Why the hate for Disco?

[fireproof78]

I think people tend to look the other way if they like something.

Honestly, this is where a lot of frustration can come from. Much of different iterations Trek have various things that occur in Discovery but they will get a pass because they like it. Liking it means, as you say, looking the other way, or finding rationalizations for plot holes or inconsistencies. I thinking liking it means being more forgiving.

I wouldn't say that I hated Discovery. But I don't like it because *to me* it isn't Star Trek anymore. To me, it's not coherent with what went before. I will say that I very much dislike the fact that they redesigned the iconic Starship Enterprise, messed with Spocks backstory and showed technology way in advance of even TNG. For me, continuity is important - this guy that worked on TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT sums it all up nicely.

https://www.facebook.com/doug.drexler.7/posts/10155907067631104

He wrote that very well. But, with due respect to Mr. Drexler, I don't watch Star Trek to be comforted. Continuity is not as comforting if it insists that nothing can change.

Clearly not at Meyer is regraded as making some of Treks greatest movies. JJs will never be that

That doesn't mean anything in this equation. What they knew is different than how fans responded. Even more interesting is that Roddenberry completely disagreed with Meyers interpretation.

And "great" is in the eye of the beholder. For me, TUC, TVH, ST 09, and TWOK are my top Star Trek films.

 

[Bad Robot]

I wouldn't say that I hated Discovery. But I don't like it because *to me* it isn't Star Trek anymore. To me, it's not coherent with what went before. I will say that I very much dislike the fact that they redesigned the iconic Starship Enterprise, messed with Spocks backstory and showed technology way in advance of even TNG. For me, continuity is important - this guy that worked on TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT sums it all up nicely.

https://www.facebook.com/doug.drexler.7/posts/10155907067631104

I don't think STD is even internally coherent.

I don't care if the production design gets a complete overhaul (ST was past due for it). Or if certain characters, places or events get interpreted differently. I actually think STD was working up until the end of its 11th episode. But then it suddenly became stupid. Sarek acting like it's ok for Starfleet to blow up a planet (let alone the Klingon homeworld) is actually really stupid.

And that has been the experience with every season (S2 being the most offensive). I don't like the twists, I don't like the holes, I don't like were it leads. Every single season. You're given a premise, you're given a set of questions, and then it's like the show pulls a fast one, hands you a plate of crumbs and says "Here. We told you we'd give you a story. Did you like it? -- Let me show you the door; hope you come back next season. -- Bye. Thank you." And you're just left there, stupid, mouth hanging open.

STP was the same. It was a little more coherent than everything we've gotten from STD, but not much.

These guys either won't study ST, OR they don't know ST is science fiction, OR they don't know science fiction is still believable drama in which you're allowed ONE stretch in the suspension of disbelief. At least one of the three.

 

[JamesRye]

He wrote that very well. But, with due respect to Mr. Drexler, I don't watch Star Trek to be comforted. Continuity is not as comforting if it insists that nothing can change.

Well, he's not saying that the show should be a 'comfortable watch'. You can still have new ideas and stories. But he argues that Star Trek as a whole should have an inner logic and continuity. I find a lot of DSC to be jarring because it lacks internal logic, for example, the cavernous turbo lift system, the wild swing from having a very logical character become one that's crying all the time and showing extreme emotions, the depiction characters like Sarek and Spock who's behaviours clash with the characters we thought we knew.

I wish the new Star Treks had the same love and reverence for the source material that The Mandalorian shows for Star Wars.

I can't worship at the altar of 'Gene's vision' though, because I really love TUC and I know Roddenberry wasn't a fan. As Kirk said in that great movie, perhaps I've just become to old and inflelxible in my thinking.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, he's not saying that the show should be a 'comfortable watch'.

Pretty sure that's what he meant with the endorphin rush thing.

I wish the new Star Treks had the same love and reverence for the source material that The Mandalorian shows for Star Wars.

I do not. No entertainment show deserves reverence in my view.

the cavernous turbo lift system

Is stupid and doesn't merit anything beyond ignoring like so many other oddities (see the acronym YATI).

the wild swing from having a very logical character become one that's crying all the time and showing extreme emotions,

If that isn't understandable from the context of the story I don't know if I can explain it better. It makes sense in terms of a traumatized individual though.

the depiction characters like Sarek and Spock who's behaviours clash with the characters we thought we knew.

