Why the hate for Disco?

[fireproof78]

It can be whatever you want it to be, for you, and there's no judgement to be made of you by anyone.
But it seems obvious to me -- and many others, I think -- that the concept grew over the last 50-plus years into something much, much bigger.

Here's the challenge though-what it became is not the same to all people. So, when new writers come in it is not reasonable to expect it to be treated as it as this bigger thing. So, when we talk about what Star Trek should or is supposed to be then we will run in to difficulty because it started out as one thing and became another. Nor, as you note, is it the same to everyone. Which begs the question of how are the showrunners to write this as it is supposed to be when that varies from person to person?

 

[fireproof78]

This, is a complex subject, if there ever was one, stet?
I'd say it's a spectrum; it tends towards a consistency in a general direction; if it were on a graph, it would occupy and area, not just a few points.
I'll be the first to admit that over the last 50+ years there have been instances where someone has done something that's out-of-character with regards to that general direction, but it's not taken lightly.

No two people, even standing right next to each other, experience anything exactly the same way. What those two people get out of experiencing a television program or movie is no exception. Why? We're individuals, not copies of each other.

Indeed. Which is why the Kelvin films hold more weight for me than TNG.

 

[Timewalker]

Fair enough.

I'm not a fan of ENT and I'm "in the middle" on the Kelvin Films. So that effectively made DSC the first new Star Trek I was an outright fan of in close to two decades. So I know what you're saying.

Okay. And just to admit everything, I loathe the nuTrek movies (other than one line, which was clever and sufficiently Spockian that I can easily imagine Nimoy saying it if it had ever been part of the dialogue of a TOS episode or movie). If it helps, I'm not much of a fan of nuWho, either. I gave up on Doctor Who after Capaldi's second season - not because I didn't like Capaldi, but because the writing was ridiculously dumbed-down, and the showrunner had a pathological case of Clara-Is-Perfect. I never went back after Capaldi quit.

I get lectured on "Classic Who's special effects are boring, the aliens are cheesy, I can't stand Adric, etc. etc. etc." as though those are sufficient reasons for me to have the same opinion they do - and chances are that they've never seen a tenth as much of Classic Who as I have.

Please keep in mind that many of the TOS-VOY detractors haven't actually watched much of it, or even any. I've at least seen most of Enterprise, about half the first season of DiscoTrek, and stuck it out for part of Picard before giving up on both those latter ones. Due to Enterprise being shown on Fridays here (several episodes that cycle several times through the afternoon and evening), I've come to tolerate it, though I still don't like how it retcons some of the basic things that were established in TOS. I've offered no opinions at all regarding Lower Decks other than "tried it, not my cup of tea, cranberry with honey, hot".

I don't expect much of modern Trek these days. Honestly, I get more enjoyment from fanfic and some of my favorite older novels (and anything Greg Cox writes; he's the only Trek author whose books I still buy, as I know the story will be good and will entertain me).

It's just that I've spent three-plus years dealing with some relentless, unpleasant people myself, who I've seen are using double-standards. It gets to you after a while. But, even there, I still separate those who are just critical of the show from those who outright hate it. And I did describe earlier in the thread what I think of as the difference between "don't like it" and "hate it", where even people who aren't fans of DSC were agreeing with me about it.

One can be critical of something, not like it, and hate it simultaneously, without also being a bigot or unreasonable like the "fandom menace" you've described.

It isn't really that different from when VOY was the current series. Especially when dealing with the TNG/DS9 Brigade that I just mentioned a few posts earlier. I've been around here practically since the board opened up. So, even though I wasn't a regular in that particular forum, I did see some of the threads, and was familiar with the notoriety there.

I've seen a lot of Voyager-bashing over the years. Some of the criticisms are valid. That's why I gravitate to fanfic that doesn't use the reset button, and actions can have permanent consequences.

But some of the criticisms are completely unreasonable, in my view. I see Voyager as a show with some great character arcs that unfold throughout the entire seven-year run. Yes, it's silly about how they always had torpedoes and shuttles to spare, and the ship usually looked spotless far too soon after a major battle. Yes, Chakotay was godawful boring, and my inner anthropologist cringes at how he's presented.

