Why the hate for Disco?

[zenophite]

It's not a matter of writing. It's matter of approach.

We can agree to disagree. I'm not fond of the stories or storytelling on the new shows, myself.

As to the rest of your point it's a matter of preference. No Star Trek compares to another. There is a not a strong continuity of writers from TOS to TNG to DS9 to VOY all the way to DSC and Picard and LD. Each show is written based upon those writers, their vision and their desired story.

I'm not sure how continuity of writers is relevant to the perceived quality of the writing in general. One does not necessarily affect the other.

That's why I find comparison a rather fruitless endeavor-TOS will be nothing like DSC in terms of production values, story approach, and writing style. When I say it is closer to TOS and DS9 it is because it has a serialized approach with a more action/adventure feel. DSC is still its own thing, and doesn't compare. Nothing does.

Comparisons will naturally be made between the different Star Treks - the fruitless part is trying convince fans of DSC (or anything else) that it is actually terrible or vice-versa.

All I can say from the personal perspective is that the combination of the characters, stories and sensibilities of the new productions don't engage with me the way the former stuff did. That's why I've tuned out completely.

That's my answer to the original question of this thread (i.e. "why the hate for DSC"?)[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Nyotarules]

People seem to nitpick the newer trek, a lot more then the older. It's like a weird phenomenon that I do not understand amongst the fandom.

Especially when it comes to TNG, because holy shit is that show dated.

TNG was not praised to the heavens back in the 80s, some fans conveniently forget

 

[Nyotarules]

How about a Kelvin timeline TOS?

Set after Beyond? With Admiral of the fleet Kirk, President McCoy, Captain Spock and Ambassador Uhura?

 

[Swedish Borg]

TNG was not praised to the heavens back in the 80s, some fans conveniently forget

Well, given its first season, I can't say I am surprised.

 

[Swedish Borg]

Set after Beyond? With Admiral of the fleet Kirk, President McCoy, Captain Spock and Ambassador Uhura?

Well, after beyond they were continuing the five-year mission in a new Enterprise, plus this Kirk is just about the same age as the Kirk from TOS (played by different actors BTW, since the movie actors would be too expensive for a TV series).

 

[JesterFace]

Which day? It was cancelled in the 60's and became a movie franchise in the 80s

I was just looking at it from present day perspective, it would be nice to have more TOS episodes.

 

[fireproof78]

We can agree to disagree. I'm not fond of the stories or storytelling on the new shows, myself.

And that's fair. I'm not a fan of a lot of 90s Trek. Not because it doesn't compare to TOS but because I have no investment in those stories, those characters.

I'm not sure how continuity of writers is relevant to the perceived quality of the writing in general. One does not necessarily affect the other.

To my mind it works like this-if I am comparing Star Trek to Star Trek then there needs to be a measure of continuity between the shows and more than just the Star Trek name. For me, I tried this and found TNG wanting because it wasn't TOS. That was completely fruitless-TNG was not TOS and shouldn't be compared as such. TNG is TNG and TOS is TOS. Continuity of writers would offer a more fair reason to compare. Since it isn't present I find comparisons rather dubious in their value.

Comparisons will naturally be made between the different Star Treks

Comparisons can be made all day long. I find them overly relied upon to excuse discomfort with a product.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Well, after beyond they were continuing the five-year mission in a new Enterprise, plus this Kirk is just about the same age as the Kirk from TOS (played by different actors BTW, since the movie actors would be too expensive for a TV series).

But then you're like, "how is this different from Strange New Worlds" which is also the Enterprise on adventures and has Spock in it.

 

[Mirror Tuvix]

Well, I dunno. How should I put it? Disco is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets her hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I mean, basically.

 

[Lord Garth]

Well, I dunno. How should I put it? Disco is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets her hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I mean, basically.

Let me guess: It was Discovery who murdered Tuvix. Amiright?

 

[antinoos]

Well, I dunno. How should I put it? Disco is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets her hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I mean, basically.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, I dunno. How should I put it? Disco is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets her hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I mean, basically.

And that inspires hatred?

 

[cooleddie74]

DSC at worst is mediocre or poor Trek. At its worst. I don't have the time nor the energy to hate it.

Even mediocre Star Trek is better than most other filmed sci-fi.

 

[Swedish Borg]

...It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I mean, basically.

Yeah, according to Macbeth that's life.

 

[Jadeb]

Yeah, according to Macbeth that's life.

My favorite line from the Bard is, “That’s what all the people say: You’re riding high in April, shot down in May.”

 

[zenophite]

To my mind it works like this-if I am comparing Star Trek to Star Trek then there needs to be a measure of continuity between the shows and more than just the Star Trek name. For me, I tried this and found TNG wanting because it wasn't TOS. That was completely fruitless-TNG was not TOS and shouldn't be compared as such. TNG is TNG and TOS is TOS. Continuity of writers would offer a more fair reason to compare. Since it isn't present I find comparisons rather dubious in their value.

Personally, I find that approach to comparing the shows to be somewhat overly restrictive. If it holds for shows within the Trek universe it'd be even worse for completely different shows e.g. Trek vs Babylon 5 vs Stargate or whatever.

