Ok...? I don't see characters not struggling in Discovery even in action scenes so I guess I don't see it the same way.
Why the hate for Disco?
- Thread starter David Hanley
- Start date
- Status
And I think this is a good point. Orville leans heavily in to a particular style and it stands out for it. It looks and feels like the 90s. Now, does the Orville do some OK work? Yeah and the episode you list is one that I was like "Oh, I see why people like this." And then the next episode goes right in to straw man arguments and unnecessary torture. And, if this was actually Star Trek it would be maligned for being too irreverent, trying too hard to be funny, unprofessional, etc. All the things the Orville had to deal with, but magnified because it's live action and that somehow means more than animated.
Same with Galaxy Quest. Galaxy Quest is quite brazen in its poking fun at Trek fans and actors. But, it's regarded positively because it isn't Star Trek in name so it exists in a safe harbor from fan criticism. But, Star Trek, despite the constant criticism/hatred (depending on the camp) continues on. Maybe there is something to be said for adversity...
I haven't seen the second season of The Orville, but I thought it was supposed to be more serious and less of a comedy? Not that I thought the first season was much of a comedy. Sometimes they played it a little silly, and sometimes there was humor that really wasn't my style, but it played like standard second-generation Trek a lot of the time. Which made that type of humor not look like it fit. I call it "TNG for Dude-Bros".
It's kind of the same issue I have with the Kelvin Films. NuKirk basically comes across to me like a Dude-Bro Jock. In the first two movies, not Beyond. I prefer NuSpock, unless it's NuSpock during the second half of Into Darkness.
From there, I prefer Disco Spock to NuSpock. I can see Disco Spock as a younger version of TOS Spock, even though he's not played by Leonard Nimoy. It's Ethan Peck's performance overall. He also seems much less emotional in general. And he has that deeper voice, minus sounding like he used to smoke four packs a day. Under the circumstances, I'll forgive that last part.
What the Hell were we talking about again?
It's kind of the same issue I have with the Kelvin Films. NuKirk basically comes across to me like a Dude-Bro Jock. In the first two movies, not Beyond. I prefer NuSpock, unless it's NuSpock during the second half of Into Darkness.
From there, I prefer Disco Spock to NuSpock. I can see Disco Spock as a younger version of TOS Spock, even though he's not played by Leonard Nimoy. It's Ethan Peck's performance overall. He also seems much less emotional in general. And he has that deeper voice, minus sounding like he used to smoke four packs a day. Under the circumstances, I'll forgive that last part.
What the Hell were we talking about again?
Last edited:
No clue. Made it 4 episodes in and it wasn't enjoyable any more.
As for Spocks, I like all the Spocks, including Quinto and Peck. Peck definitely has a different gravitas that I like as well, while Quinto carries his emotions far more heavier while they weigh him down. Peck has more grace in his movements and bearing.
I do not understand any of this supposed approach. If it is "try hard" then it needs to try harder for me to feel impressed. Because, to me, it just is. Most of the time it is enjoyable and sometimes I roll my eyes. But, I am not impressed, nor do I expect it to impress me.
I've seen probably about 25% of the MCU movies. I have similar feelings on them.
I really enjoyed the first Iron Man movie until the very end. The movie has a good story and focuses on an interesting character who ultimately has to deal with a moral dilemma. We seem him grow and develop. But at the end the movie we get a completely standard good guy verse bad guy action scene, and I was completely bored by it. I understand a movie has to have a climax, but I wish there was a better way to do it than such a predictable action scenario.
On a side note, I feel Star Trek Beyond is completely on par with the MCU movies in terms of tone, action, writing, and production quality. I don't see how any kid who likes the MCU movies wouldn't like Beyond, but for whatever reason it's not as popular as the Marvel stuff.
Better "try hard" than "not try at all".
I like watching them do camera moves that I can't do at work or on-the-side. I have a frame-of-reference that most people here don't.
Kirk is not Captain America. There isn't the same level of iconography around Star Trek as there is in the MCU, between highly familiar symbolism for each hero, and distinct outfits for each one. There is less uniformity and more individual identity, which matters a lot to kids due to current developmental stage, among other factors.
