until that point was basically the opposite. For whatever magic of mental health starfleet officers were able to keep it together and act like disciplined adults.

At best people like seeing people with mental health issues running a ship. I don't have a problem with this if its battlestar galactica(a show I love) but that isn't star trek.

The studio got what it wanted, eye candy, with some teen drama elements to capture a younger audience.

It's fundamentally an immature show, there's nothing wrong with that, I don't take myself that serious.

But again why did you burn down a forest to build a McDonalds!!!!!

Well said, and how ironic it was younger viewers that Star Trek always attempted to appeal to without the added fanboy engorged "Coolness", like having the characters saying bad words and constantly undermining the pioneers of TOS designs, fashion, and it's history. By DISCO implanting that abomination DISCO-prise it has grown the roots the original Starship Enterprise was a refit??? It is so disrespectful and a "big f^ck you" to Star Trek. It's as if the showrunners are embarrassed by the source material and has done everything in their power to rewrite what never had to be altered. If DISCO was set in the JJ-verse or better set in an era after TNG, I could be open to this crap but those series' installments from Season 1-3 felt like a slap in the face of the series I loved (STAR TREK 1966) and made me a Star Trek fan.

 

[fireproof78]

You don't need to be an expert, you need to understand some of the science and some of natural perception.

This is a very very basic concept in education.

You learn theory, you experiment to better understand that theory.

Do you think people studying acting, writing, and music are just indulging in subjective fantasies?

I'd love to know what you think goes on when people study these topics?

Irrelevant. Either offer up the standard or don't claim that there is objectivity in this conversation of what is or is not "good art." Provide evidence that can be understood by people in this thread, please. Otherwise it is highly irrelevant.

Thus far it has been poor metaphors and irrelevant tangents.

those series' installments from Season 1-3 felt like a slap in the face of the series

You cannot "slap the face" of a fictional franchise. This hyperbole is why such discussions are becoming difficult. No one was insulted, no malice was intended. It is people in a creative process making art based upon former art. It will not appeal to all fans, nor could it be a great recreation of the 60s because that is not possible. No disrespect was meant.

 

[cooleddie74]

Acting IS a subjective fantasy. There are myriad ways to play a role and be effective in doing so. And roles are make believe and fantasy, usually individuals who don't exist in real life.

There's no one road map to any art form.

 

[Finn]

You don't need to be an expert, you need to understand some of the science and some of natural perception.

This is a very very basic concept in education.

You learn theory, you experiment to better understand that theory.

Do you think people studying acting, writing, and music are just indulging in subjective fantasies?

I'd love to know what you think goes on when people study these topics?

I'm not asking you to be an expert, but if you're dumbfounded why so many people feel it is bad, you need to respect that some people know why.

Again you actually have to put the effort into it if you want to know.

Can you even acknowledge that the narrative jumps around? Are you in denial of this?






No, because masturbating doesn't make you better at that.

I use the example of playing a guitar, because

A) It's Art

B) There's objective qualities of music that make it more or less likely to be bad.

If you play guitar and learn music theory, you're far better to pick up on those things.

I get you might not have any respect for what producers/writers do for a profession.

But if you think they're just throwing things at a wall without immense skill, I'm sorry you need acknowledge where you're coming from.

You're asking me to give you a piece of paper so you can tell when something is out of tune or off time.

I'm telling you if you're not naturally adept at these things to pick up a guitar learn some music theory, and the what is obvious to some will become obvious to you.

 

[SalyutBuran]

I guess one thing that gets me mad is how far certain fans will go out of the way to proclaim their hatred for NuTrek. Don't like it? That is fine. But you don't have to say it 1000 times.

Problem is you're shutting down the conversation.

The OP asked a question, and you disregard my answer to that question.

But you're not just going against my opinion, you're disregarding the opinions of more prominent writers/critics than myself who've devoted their life to the topic.

He asks why it is not liked, my answer is there are clears thing that are fundamental reasons why it is getting an exceptional amount of hatred.

They're predictable.

 

[cooleddie74]

If an opinion isn't worth sharing it doesn't matter how prominent or respected an origin it has. It doesn't matter how long they've devoted to studying and critiquing things. They can still be wrong and their opinion not worth agreeing with.

 

[Finn]

Problem is you're shutting down the conversation.

The OP asked a question, and you disregard my answer to that question.

But you're not just going against my opinion, you're disregarding the opinions of more prominent writers/critics than myself who've devoted their life to the topic.

He asks why it is not liked, my answer is there are clears thing that are fundamental reasons why it is getting an exceptional amount of hatred.

They're predictable.

ELCHawk is the OP. Why are you talking as if they aren't the OP to them???

 

[donners22]

STD represents the people who watch twitch streams while old fans prefer books

Star Trek Discovery does some very obvious blatant things to turn off old fans.

Here is a fine answer to OP’s query - rank narcissism. Much of the loud criticism is an effort to feel superior - I dislike the show. My taste is objectively superior. I am a true fan. Those who disagree must be inferior in both respects.

Of course, neither is true, no matter how much someone tries to fill the thread with pseudo-intellectual analyses, but it’s not about making a genuine argument- it’s about self-satisfaction.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, art is all about evoking emotions.