But Tom Paris' story is a very long redemption arc, and Voyager's best success story (besides getting home). Several other characters were put through the wringer and came out the other end with much happier lives, but it didn't happen in one episode. It took years.


One question, though: You say you've been around here since the board opened up. Your join date says 2011. That's several years after I joined, so you must have either lurked for a very long time, or '2011' must be a typo.

 

[Lord Garth]

One question, though: You say you've been around here since the board opened up. Your join date says 2011. That's several years after I joined, so you must have either lurked for a very long time, or '2011' must be a typo.

I joined in 1999. I was a mod from 2002-2008. Then stopped posting regularly. I left completely in 2010. Mostly because I was finally completely fed up with the bullshit on the board at the time. Then something happened to my account. So I re-registered in 2011. But I didn't start posting regularly again until 2017.

In the location section, I have my original registration date. It was easy for me to remember because it was two days before my 20th Birthday.

EDIT: I've had my ups-and-downs with this place. Sometimes I've loved it, sometimes I've hated it. Other times, paradoxically, both at the same time. Sometimes I've been totally with the mods. Other times I've thought, "What the Hell are you doing?!?!!" It comes with the territory of being an ex-mod, unfortunately. I like 95% of the posters 99% of the time. But that 5%...

 

[Timewalker]

I joined in 1999. I was a mod from 2002-2008. Then stopped posting regularly. I left completely in 2010. Mostly because I was finally completely fed up with the bullshit on the board at the time. Then something happened to my account. So I re-registered in 2011. But I didn't start posting regularly again until 2017.

In the location section, I have my original registration date. It was easy for me to remember because it was two days before my 20th Birthday.

Ah, okay. Makes sense.

EDIT

: I've had my ups-and-downs with this place. Sometimes I've loved it, sometimes I've hated it. Other times, paradoxically, both at the same time. Sometimes I've been totally with the mods. Other times I've thought, "What the Hell are you doing?!?!!" It comes with the territory of being an ex-mod, unfortunately. I like 95% of the posters 99% of the time. But that 5%...

Kindred spirit on the love/hate thing. I'm going through that on the gaming forum I hang out on when I'm not here. The only reason I have to stay there some days is the writing group I hang out with in one of the out of the way subforums where Star Wars arguments fly around as the writers among us continue quietly with our projects and mutual pep talks and suggestions. I host a NaNoWriMo thread three times/year there since I've been more active in that in recent years (there's nothing like a win to fire up one's enthusiasm for it).

Ex-mod for that place, so I know how it is when you can see both sides of an issue at the same time. Oftentimes I'm convinced my ex-colleagues' heads are stuffed with stale cornflakes.... especially after their own migration to XenForo, which happened over a year after we did it here. I really appreciate how we were given so much advance notice here, so I could save the contents of my photo album and any vBulletin-specific icons (I snagged the communicators!).

The other forum? No notice whatsoever. Social groups were zapped, visitors' messages were zapped, icons were zapped, and complaints were met with a dismissive shrug from the site owner. Then it became evident that some of the admins had no idea what they were doing, tech-wise, and when I mentioned how smoothly it had gone here (from the pov of the regular members), they asked me how things had been done here.

Well, I'm not staff here, never have been, and am more familiar with the guts of Invision and vBulletin forums, having served as owner, admin, and moderator on a variety of those. So I honestly couldn't give them any knowledgeable suggestions. It's been years now and they still haven't fixed some things.

We have Star Trek arguments there as well, though the moderation is stricter so things don't tend to get as out of hand there as they do here sometimes. Even so, I've pretty well abandoned that part of the forum due to there being no room for anyone who doesn't love DiscoTrek, Picard, and all other modern Trek. As contentious as things can get here on that matter, at least I know I'm not alone in my views.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, guess we can't be friends, then. Personally, I found the JJA movies to be very much less than memorable, in fact I couldn't even tell you what they were about.
If you enjoyed them more than what came before, then I'm happy for you, but I doubt I'd pay to see another of his movies.

IDIC my friend. TNG always struck me as very elitist, and not for a common plebe such as myself.

 

[Timewalker]

IDIC my friend. TNG always struck me as very elitist, and not for a common plebe such as myself.