What I've been frustrated is that the two way to do something truly new were to go forward in the future from Voyager (like Picard did) or to do a reboot (like the movies did). Instead they decided to yet again to into the TOS era, but this time redesign it as if they were doing a reboot but they claimed they were not. Many of us label Discovery as a reboot due to all the incompatibilities in story and visuals. There was no reason to set Discovery so close to TOS. It should have been 10 years earlier and we shouldn't have seen the Enterprise ever (although getting a spin off that goes back to the beginning is a nice benefit that I am looking forward to). But then, that was what Axenar was about. Kind of makes that lawsuit make sense.This was kind of my point when I created this thread, but couldn't word it as well as you. TOS, TNG, VOY, DS9, ENT were all wonderful television for their time. I grew up on them, I loved them*, but if we had more of those shows being released now they would look very very dated both in terms of structure and screen quality. ENT was cancelled ostensibly because audiences were saturated with Trek after VOY and DS9, it was time for a break, and after the break it is time for something new. It is taking some getting used too, but I am here for it, and happy to go through the teething problems to see Trek continue to develop and grow - because THAT is what has kept it going as a franchise for the last 60 odd years.
I am new here, and have enjoyed reading through the responses and getting different perspectives. The one that bites me is the feeling that either you like nuTrek or oldTrek. I loved oldTrek, and am mega excited that there will be more Trek. I don't feel I am doing a disservice to 66-05 trek in doing that.
*It would probably be fair to say I loved T'pol more than ENT itself, but you get the idea
But if they really wanted to be fresh and new, jumping another century into the future (the 25th century) would have let them do whatever they wanted with very few restrictions. So I heap hate on Discovery not just for bad writing, but for a host of bad production decisions that led to all the issues I see with it that could easily have been avoided. Let the fan productions have the old time periods and go further into uncharted territory and do something truly new. Discovery could easily have been told much the same with a new alien race and not be tied in any way to any previous Star Trek.
Maybe you didn't hear but, at the end of the second season, DSC jumped to the 32nd Century. They've said DSC will take place there the rest of its run. So your complaints only apply to the first two seasons.
What are your issues with the third season?
Save for what fans have demonstrated a willingness to buy. So, it made financial sense and that was the main reason.
Good thing they did that. But now it's not advance enough in the future so it still isn't good enough.
The MCU has taken completely obscure comic characters from the depths of their catalog and made blockbuster movies of them.
Nobody knew who Peter Quill was, he didn't have much, if any, pop culture iconography before GOTG, certainly not as much as Kirk and Spock. He doesn't have a recognizable costume either that I'm aware of.
I don't think the vast majority of the kids watching these MCU movies ever read comic books or know much about Marvel until they saw the MCU.
Right, but the way it is targeted in merchandising is designed to have each character personified in a symbol. And his recognizable part was his mask. It's a matter of identity and can the kids identify with the characters. MCU has made that far easier through marketing.
Elephant in the Room: I notice there are a lot of people on the board who aren't TOS Fans per se, but they see TOS as an institution to be revered. So any change to the era is an assault on the very fabric of Star Trek, to them.
Whereas I actually am a fan of TOS. It's an actual show, that I actually watched, and I actually like. It's not an institution, it's not to be revered, it's to be enjoyed. To quote William Shatner, "It's just a TV show!"
I posted this in another thread in the GTD Forum, but I might as well re-type it here: How can I be such a big TOS Fan and not have a problem with the changes DSC made or soon SNW will make? Simple, I view it as three timelines. I'm one of those fans who subscribes to the Three Timeline Theory.
I view it as:
The Classic Timeline
The Prime Timeline
The Kelvin Timeline
How much effect do DSC, SNW, the Kelvin Films, or even ENT for that matter, have on my enjoyment of TOS? None whatsoever. How much effect does it have on how I view any of TOS? Zero.
When I watch TOS, I don't think about Discovery at all.
Most people who go with the Three Timeline Theory say the change happened after FC, when the Borg went back in time and the Enterprise-E had to stop them. That led to ENT, and then the Kelvin in 2233, and then DSC. I like to make it simpler than that. To me, in the Prime Timeline (which DSC is advertised as), the mid-23rd Century looks like DSC's first two seasons and SNW. In the Classic Timeline, the mid-23rd Century looks like TOS. In every other time-period, there's no difference between the Classic Timeline and the Prime Timeline. So, in everything that takes place from TMP on, you're not going to notice the difference 99% of the time.
If you want to make something work for you, then you'll find a way to make it work. And if you don't...
Whereas I actually am a fan of TOS. It's an actual show, that I actually watched, and I actually like. It's not an institution, it's not to be revered, it's to be enjoyed. To quote William Shatner, "It's just a TV show!"
I posted this in another thread in the GTD Forum, but I might as well re-type it here: How can I be such a big TOS Fan and not have a problem with the changes DSC made or soon SNW will make? Simple, I view it as three timelines. I'm one of those fans who subscribes to the Three Timeline Theory.