The operative phrase being "what we thought we knew."

 

[Yistaan]

Or, actors age and the fact that they keep rebooting in order to tell new stories with these single characters is a testament to how interesting stories about them are...

I was talking about the comic book franchises actually, not the film/tv versions. For example, the Batman and Superman appearing in comics now are NOT the same ones as those who appeared in the 1930s. The 30s versions took place on "Earth 2".

Meanwhile, X-Men and Avengers have lasted a bit longer since they're a team comic. Spider-Man was basically rebooted, his entire married life with Mary Jane removed from continuity. Single character Marvel lines like Hulk don't really sell that well, and even Cap and Thor only are coasting off their Avengers membership popularity.

 

[Amasov]

Clearly not at Meyer is regraded as making some of Treks greatest movies. JJs will never be that

While I wouldn't presume to start a debate over which movie is better than which, I honestly think when you put it that way, it just comes down to taste.

While Wrath of Khan has had nearly 40 years to cook and simmer, Abrams first Star Trek film was insanely popular when it came out and, speaking from personal experience, I knew dozens of non-Star Trek fans who absolutely loved it.

 

[Yistaan]

speaking from personal experience, I knew dozens of non-Star Trek fans who absolutely loved it.

Who exactly was this? Because I took a woman from China, who knew nothing at all about Star Trek, to see the 2009 film and needless to say she was confused. And forget when Leonard Nimoy showed up saying he was Zachary Quinto from the future, despite them not looking alike. For a newcomer, that's the equivalent of Sean Connery showing up in Casino Royale telling Daniel Craig that they're the same person. Needless to say, she hated the film. I never understood how it was marketed for newcomers.

 

[Lord Garth]

TWOK --> I loved it instantly. I've lost count of how many times I've seen it. It's probably somewhere in the triple-digits. I went out of my way to see it at two theater screenings, one in 2010 and another in 2017.

ST 2009 --> I saw it twice in the theater, once when it was released on Blu-Ray, watched it one more time in 2011, and then never again.

TWOK had more staying power with me. The 2009 Film was more "it was in the moment" and then the moment passed.

In progress right now: DSC and PIC have had more staying power with me than LD had. I liked it, but once the season of Lower Decks was done, I was all set.

 

[fireproof78]

I knew dozens of non-Star Trek fans who absolutely loved it.

Same here. My wife is a total non-science fiction fan and my mom loathes science fiction. Both were able to sit down and enjoy Star Trek. They had a basic understanding by the end of the opening sequence and enjoyed the rest. I ran in to so many people at work who had a similar reaction, and were willing to give Trek a chance just based on 09.

 

[Amasov]

Who exactly was this? Because I took a woman from China, who knew nothing at all about Star Trek, to see the 2009 film and needless to say she was confused. And forget when Leonard Nimoy showed up saying he was Zachary Quinto from the future, despite them not looking alike. For a newcomer, that's the equivalent of Sean Connery showing up in Casino Royale telling Daniel Craig that they're the same person. Needless to say, she hated the film. I never understood how it was marketed for newcomers.

I'll get you a list of names for your records because I'm sure you'll know them.

 

[Yistaan]

I'll get you a list of names for your records because I'm sure you'll know them.

Sorry, I guess that first question was worded improperly without thinking. Consider it a rhetorical question.

 

[Amasov]

TWOK had more staying power with me. The 2009 Film was more "it was in the moment" and then the moment passed.

You know what? That's fair. Staying power is a thing that I only recently started thinking about.

My favorite film director, John Carpenter, once said something that really resonated with me in that when you're younger, things like movies and TV have real staying power because they're contributing to your still-maturing mind and really become part of your identity.

My point is, I have to believe that those who were of a certain age that saw Wrath of Khan when it was released in 1982, a similar thing may have happened with Star Trek '09 with those in the same age group.

 

[fireproof78]

I'll get you a list of names for your records because I'm sure you'll know them.

I have some names to add to the list too, as we compile the rolls. Also, perhaps their fan cards can be issued now

 

[Amasov]

Sorry, I guess that first question was worded improperly without thinking. Consider it a rhetorical question.

You're not wrong. But I would argue that it's not much different for non-fans who never watched TOS wondering who the hell Khan was.

