Television Star Trek

Pagh Wraith said:
It is being bad mouthed because the plots are contrived, the characters unlikeable to the extreme, the acting terrible, the dialogues cringe worthy, very much style over substance in general and shows no regard to the canon. At best it is Star Trek light for teenagers. That and the pretentious attempts to force some form of social commentary down our throats which frankly is beneath Star Trek which was always on the forefront of this due to its subtlety. But if there is one thing you don't associate with Discovery it's subtlety.

I can't wrap my head around how someone who consider themselves a Star Trek fan cites Discovery as their favourite show.
Click to expand...
I like Star Trek, but I don't love it.

I'm much more of a fan of The Expanse or BSG, for example. On that score Discovery is much better than any Star Trek series that came before it.

But as I say, to each their own.
 
Mrs Smoker said:
Voyager is often terrible. Sometimes so, that it's entertaining.

Discovery is often terrible. But just that.

Incel Powa!
Click to expand...

I find that the quality of the various series always hinge on the quality of the writers. TNG had top writers, some of which filtered down to Voyager then Enterprise. Manny Coto, who wrote 14 episodes of seasons 3 and 4 of Enterprise was fantastic.
 
Dante said:
What's the point of posting this? It's two sentences that anybody with a keyboard and an internet connection could write.

I could equally well post complimentary Tweets. But I won't.
Click to expand...

Its to illustrate that Discover season 1 isn't the greatest Star Trek ever but rather a deeply flawed series mired in writing, canon, and production problems and has been received as fairly controversial at best.

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a26907154/star-trek-discovery-canon-changes/
 
The criticisms of Discovery seem to focus on how it's not similar enough to the older series.

If you can accept the show on its own merit rather than how it honours the legacy of a 50 year old franchise, you'll see it's really very good.

I don't compare it to The X-Files or The Sopranos, either. They're different shows.
 
Dante said:
The criticisms of Discovery seem to focus on how it's not similar enough to older series.

If you can accept the show on its own merit rather than how it honours the legacy of a 50 year old franchise, you'll see it's really very good.

I don't compare it to The X-Files or The Sopranos, either. They're different shows.
Click to expand...

The X-Files and the Sopranos are different television shows. Very good.

Star Trek shows on the other hand are all in some way related to one another since they are the same storyline that occupy different elements of a common timeline. That's why Discovery was panned - because it departed from the previous shows. There were inconsistencies and the entire season one came off like the producers hired a bunch of millenial noob writers who had little experience with Star Trek. Furthermore, the production design was complete crap and resulted in the action shots looking like a PS4 game. The characters were poorly fleshed out and emotionally inaccessible. Clearly not peak Star Trek by any stretch.
 
Raoul said:
The X-Files and the Sopranos are different television shows. Very good.

Star Trek shows on the other hand are all in some way related to one another since they are the same storyline that occupy different elements of a common timeline. That's why Discovery was panned - because it departed from the previous shows. There were inconsistencies and the entire season one came off like the producers hired a bunch of millenial noob writers who had little experience with Star Trek. Furthermore, the production design was complete crap and resulted in the action shots looking like a PS4 game. The characters were poorly fleshed out and emotionally inaccessible. Clearly not peak Star Trek by any stretch.
Click to expand...
It's panned in your echo chamber.

For those who aren't wedded to the older Star Treks, it's highly rated. 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, for example.
 
Dante said:
It's panned in your echo chamber.

For those who aren't wedded to the older Star Treks, it's highly rated. 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, for example.
Click to expand...

So basically people who aren't into Star Trek think its cool. Very interesting.
 
Raoul said:
Cool. I will definitely check season two out.
Click to expand...
Season 2 has the same writers as season 1. All that's changed is that they've appointed a showrunner from Star Trek: Into Darkness.

It's got even more action-oriented and politically correct. I don't think you'll like it.
 
Last edited:
Dante said:
Season 2 has the same writers as season 1. All that's changed is that they've appointed a showrunner from Star Trek: Into Darkness.

It's got even more action-oriented and politically correct. I don't think you'll like it.
Click to expand...