I view it as:
The Classic Timeline
The Prime Timeline
The Kelvin Timeline
How much effect do DSC, SNW, the Kelvin Films, or even ENT for that matter, have on my enjoyment of TOS? None whatsoever. How much effect does it have on how I view any of TOS? Zero.
When I watch TOS, I don't think about Discovery at all.
Most people who go with the Three Timeline Theory say the change happened after FC, when the Borg went back in time and the Enterprise-E had to stop them. That led to ENT, and then the Kelvin in 2233, and then DSC. I like to make it simpler than that. To me, in the Prime Timeline (which DSC is advertised as), the mid-23rd Century looks like DSC's first two seasons and SNW. In the Classic Timeline, the mid-23rd Century looks like TOS. In every other time-period, there's no difference between the Classic Timeline and the Prime Timeline. So, in everything that takes place from TMP on, you're not going to notice the difference 99% of the time.
If you want to make something work for you, then you'll find a way to make it work. And if you don't...
Last edited:
I don't treat Trek as sacred. To me, there is no need for a TV show to be revered or respected or what not. As a TV show TOS did its job and still does because I am still entertained by it. To @Lord Garth point I don't think about Discovery while watching TOS and vice versa.
And this is owed largely to the fact that I started with TOS, had figures and costumes and such and loved it all. And then TMP came along and Kirk was different. The Enterprise was different. Nothing was familiar in its presentation. And then TNG and DS9 and on and on. Star Trek has never felt like this consistent unified whole in the way that is often presented. And so, it became less important for it to be this large monolith and more important to take on individual stories in the larger Star Trek sand box.
That, I think, is closer to what Star Trek and Gene was about was what stories could we tell in this environment, not what vision can be foisted upon the public and expect strict adherence to.
And this is owed largely to the fact that I started with TOS, had figures and costumes and such and loved it all. And then TMP came along and Kirk was different. The Enterprise was different. Nothing was familiar in its presentation. And then TNG and DS9 and on and on. Star Trek has never felt like this consistent unified whole in the way that is often presented. And so, it became less important for it to be this large monolith and more important to take on individual stories in the larger Star Trek sand box.
That, I think, is closer to what Star Trek and Gene was about was what stories could we tell in this environment, not what vision can be foisted upon the public and expect strict adherence to.
That's one of views. I think it depends on what I am discussing. Sometimes TOS exists as events and sometimes just in universe dramatizations of Kirk's missions. In either case, TOS doesn't have to be literal to be enjoyed. But, if we engage in these exercises then I lean in to the Three Timeline theory. But, I rarely find it necessary.
Took me a long time to give it a go because I can't stand McFarlanes dude bro tendencies but I was really impressed with certain aspects especially the holo porn and the other holo episode. Some of the Moclan stuff was a bit obvious bus the kinda trans story was goodI haven't seen the second season of The Orville, but I thought it was supposed to be more serious and less of a comedy? Not that I thought the first season was much of a comedy played it a little silly, and sometimes there was humor that really wasn't my style, but it played like standard second-generation Trek a lot of the time. Which made that type of humor not look like it fit. I call it "TNG for Dude-Bros".
It's kind of the same issue I have with the Kelvin Films. NuKirk basically comes across to me like a Dude-Bro Jock. In the first two movies, not Beyond. I prefer NuSpock, unless it's NuSpock during the second half of Into Darkness.
From there, I prefer Disco Spock to NuSpock. I can see Disco Spock as a younger version of TOS Spock, even though he's not played by Leonard Nimoy. It's Ethan Peck's performance overall. He also seems much less emotional in general. And he has that deeper voice, minus sounding like he used to smoke four packs a day. Under the circumstances, I'll forgive that last part.
What the Hell were we talking about again?
Abrams Kirk was pure college jock muppet and I couldn't stand him
Just Discovery
Discovery is not sacred.
Doesn't sound that way when you are going on about it. Your becoming a bit of a gate keeper
My only real frustration is when Discovery is treated as not a part of Star Trek, that it has to earn the right to be real Star trek. Beyond that, it's all in good discussion. If people don't like it, cool, fine and I wish you peace and long life. But, I'll always struggle with the idea of continuing to watch something because it's a part of a franchise. That's just my view of it. Others really like watching Star Trek even if there is no real enjoyment or frustration, apparently.
If that is gatekeeping then I apologize. I just want people to watch stuff that they like.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