I find myself wondering if this system would hold for something like Stargate where SG:U had the same team but a completely different tone to the other shows in the franchise? SG:U clearly wasn't SG-1 what would the comparison look like there?

Any comparison will obviously be subjective based on a host of personal factors in the viewer/fan. For me, I like a good scifi yarn that can spark the imagination or engender some thought about some topic in an interesting way. I think TOS and the Berman era shows did provide that (to at least some degree) when taken as a whole.

What I'm not so interested in Flash-Boom-Pow or "We have to save the universe" every single week across the entire season - especially with characters that I don't find particularly interesting. That's my perception of ST (and for that matter ST:P) and why i tuned out after season 2.

Mind you, I didn't find most of the TNG characters all that interesting or likeable - except Geordi and Data - but at least some of the stories were interesting or imaginative. Even more so, they were accessible.

Comparisons can be made all day long. I find them overly relied upon to excuse discomfort with a product.

Possibly. I will grant that it is a weak form of justifying one's dislike for a show when taken alone.

 

[fireproof78]

Personally, I find that approach to comparing the shows to be somewhat overly restrictive. If it holds for shows within the Trek universe it'd be even worse for completely different shows e.g. Trek vs Babylon 5 vs Stargate or whatever.

I find myself wondering if this system would hold for something like Stargate where SG:U had the same team but a completely different tone to the other shows in the franchise? SG:U clearly wasn't SG-1 what would the comparison look like there?

Any comparison will obviously be subjective based on a host of personal factors in the viewer/fan. For me, I like a good scifi yarn that can spark the imagination or engender some thought about some topic in an interesting way. I think TOS and the Berman era shows did provide that (to at least some degree) when taken as a whole.

What I'm not so interested in Flash-Boom-Pow or "We have to save the universe" every single week across the entire season - especially with characters that I don't find particularly interesting. That's my perception of ST (and for that matter ST:P) and why i tuned out after season 2.

Mind you, I didn't find most of the TNG characters all that interesting or likeable - except Geordi and Data - but at least some of the stories were interesting or imaginative. Even more so, they were accessible.



Possibly. I will grant that it is a weak form of justifying one's dislike for a show when taken alone.

This is a bit more of a free form reply to general points you bring up. I agree that comparison is highly restrictive but I think even Star Trek itself gets treated in a very restrictive way already. I think that each Star Trek show gets put in to a box that has to meet a threshold of criteria or else it gets treated as lesser. Not that I think all Star Trek is to appeal to all people. To bring back one comparison you mentioned Stargate. Stargate: U never appealed to me, even though I really liked SG:1 and Atlantis.

And, I completely agree that it is highly personal and subjective. The reason current Trek appeals (at this time-that is shifting somewhat) is because of the characters. I love a good science fiction yarn but if you don't give me one character to care about then all the thought provoking ideas are extremely cerebral and uninviting. It's not human enough for me. I need the human or else it feels very insulting. That is why TNG doesn't get such a high rating from me-those characters are not relatable, not engaging in a way that keeps me invested or wanting to come back. So, the story could be the most imaginative one in the world and it will lack that human warmth and that's not accessible to me.

Now, to your point about the stakes I am not one who gives a crap about what the stakes are. The stakes could be getting a pizza there on time or the universe is ending. As long as I am invested in the characters then I will be willing to go along for the ride. So, to that end, people who don't like Michael probably are not going to like Discovery. And I think it can be as simple as that.

But, that's me. I am a person who loves to learn different points of view, different ways people engage with a franchise and am infinitely fascinated by the insistence that people put in to a show that, by reports, is not enjoyable for them. It's a level of humanity I don't quite understand but am fascinated by all the same.

 

[Swedish Borg]

Personally, I like Disco the way it is. Don't change a thing. I like the fact that Discovery didn't appear in the first two episodes. I like that the central Character is not the captain, at least not for the first three seasons, we'll see how it goes from there. I like that she keeps breaking the rules and that in episode three she was the most despised recurring character of the series. I like that she started as a criminal will a life sentence before her and that the only reason she got out of there is that a major villain got her out (Lorca) against the will of everyone including an Admiral that his counterpart knew intimately. No previous star trek spin-off has ever come close to such radical changes, not even DS9 that was the rogue one back in the day.

 

[JoseNoodles]

DSC at worst is mediocre or poor Trek. At its worst. I don't have the time nor the energy to hate it.

Even mediocre Star Trek is better than most other filmed sci-fi.

Exactly. I've found life is too short to get worked up about fictional universes. The past year has only confirmed it. You don't like it, don't watch it. That's all there is to it.

 

[fireproof78]

You don't like it, don't watch it. That's all there is to it.

Indeed yes. I don't say this to be mean. I it say because the opportunities to enjoy oneself are sometimes quite limited so why waste in on something you don't like? Because Star Trek is a poor excuse at best, and a rationalization for being miserable at worst.

Have some respect for yourself to enjoy what you enjoy.

 

[Swedish Borg]

Exactly. I've found life is too short to get worked up about fictional universes. The past year has only confirmed it. You don't like it, don't watch it. That's all there is to it.

Let's not forget that one of the worst episodes of all time "And The Children..." is in TOS.