Well, Star Trek has always been political. Season 2 has more of an adventure feel to it. There is an overarching story arc combined with some episodic events reminiscent of TNG. Also, Anson Mount as Pike is doing a good job. He is a Picard-Kirk mix.

As far as action goes, I disagree - there is a lot less shoot-em-up flashy nonsense than before.
 
Twisted_Woody said:
Well, Star Trek has always been political. Season 2 has more of an adventure feel to it. There is an overarching story arc combined with some episodic events reminiscent of TNG. Also, Anson Mount as Pike is doing a good job. He is a Picard-Kirk mix.

As far as action goes, I disagree - there is a lot less shoot-em-up flashy nonsense than before.
Click to expand...

Anson Mount has been very very good. So of course he's not coming back next season.
 
My problem with Season 1 was nothing to do with the Klligons, I loved them back in Deep Space Nine but having a different take on them I found interesting. The problem for me was the very awful character in Michael Burnham, she was just so damn shit. The acting, storyline and her character in general whiffed badly and in normal shows you can have 1 bad character because you have a number of characters alongside to take away the sting. In Discovery there were only really 6 perhaps 7 characters throughout the entire season.
 
stevoc said:
Personally i think thats probably its biggest problem so far. Plot points often make little or no sense, the last episode being a perfect example of that.
Click to expand...
It makes sense if you consider
That Spock was willing to let her die, and Michael was willing to die to bring forth the red angel. They were raised on Vulcan with their actions dictated mostly by logic. Sacrifice 1 to potentially save all is a no brainier. If the Red angel was Michael then she would have to come back or no longer exist.
they make it quite clear during the episode.
 
Andersons Dietician said:
It makes sense if you consider
That Spock was willing to let her die, and Michael was willing to die to bring forth the red angel. They were raised on Vulcan with their actions dictated mostly by logic. Sacrifice 1 to potentially save all is a no brainier. If the Red angel was Michael then she would have to come back or no longer exist.
they make it quite clear during the episode.
Click to expand...
The Vulcans aren't human enough, just like the Klingons weren't human enough in season 1.
 
Andersons Dietician said:
It makes sense if you consider
That Spock was willing to let her die, and Michael was willing to die to bring forth the red angel. They were raised on Vulcan with their actions dictated mostly by logic. Sacrifice 1 to potentially save all is a no brainier. If the Red angel was Michael then she would have to come back or no longer exist.
they make it quite clear during the episode.
Click to expand...

Well fair enough that does make it a bit more logical. But I suspect it would have been the latter, if someone is killed in the past then they surely can't exist in the future. Yet the crew seemed to think it was a possibility.
 
Dante said:
Season 1 is not crap.

A bunch of 45 year old incels on the internet decided it wasn't the Star Trek they grew up with and so tried to bad mouth it to everyone in order to try and sink it. When they couldn't, they jumped on board season 2.
Click to expand...
Yes, middle aged involuntary cellibacy related frustration is a more probable scenario here than people just like season 2 better.
 
Dante said:
Season 2 has the same writers as season 1. All that's changed is that they've appointed a showrunner from Star Trek: Into Darkness.

It's got even more action-oriented and politically correct. I don't think you'll like it.
Click to expand...
It isn't more action orientated. Quite the opposite.
 
Dante said:
Season 1 is not crap.

A bunch of 45 year old incels on the internet decided it wasn't the Star Trek they grew up with and so tried to bad mouth it to everyone in order to try and sink it. When they couldn't, they jumped on board season 2.
Click to expand...

I thought hot takes on pop culture were the result of Russian agents, not just incels.

Maybe dislike for Discovery is spread by Russian incels, an evolved form of chaos agent.
 
stevoc said:
Well fair enough that does make it a bit more logical. But I suspect it would have been the latter, if someone is killed in the past then they surely can't exist in the future. Yet the crew seemed to think it was a possibility.
Click to expand...
Depends on how you believe time travel theoretically works, does one action creat a completely different timeline or is it one straight time line folding back on itself. They already showed in the first season that they in the Star Trek universe believe that by changing an event you create an alternative timeline. The red Angel is just protecting the time line.