I'd at least give that movie the leg up when it came to explaining that Khan was just some bad guy from a long time. TWoK didn't DEMAND you see the original episode where he was first seen. I know, because for a long time, I was that person.

 

[Yistaan]

You're not wrong. But I would argue that it's not much different for non-fans who never watched TOS wondering who the hell Khan was.

I'd at least give that movie the leg up when it came to explaining that Khan was just some bad guy from a long time. TWoK didn't DEMAND you see the original episode where he was first seen. I know, because for a long time, I was that person.

I think the Khan thing was better explained because there were likely whole groups of Star Trek fans in 1982 who didn't know who Khan was. He only appeared in 1 episode and was never mentioned or seen again. 1982's tech didn't have the widespread home video we have now where we can watch any episode of Trek on a whim, nor was there internet for easily accessible fan info. There were probably a lot of Trekkies in 1982 who for whatever reason happened to miss Space Seed.

 

[eschaton]

I don't think STD is even internally coherent.

I don't care if the production design gets a complete overhaul (ST was past due for it). Or if certain characters, places or events get interpreted differently. I actually think STD was working up until the end of its 11th episode. But then it suddenly became stupid. Sarek acting like it's ok for Starfleet to blow up a planet (let alone the Klingon homeworld) is actually really stupid.

And that has been the experience with every season (S2 being the most offensive). I don't like the twists, I don't like the holes, I don't like were it leads. Every single season. You're given a premise, you're given a set of questions, and then it's like the show pulls a fast one, hands you a plate of crumbs and says "Here. We told you we'd give you a story. Did you like it? -- Let me show you the door; hope you come back next season. -- Bye. Thank you." And you're just left there, stupid, mouth hanging open.

STP was the same. It was a little more coherent than everything we've gotten from STD, but not much.

These guys either won't study ST, OR they don't know ST is science fiction, OR they don't know science fiction is still believable drama in which you're allowed ONE stretch in the suspension of disbelief. At least one of the three.

Honestly I feel like the issue is some combination of writing by committee and writing from the ending forward. The former means that any themes tend to get buried under an avalanche of edits, and the latter means characters have to railroad the plot, rather than the plot being driven forward by the decisions of the characters.

 

[Yistaan]

These guys either won't study ST, OR they don't know ST is science fiction, OR they don't know science fiction is still believable drama in which you're allowed ONE stretch in the suspension of disbelief. At least one of the three.

We do know they study Star Trek though, based on ultra obscure references like Boreth. Then they take those references, and completely use them out of context--for example, turning Boreth into a time travel planet where even babies can magically age to adulthood. To say there was no indication of this at all from Boreth's sole TNG appearance as a monastery where monks wait for Kahless' return is an understatement.

 

[fireproof78]

I just see it as an expansion rather than a contradiction.

 

[Bad Robot]

We do know they study Star Trek though, based on ultra obscure references like Boreth. Then they take those references, and completely use them out of context--for example, turning Boreth into a time travel planet where even babies can magically age to adulthood. To say there was no indication of this at all from Boreth's sole TNG appearance as a monastery where monks wait for Kahless' return is an understatement.

So Kurtzman Trek has ST novelists in its writers' rooms, at least one of them, that's probably where the more obscure references come from. And you've provided a good example of a changed concept that could flip either way in terms of seeming stupid or expansive. On one hand, you could point to any wacko Brannon Braga episode, or even TOS' S3 Wink of an Eye, if you wanted to sell the idea of a pocket of accelerated time on Boreth as being not altogether stupid. On the other, ST has a regular history of silently disregarding its more ridiculous premises each time it reboots (how many TOS stories were never even acknowledged by Berman Trek?).

Personally, I would NOT write that kind of fantasy magic into ST. But I can also declare my jury as "out to lunch" long enough to see how the rest of the season comes back. Well, S2 came back stupid. Insanely stupid. By the end of the last episode, the season was about nothing. It was a snake devouring its own tail, until even its stomach and innards had been chewed and swallowed. So on that alone, I'm inclined to rate the re-contextualizing of Boreth (which I'd given no further thought to until just now) as stupid.

 

[fireproof78]

many TOS stories were never even acknowledged by Berman Trek?

Too many, to my disappointment.