That's exactly the main problem with TNG and Janeway. I single Janeway out, because of all the Voyager characters, she is the one in lockstep with Picard, in their own little bubbles of perfection where if they're not having a problem, neither is anyone else. And anyone from the 23rd century and earlier is just a barbarian who hasn't "evolved" to want to "better themselves" rather than actually live a normal life where it's necessary to get one's hands dirty on occasion. What I wish some character would have told Janeway is that she's more like Kirk and Sulu than she's aware of or would admit, due to some of the sneaky or outright violent things she did, but she just can't face it.

I give DS9 a pass on the "elitist" label because Sisko himself acknowledges the Federation's hypocrisy and there actually is a normal currency-based economy going on. Too many characters are working to put food on the table and have actual quarters (on the station) or a roof (on Bajor) to worry about high-minded Picard-style philosophy about how everyone should "evolve".

Voyager has a currency-based economy as well, but it's just a different kind. DS9 uses gold-pressed latinum. Voyager uses replicator rations and hour-long blocs of holodeck time.

I don't think I actually stuck with DiscoTrek long enough to notice if it stayed consistent with TOS in this aspect.

 

[eschaton]

I have two main issues with the argument that "Trek is at core action-adventure."

One is that it's - IMHO - ahistorical. Roddenberry wasn't really interested in what passed for "high-octane action" during that period. This can be seen by the fact that The Cage was a rather slow-paced affair, and it was only after the studio rejected the pilot that Roddenberry pivoted to the more action-oriented Where No Man Hs Gone Before. It can also be seen by the biggest single genre influence on the show - Forbidden Planet - which was noted by the critics at the time due to its serious attempts to engage with more grown-up themes than "monster of the week." There's also a lot of similarity structurally speaking with the roughly contemporaneous sci-fi anthology shows like The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits, in that every episode varied in genre but had a concrete theme, or even message. Certain early TOS episodes have a very strong Twilight Zone vibe. For example, Charlie X is a straight-up cautionary tale about giving a teenager the powers of a god - except for the Trekkian twist of humanism at the end that Charlie is not a monster to be feared, but a boy to be pitied. Of course, not every single Trek episode - not even every single TOS episode - had a club-you-on-the-head theme, but it was common enough that it became a core part of what is considered to be the Trekkian DNA.

The other issue is IMHO the "theme/message" part of Trek is frankly what distinguishes it from any number of other generic sci-fi settings. Frankly, if you want straight-up sci-fi action adventure, why go with Trek when things like Guardians of the Galaxy exist and do it much, much, much better?

 

[johnjm22]

What's considered "action" nowadays, verse what was considered action decades ago has changed.

People tell me TWOK is an action movie. I watch it, there's hardly any action in it.

STID is an all out action movie IMO. The Kelvinverse movies are primarily action films. Prior to them I would say action in Star Trek was always a side dish, not the main course. (The exception being maybe NEM and FC).

So debating whether or not Star Trek is/was/should-be action is difficult because standards have changed so much.

By today's standards, most of pre-2009 Star Trek is not action. In fact, it has reputation as being "boring" and "slow".

 

[fireproof78]

The other issue is IMHO the "theme/message" part of Trek is frankly what distinguishes it from any number of other generic sci-fi settings. Frankly, if you want straight-up sci-fi action adventure, why go with Trek when things like Guardians of the Galaxy exist and do it much, much, much better?

Because I like the characters.

I don't think Star Trek was just action/adventure but it used that frame work to support it's ideas. Some times it did well with communicating that optimistic idea of future humanity and other times it was straight up action or fun. I think that's why I use the label that I do of action/adventure with an optimistic view of humanity. It sounds broad but that's what Trek is-a broad stroke sandbox for people to tell several different types of stories within it.

What I wish some character would have told Janeway is that she's more like Kirk and Sulu than she's aware of or would admit, due to some of the sneaky or outright violent things she did, but she just can't face it.

Which is why I like Discovery (note: not saying you have to). There is a more honest approach in terms of humanity, human nature, and (specifically more towards DS9 and Discovery) how trauma can inform life going forward, and expose flaws in ways we find unpalatable, and often in ways we don't expect.