They were also betting that the Angel would stop it before it got to that part so really the logic is sound.
 
Dante said:
The Vulcans aren't human enough, just like the Klingons weren't human enough in season 1.
Click to expand...
true which is why I find people complaing about Burnhams character weird. She is supposed to be that way. Non approachable, cold, conflicted between her human emotions and her Vulcan upbringing of logic over emotion. She isn’t supposed to be loved currently but as these things go I would imagine they will thaw her out a lot more so she becomes a warmer character, more charming and not as awkward as she comes across.
 
Andersons Dietician said:
Depends on how you believe time travel theoretically works, does one action creat a completely different timeline or is it one straight time line folding back on itself. They already showed in the first season that they in the Star Trek universe believe that by changing an event you create an alternative timeline. The red Angel is just protecting the time line.

They were also betting that the Angel would stop it before it got to that part so really the logic is sound.
Click to expand...

Fair enough i didn't watch much of the first season, still think it was a sloppy storyline though. Present Michael knowing about the plan to trap future Michael, which in turn means she also knows about it still makes little sense, the crew never even seemed to consider it. This was before they even hatched the later more drastic plan.

But i admit i'm looking at it this from my own understanding of how i think times works. For me killing someone in the present means they would never get to the future to travel back in time to save themselves. But i could be wrong.
 
Hammerfell said:
I think it’s often considered the third best series, after TNG/DS9 (I personally think DS9 is the best). It’s a bit silly sometimes but generally enjoyable enough. Worth watching.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what the general consensus seems to be after researching the general opinion on the franchise. Though all the praise Deep Space Nine gets makes me want to give that a go first!
Dante said:
It's the fourth best after Discovery, DS9 and TNG.
Click to expand...
So you rate Deep Space Nine higher than TNG, too? Interesting! I always thought TNG was generally considered the best before I actually looked into each series, but it seems DS9 edges it based off what I've read.
Raoul said:
If you have access to the entire series on a streaming service be sure to check a Voyager episode called Relativity (Season 5, Ep 23). Great stuff.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I will check that episode soon.
Mrs Smoker said:
Voyager is often terrible. Sometimes so, that it's entertaining.

Discovery is often terrible. But just that.

Incel Powa!
Click to expand...
Ha, so I take it you're not a big fan of Voyager? Seems to be a mixed reaction to the series. Maybe I'm better off watching DS9 first.
 
Yagami said:
Ha, so I take it you're not a big fan of Voyager? Seems to be a mixed reaction to the series. Maybe I'm better off watching DS9 first.
Click to expand...

I still watched it all, but was much younger. It's watchable, some interesting ideas, but I only really liked couple of characters. But anyway, yeah, you're definitely better off watching DS9, as it's much better show. Why not go in order, have you seen TNG?
 
RedSky said:
My problem with Season 1 was nothing to do with the Klligons, I loved them back in Deep Space Nine but having a different take on them I found interesting. The problem for me was the very awful character in Michael Burnham, she was just so damn shit. The acting, storyline and her character in general whiffed badly and in normal shows you can have 1 bad character because you have a number of characters alongside to take away the sting. In Discovery there were only really 6 perhaps 7 characters throughout the entire season.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The casting and acting was generally poor.
 
stevoc said:
Fair enough i didn't watch much of the first season, still think it was a sloppy storyline though. Present Michael knowing about the plan to trap future Michael, which in turn means she also knows about it still makes little sense, the crew never even seemed to consider it. This was before they even hatched the later more drastic plan.

But i admit i'm looking at it this from my own understanding of how i think times works. For me killing someone in the present means they would never get to the future to travel back in time to save themselves. But i could be wrong.
Click to expand...

If future Michael knew about the plan, why didn't it just turn up an hour before they were ready and stop it all from happening? My take is that she could comfortably ignore it knowing the federation wouldn't kill one of their own, then Spock and Michael altered the plan by logically taking the trap and bait to its extreme of killing Michael.
 
stevoc said:
Fair enough i didn't watch much of the first season, still think it was a sloppy storyline though. Present Michael knowing about the plan to trap future Michael, which in turn means she also knows about it still makes little sense, the crew never even seemed to consider it. This was before they even hatched the later more drastic plan.

