advertisement


Star Trek: Original Series • Discovery • Picard • Lower Decks • Prodigy • Strange New Worlds

JustJohn said:
Oh, for goodness sake, nobody is making you watch it.

DonQuixote99 makes a sound point, and as I pointed out down thread, this Trek but not as we know it. It's not perfect, but personally I find it compelling.

So what has happened to Voq? Something tells me we're about to find out.
Click to expand...

I refer you to my earlier post about Voq, #398
 
DonQuixote99 said:
Exactly right, an excellent insight. Consider the main difference between the basic mindsets of science fiction before and after the 'new wave' (I think you meant 'new wave,' not 'new age?')
Click to expand...

no, i did mean "new age" -- as in mysticism, crystal worship, oprah winfrey and windham hill records.


vuk.
 
...and here's the other thing...

although they've clearly packed the show with "san francisco values", it's not as if republicans tastes have been neglected. it's a really strange mix, that only a fearful marketing department could concoct and onlt contributes to the vague mish-mash of ideas and feel. at one point in E8, an admiral commenst abotu 240 (i can't recall the exact number) "souls" that were lost in the battle. wtf? did mike pence have a hand there? he must be wondering why the doctor hasn't cured himself yet.


vuk.
 
You mark TV programmes for a living? Yeah, I'll do that! Does it pay good?

So what is this precious DNA? That oh-so special ingredient that makes something Trek or not Trek? Don't get me wrong, I've loved Star Trek in all its guises (okay, maybe not Enterprise). And yes, TOS is a cultural icon with TNG not far behind. But so what? They weren't perfect, with a lot of dross among the gems. Why walk down that path again?

All the cultural capital is there (saucer starships, phasers, Klingons, doors that go shwish, and so on and so forth) but I like that the new crew doesn't always do the right thing, that they're a bit snippy with each other, that they swear, drink and shag. I like that the Federation is not quite the Liberal wet dream of yore, at least not yet. I like that the captain is a bit shady (literally). I like that the characters feel more rounded and real within a mere seven episodes than, say, Wesley Crusher or Tom Paris did over the course of seven seasons. I like that we're seeing most of it through the particular eyes of a character who is puzzled by much of the behaviour she sees around her and is learning to adjust. She's a Chris Packham in space. I also really like space battles, and Discovery has been doing great on that score.
 
Ah, you like the new wave elements. It is a mild new wave, not the extreme reaction to the John Campbell/Robert Heinlein school that occurred in the 70's. It's quite a matter of taste. But you answered your own DNA question.

The short-range space battles are silly, don't like them a bit. See 'The Expanse' for more realistic and satisfying IMHO.
 
JustJohn said:
You mark TV programmes for a living? Yeah, I'll do that! Does it pay good?
Click to expand...

Well, not quite—and no, it doesn't.

JustJohn said:
So what is this precious DNA? That oh-so special ingredient that makes something Trek or not Trek? Don't get me wrong, I've loved Star Trek in all its guises (okay, maybe not Enterprise). And yes, TOS is a cultural icon with TNG not far behind. But so what? They weren't perfect, with a lot of dross among the gems. Why walk down that path again?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree—why indeed. I liked a lot about Enterprise. As for the 'DNA" just read the links. That'll explain why 'proper' Trek is culturally important.

JustJohn said:
All the cultural capital is there (saucer starships, phasers, Klingons, doors that go shwish, and so on and so forth) but I like that the new crew doesn't always do the right thing, that they're a bit snippy with each other, that they swear, drink and shag. I like that the Federation is not quite the Liberal wet dream of yore, at least not yet. I like that the captain is a bit shady (literally). I like that the characters feel more rounded and real within a mere seven episodes than, say, Wesley Crusher or Tom Paris did over the course of seven seasons. I like that we're seeing most of it through the particular eyes of a character who is puzzled by much of the behaviour she sees around her and is learning to adjust. She's a Chris Packham in space. I also really like space battles, and Discovery has been doing great on that score.
Click to expand...

All that is (mostly) fine (although I disagree strongly about the characters). Call it something else. It's a cuckoo series.

Stephen
 
Yep, they are more realistic in The Expanse. No arguing that. Shame the script and the acting doesn't have quite the same authentic feel (honourable exceptions are the bloke who plays Amos, and Jed Harris, who I'm sure could tease out the hidden meaning in a Tesco till receipt.)

I did read the links. Nice items, but they explain little beyond the fact that people love TOS (though it wasn't always the case, was it?), and that geeks really love TOS (especially the folk who grew up with it and went on to work at NASA). But I'm still puzzled about what this essential Trekness is, and why Discovery is supposedly getting it all wrong.
 
The point is the things that made Trek, Trek— and different to, say Star Wars—is the positive vision of the (possible) future.

This inspired both scientists and philosophers in many ways and even positive-change activists. Discovery has none of that. It's a bog-standards conflict-based SF series with the effects more important than stories or characters (so far). None of it makes sense in Trek terms. Maybe it will? As I said earlier, I'm hoping it's set in the mirror universe.

If you want to watch (possibly) sexy violent SF there's a lot of it about.

Amos is superb in TE and just like the book's character.

Stephen
 
Oaky, I take your point. But I feel the 'Trek terms' argument is too reductive at the moment. We don't know what's coming. And actually isn't it quite 'Treky' in the sense that it's reflecting the conflict and confusion of our times, trying to make sense of the turmoil, while still embracing the values of diversity and inclusiveness, suggesting the peaceful, questing society well know and love is about to flower? Oh gawd, what do I sound like? And I really disagree with you on the character front. For me, these are most fleshed-out individuals since the original trio. Michael, Saru, Tilly. They're all good. Except Tyler. He's a bit bland. He'd fit in well on Voyager.
 
Rumour has it that the tardigrade story and spore drive spiel were plagiarised from a game developer. I wouldn't be surprised as the script writing for this series is lazy and the characters change on a whim: Saru goes from fear to attacking a crew member (he says at the end of the show he was not controlled by the alien entity); Tilly goes from friendless oddball to party animal in the space of two episodes; on it goes.

Even the special effects are terrible. I had no idea what was going on in the last space battle. Between lens flares obscuring everything and 'shaky cam' in space, everything is confusing. Cancel this show already.
 
The biggest problem with Star Trek are Star Trek fans themselves.

The likes of Stephen bennet and RossB are very vocal about the franchise and assumed the right to dictate the direction it should go ..... backwards.
 
Anh said:
The biggest problem with Star Trek are Star Trek fans themselves.

The likes of Stephen bennet and RossB are very vocal about the franchise and assumed the right to dictate the direction it should go ..... backwards.
Click to expand...

What? I'm not a star trek fan. I can't stand the original series, only quite like the Next Generation series, and have barely seen any of the others. The only reason I don't like this new series is because it's epic crap.

The "biggest problem" is people who make unwarranted assumptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top