My favorite aspect of Kirk was described by SF Debris much better than I so credit where cred is due. Kirk is a flawed man but aware of those flaws, fully human, with all that entails. His review on "The Conscience of the King" is where he discusses that further but the larger point is Kirk is relatable. And, I think if Janeway and Picard had had some humanizing moments more often it would feel less like an ivory tower and more relatable.

By today's standards, most of pre-2009 Star Trek is not action. In fact, it has reputation as being "boring" and "slow".

And cheap looking which was a barrier to many of my non-SF fans and trying to introduce Star Trek to them.

But, even if action definitions have changed that doesn't change what Star Trek was framed as. So, having it involve action is hardly problematic. One can argue how it is used and its effectiveness in the story is acceptable, and no doubt we could debate that until all the tribbles come home. But, the main reason why I state action/adventure is because that is foundational to Trek, as foundational as the optimistic view and social commentary.

 

[johnjm22]

But, even if action definitions have changed that doesn't change what Star Trek was framed as. So, having it involve action is hardly problematic. One can argue how it is used and its effectiveness in the story is acceptable, and no doubt we could debate that until all the tribbles come home. But, the main reason why I state action/adventure is because that is foundational to Trek, as foundational as the optimistic view and social commentary.

I'm not a big fan of action, I think some is okay, but I think a lot of it gets boring. I started watching Star Trek in the late 80's early 90's when TNG was on as well as the TOC movies. Back then there was action in Star Trek but it was limited.

To me it was always a science fiction drama allegory, that also has other genres mixed in like comedy, action and even some romance.

I don't have any issue with action being part of it, I have a problem with too much action being part of it. The amount of action we see in the Star Trek of today is not consistent with the franchise's history.

And to be fair, this started before JJ Trek. When they started forcing awkward lame action into the TNG movies is when I really started becoming disenchanted with the franchise. I like TNG, but the movies are awful.

 

[eschaton]

What's considered "action" nowadays, verse what was considered action decades ago has changed.

People tell me TWOK is an action movie. I watch it, there's hardly any action in it.

STID is an all out action movie IMO. The Kelvinverse movies are primarily action films. Prior to them I would say action in Star Trek was always a side dish, not the main course. (The exception being maybe NEM and FC).

So debating whether or not Star Trek is/was/should-be action is difficult because standards have changed so much.

By today's standards, most of pre-2009 Star Trek is not action. In fact, it has reputation as being "boring" and "slow".

I understand what you're saying. I do think there are absolutely "action" scenes in TOS though. Kirk fighting with the Gorn in Arena for example. By modern standards that fight is pretty horribly choreographed and slow as hell, but there are long periods of time without dialogue which focus on the physical actions of characters in hand-to-hand combat.

My own personal experience though with action is it's typically the absolute worst part of movies/TV shows, insofar as if there's an untalented director it simply goes on for way, way too long and it becomes the low point, rather than the high point, of the production. Which is why I think at least for TV it's probably better to have the action short and brutal, and focus more on the suspense elements.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not a big fan of action, I think some is okay, but I think a lot of it gets boring. I started watching Star Trek in the late 80's early 90's when TNG was on as well as the TOC movies. Back then there was action in Star Trek but it was limited.

To me it was always a science fiction drama allegory, that also has other genres mixed in like comedy, action and even some romance.

I don't have any issue with action being part of it, I have a problem with too much action being part of it. The amount of action we see in the Star Trek of today is not consistent with the franchise's history.

And to be fair, this started before JJ Trek. When they started forcing awkward lame action into the TNG movies is when I really started becoming disenchanted with the franchise. I like TNG, but the movies are awful.

I think the amount of action is consistent with both the transition of the franchise as a whole as well as trends in society at the time each one is made.

But, what do I know? I enjoy action as part of character study. So I am probably the wrong person to ask because I actually like action.

 

[Vger23]

I’ll take action/adventure Trek over conference room / moralizing Trek any day. I’m one of those guys who shrugs at both “Measure of a Man” and “Duet”.

I watch for the excitement and the characters...and the sci-fi eye candy. I don’t gravitate toward a story that could just as easily been enacted at the local amateur theater.

But, it’s great that the franchise can pull both off. I’d rather Trek be many things than specialize in one thing.