But i admit i'm looking at it this from my own understanding of how i think times works. For me killing someone in the present means they would never get to the future to travel back in time to save themselves. But i could be wrong.
Click to expand...
Again comes down to how you perceive altering events effects this in the future. Other shows have it as a wave that takes time and memories and things slowly start to alter and people can’t make sense of what is happening. They don’t have it as an instant change or someone just blinking out of existence. They have it as a slow painful death effectively. So the red angel might not have had all the information at that point, just knew Michael was in trouble and had to do something about it.

I quite enjoyed the first season and I’m enjoying the latest but like I’ve said on here before I’m not really a big fan of Star Trek. I watched it if it was on but before this the only one I truly enjoyed was DS9. TNG and all the rest were too light for my liking. Prefer a darker more realistic feel to my Sci-fi.
 
Oldyella said:
If future Michael knew about the plan, why didn't it just turn up an hour before they were ready and stop it all from happening? My take is that she could comfortably ignore it knowing the federation wouldn't kill one of their own, then Spock and Michael altered the plan by logically taking the trap and bait to its extreme of killing Michael.
Click to expand...

Don't know if you seen the episode but the ending explains why the Red Angels didn't have Michaels memories.
 
stevoc said:
Don't know if you seen the episode but the ending explains why the Red Angels didn't have Michaels memories.
Click to expand...

Sorry, yeah saw it, and the ending does make clear, was more a hypothetical on the time travel discussion.
 
Andersons Dietician said:
Again comes down to how you perceive altering events effects this in the future. Other shows have it as a wave that takes time and memories and things slowly start to alter and people can’t make sense of what is happening. They don’t have it as an instant change or someone just blinking out of existence. They have it as a slow painful death effectively. So the red angel might not have had all the information at that point, just knew Michael was in trouble and had to do something about it.

I quite enjoyed the first season and I’m enjoying the latest but like I’ve said on here before I’m not really a big fan of Star Trek. I watched it if it was on but before this the only one I truly enjoyed was DS9. TNG and all the rest were too light for my liking. Prefer a darker more realistic feel to my Sci-fi.
Click to expand...

Yeah i think we'll have to put it down to the writers taking some liberties with the possibilities of how time travel works.

I'm not a Star Trek fan myself though i do enjoy this show for the most part. I never watched any of the other shows bar Deep Space Nine. My brother used to watch that and Babylon 5 when i was a kid and i did get into both of those shows for a while.

Do either of them hold up? I might give them a watch again, i know DS9 is on Netflix.
 
stevoc said:
Yeah i think we'll have to put it down to the writers taking some liberties with the possibilities of how time travel works.

I'm not a Star Trek fan myself though i do enjoy this show for the most part. I never watched any of the other shows bar Deep Space Nine. My brother used to watch that and Babylon 5 when i was a kid and i did get into both of those shows for a while.

Do either of them hold up? I might give them a watch again, i know DS9 is on Netflix.
Click to expand...
I’m tempted to watch DS9 again, but yeah I’m not sure how well it will have aged. I tried to give enterprise a go since people on here were saying it was good but gave up on it after a few episodes but like I said earlier and probably much like yourself I watch it for something to watch but I’m not mad for Star Trek.
 
Andersons Dietician said:
I’m tempted to watch DS9 again, but yeah I’m not sure how well it will have aged. I tried to give enterprise a go since people on here were saying it was good but gave up on it after a few episodes but like I said earlier and probably much like yourself I watch it for something to watch but I’m not mad for Star Trek.
Click to expand...

Yeah i'm a bit wary it hasn't, it's not even available in HD which is a shame as i thought they remastered all the Star Trek series a few years ago.
 
Yagami said:
So you rate Deep Space Nine higher than TNG, too? Interesting! I always thought TNG was generally considered the best before I actually looked into each series, but it seems DS9 edges it based off what I've read.
Click to expand...

You dont usually see worf shitting himself when ordered to fire!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.