Speak for yourself.
Would you say Picard is prime timeline or part of the Discoverse?
- Thread starter Yes Man the Great
- Start date
Speak for yourself.
I am. Which is why the message is from my account.
Then I'm sorry you couldn't see the (very)obvious jumpingoff points from the original series upon which Discovery was built. Michael Burnham is the best thing to happen to Spock since the Genesis Device. The new insights on the Sarek family dynamic (especially in "Lethe") helped me understand and appreciate the Spock character even more than I did before and all in ways that grew out of his and and his parents characterizations in the original series. Likewise and even more so for Christopher Pike.
I'm happy for you? From my perspective it was lazy bolting on to a popular character as a way to get the fanbase to accept bland, unimaginative storytelling. Spock's arc already made perfect sense without the "it didn't happen" stuff from Discovery.
From my perspective, every word you just said was wrong.
Okay?
Okay! I'm glad we agree.
No, I got over BermaTrek decades ago.We do agree. You like bland, unimaginative TV.
Exhibit A: TNG.
Indeed, and imagined from a 2010s era lens, just like Star Trek before.
A lot of us did (though like all Trek, it had its moments). Doesn't change that Picard and Discovery are proudly tromping along in its footsteps. I mean, we've had roughly forty episodes of All-Access Trek and the only thing that has really stuck with me was Clancy yelling at Picard.
Just a lot of really good current TV out there, and when I see the All-Access stuff mentioned as "good TV", I wonder if people really believe that or just aren't able to let Trek go.
And the sounds just like the people who complained about Star Trek the motion picture who complained about Star Trek the Next Generation who complain about Deep Space Nine etcetera and so forth ad nauseam ever since Star Trek started producing spin-offs. None of them were right and neither are you. if I'm being snarky it's because I've heard it all before a million times. Some things never change.
Respectfully, when it comes "letting go", bear in mind you're the one hanging around the forum of a show that you don't watch anymore. The fact that you're even here means that you yourself haven't "let go".
Complaining about lazy writing is a lazy complaint. I've laid out just a few of the many things that I love about Discovery and how it connects back to the Star Trek Saga at Large both before and after. Tell me what you think is lazy about it. Don't just say "it sux." How is added onto a character's backstory lazy? Was it lazy when I gave Spock a brother? Was it lazy when he had a fiance? Was it lazy that he got married? How is adding on to the story of a fictional character in imaginative ways lazy? What makes it different from any other piece of fiction that is being crafted as it goes? Again, Michael Burnham is the best thing to happen to Spock since the Genesis device.
I've been watching since 1975. One of the best weeks of my life was the week "Encounter at Farpoint" was released and I wore out that VHS tape in a few days. Star Trek: The Motion Picture is probably one of my favorite movies ever. I've owned it on every major home-video format. I also own the Discovery arrowhead badges, the Eaglemoss Enterprise as seen on the show and the first season on Blu-ray.
Just don't find anything engaging about the stories that either of the current shows are telling. though I think both have stellar casts. If you do, that's great. But I just find a lot of more engaging things on TV. Which is something that I'm sad to say as I've been a Trek nut for nearly 50 years. I was desperate for new Trek to engage me, it hasn't worked out. It seems more interested in looking back than looking forward.
So we're not allowed to come discuss our feelings on the property?
Were you not around when this happened?
I don't see either of them as looking back. I see them as looking forward while embracing its past. But anyway, this isn't the Discovery forum and we have going on a tangent that I'm sure is annoying a lot of people, so this will be my last word on this particular subject.
I didn't say it was a good decision, but I didn't consider lazy one either. Sybok added nothing to Spock's tale while Michael Burnham has given Spock layers.
Really my last word.
Spock had plenty of layers, as written by the creators of the character fifty years ago. Probably why the character has continued to engage people for fifty years.
Similar threads