 

[Timewalker]

I’ll take action/adventure Trek over conference room / moralizing Trek any day. I’m one of those guys who shrugs at both “Measure of a Man” and “Duet”.

There's a difference between moralizing in TOS vs. TNG. I actually stood up in my living room and applauded, the first time Picard actually punched someone. It was a refreshing change from "Oh, noes, we're all going to die in the next 10 minutes unless we do something - time to go have a meeting."

TOS moralizing usually came after something actually happened. TNG moralizing usually came after the writer decided to throw in a PSA mouthed by the characters, whether or not anything actually had happened up to that point.

I watch for the excitement and the characters...and the sci-fi eye candy. I don’t gravitate toward a story that could just as easily been enacted at the local amateur theater.

I worked briefly in dinner theatre and for over a dozen years in musical theatre, and how much "action/excitement" you see kinda depends on the play. If you're doing a dinner theatre that has 2-4 characters in a living room or kitchen set, you're unlikely to have much action or physical excitement unless it's a murder mystery or farce. The appeal is in the characters and the emotions they can elicit in the audience (sadness, humor, etc.).

If you're doing something like a rock opera (ie. Jesus Christ Superstar or Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat) or West Side Story... it's almost nonstop action/excitement.

If you're doing Shakespeare, it's a whole other level. I've worked on Shakespeare plays, I've seen them performed live in other venues, and they require a greater level of engagement from the audience to 'get' them. That's why I appreciate the copious number of Shakespearean references and themes in TOS - the audience is assumed to be intelligent enough to understand them, without either Picard-like moralizing or the addition of unnecessary space battles.

But, it’s great that the franchise can pull both off. I’d rather Trek be many things than specialize in one thing.

"Jack of all trades and master of many" works for me. But I still prefer the non-sensory overloaded Classic Trek era.

 

[fireproof78]

By most people's so-called 'standards', I'm just a 'common plebe' myself -- but one of the messages I've gotten from ST in general is that being a 'common plebe' is a state of mind.
Consider someone like Osyraa: she'd certainly perfer the rank-and-file would think of themselves that way. Makes her life easier, stet?
Now think about the people in the Real World who would prefer it if most people thought of themselves that way.

I have not gotten that message from TNG. Other Treks, maybe, but TNG looked down on humans such as myself, no matter what I think of myself.

 

[Timewalker]

Citations needed, please; I have all of TNG sitting on a hard drive, I can pull up any episode you care to cite for that.
Also what's up with you, if you don't mind my asking, that you seem to be coming off as self-hating? Because IDGAF who someone is, 'self hatred' is NEVER good, and aside from being guilty of literally crimes against humanity, usually unwarranted.

The most obvious one is, if memory serves, "The Neutral Zone" - the one in which the three cryogenically frozen 20th century people were found, revived, and Picard threw a snit because of the inconvenience of Crusher having bothered to wake them and cure the ailments that had killed them. He figured they were already dead, so why bother using 24th-century medical knowledge to save them?

Picard, in that episode, comes across like an elitist jackass who has nothing but contempt for 20th century people (and we're close enough to the 20th century now for the sentiment to still apply to everyone on this forum who has the utter gall to work not for the lofty goal of self-betterment, but for money to afford food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care, and leisure pursuits).

This episode made me dislike Picard, and his character has been tainted for me ever since.

Riker's no better, either.

Janeway also has an elitist attitude, but at least she treated the "37s" with courtesy.

 

[fireproof78]

Citations needed, please; I have all of TNG sitting on a hard drive, I can pull up any episode you care to cite for that.
Also what's up with you, if you don't mind my asking, that you seem to be coming off as self-hating? Because IDGAF who someone is, 'self hatred' is NEVER good, and aside from being guilty of literally crimes against humanity, usually unwarranted.

As @Timewalker notes "The Neutral Zone" is the primary offender with the rest just having an air of just being better than past humanity,

No idea what you're talking about to the rest.

 

[Coops]

Just to chip in, Picards manner with Lily I often thought was a little snooty and patronising, particularly around the lines about the acquisition of wealth, their evolved sensibility etc compared to Lilys.

 

[Coops]

Sorry, in the First Contact movie, in case that wasn’t clear