Star Trek has lost something.....

jake477

I have been thinking something lately, it seems like modern Star Trek is lacking seriously in soul. The dash, fun, and feels. I mean it seems as though its just shoot everything in a war zone and hope you learn something when the every series previous even those not as well like had a soul to them. For example you'll never get a TNG "Data's Day" episode again in modern Trek or a "Worst Case Scenario" Voyager episode. Where you genuinely tell that there is a glue that holds them together. DS9 was full of them, fun loving sitcom style episodes that make it seem like these are real 3 Dimensional people. You will certainly never see a "The Sound of Her Voice" DS9 episode again. The movies are all flash and no feel, Generations certainly wasn't a fan favorite but when Kirk died it hit you like a photon to the gut. Wrath of Kahn the same way but over time Kirk's death in Generations still hits me, unlike Spock's (because we know he comes back). As you grow up with these characters and appreciate them as an adult you realize just how lucky you were to have had them when you were young. Discovery completely lacks the magic that made the 24th Century Star Trek series so cool. Picard I have a feeling will do a ton of fan service without a soul, and Picard's ironically is the man I would argue is the most soulful character of any ST series. Take "Family" or "Lessons" for example.

Enough with the shoot'em up and more with the feels. We are NOT Star Wars.....for a reason. Leave the pew pew to the idiots with the laser swords.

artan42

Prove it.

angrytarg

I'd refrain from making speculations about upcoming series, because that never bodes well. However, contrasting TOS, TNG, DS9 and DSC OP is right, the style Trek had in the 60s, 80s and 90s won't come back which is simply due to the different way TV shows are produced today (technically, it's not even TV anymore but streaming, but the term sticks). You hardly will see people standing before a fixed camera and walking down a doorway or just talking without the camera spinning overhead or lens flares blinding you and it's much more exciting and spectacular on modern devices that the talking is cut short in favour of explosions and running. And I personally mourn that - coming from that angle I understand what OP means when they say Trek lost something. I feel very similar, the simple techniques used to film the shows I miss because I do not like all the spinning, panning and shaking. I like action scenes where I can track what the squeal is happening. I like people having calm moments.

The Orville tries to emulate that style and for that I very much love it. The first season though was destroyed by critics, simply because the whole format was not modern and got slammed mercilessly. The audience, however, liked it and SUDDENLY the second season gets good (professional) critic scores again. I very much hope Picard takes a slower approach (also simply due to Sir Stewart's age) because I personally prefer that as well.​​

jonsills

TOS:"City On the Edge of Forever", the only Star Trek episode (possibly the only thing on TV) to ever make me mist up, starts with the ship being shaken and damaged by temporal storms over the planet. Later, a bum manages to evaporate himself with McCoy's phaser. And of course the entire thing is framed by the imminence of World War 2.

TOS:"For the World Is Hollow, and I Have Touched the Sky" (great character moments for McCoy) is given its impetus by the fact that the generation ship the Enterprise has found, and which McCoy wants to stay aboard because he's dying, is headed to impact a star. Soon.

And of course TOS:"Amok Time", which tells us more about both Spock and Vulcan than any other episode, ends with a fight apparently to the death between Spock and Kirk.

I think you're longing for a past that never really was.

rattler2

Discovery is a different style of storytelling. That's it. And you can't say that there is no conflict in Star Trek.

angrytarg

What?​​

hawku001x

The only thing modern Star Trek is missing is giant floating ghost heads.

angrytarg

azrael605 wrote: »

You said:

"You hardly will see people standing before a fixed camera and walking down a doorway or just talking without the camera spinning overhead or lens flares blinding you and it's much more exciting and spectacular on modern devices that the talking is cut short in favour of explosions and running. "

This is all incorrect as I said above, none of this applies to Discovery. (...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ahF9gKKS8w

Just one instance. At some other point, there are Klingons literally talking upside down to the high council.

I get that you like to be dismissive, but please be realistic. And maybe don't talk in absolutes. I recognize not every scene is like that, but by saying "hardly" I'm not saying it is the case ​​

rattler2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUwN0iNQNjA

I'd say Discovery has made use of quite a few things.

angrytarg

Alright. A constantly rotating camera doesn't qualify as "spinning" and thus the point is moot and made up. Fine. Star Trek Discovery has the best fixed and calm camera work ever, no motion sickness or loss of orientation. It truly and literally is the pinnacle of entertainment.

rattler2

I never liked the Shaky Camera Syndrome. It was TERRIBLE in one movie I saw, one of the Borne movies. ANY kind of action... shaky camera. I actually came out a little motion sick because of it.

rattler2

Huh... I never had any problem with gate travel. But whoever did the shaky camera in the Borne movie (I don't remember if it was Ultimatum or Supremacy) I saw in theaters... not only could I NOT tell what the hell was going on... it was just too frickin' much. And I don't have inner ear problems! I had NEVER come out of a movie feeling motion sick before that.

garaks31

not every trek needs to be the same pink glass utopian vision. we will get 5 series until 022. hope they will all be different.

seaofsorrows

Star Trek is better today then it ever has been before.

rattler2

Star Trek as a whole is back with a vengeance. While its not Star Wars level popular, its still pretty active.

markhawkman

rattler2 wrote: »

Huh... I never had any problem with gate travel. But whoever did the shaky camera in the Borne movie (I don't remember if it was Ultimatum or Supremacy) I saw in theaters... not only could I NOT tell what the hell was going on... it was just too frickin' much. And I don't have inner ear problems! I had NEVER come out of a movie feeling motion sick before that.

First time I had to stop watching a movie in a theater was Daredevil. The scenes with his extrasensory stuff just were too much. At least on big screen...

westx211

angrytarg wrote: »

Alright. A constantly rotating camera doesn't qualify as "spinning" and thus the point is moot and made up. Fine. Star Trek Discovery has the best fixed and calm camera work ever, no motion sickness or loss of orientation. It truly and literally is the pinnacle of entertainment.

There's no point arguing with Azrael, he's just a contrarian. You'll have a better time having a proper discussion with other forum goers.

deuzigeblabla

jake477 wrote: »

I have been thinking something lately, it seems like modern Star Trek is lacking seriously in soul. The dash, fun, and feels.

I get what you mean but have to disagree. There's soul allright, but it is a different soul than the one the Startrek you have enjoyed in the past. The most obvious point to go look for the difference is in time. The series that got you hooked is probably at least 2 decades old, i'm sorry to point out. There is very little in this world that hasn't changed in 20 years, you yourself included. Todays trek is made for todays target demographic which is a different generation, living in a different world and made by different people, also seperated from the creaters that made "your" Trek by the same decades.

jake477 wrote: »

I mean it seems as though its just shoot everything in a war zone and hope you learn something when the every series previous even those not as well like had a soul to them. For example you'll never get a TNG "Data's Day" episode again in modern Trek or a "Worst Case Scenario" Voyager episode. Where you genuinely tell that there is a glue that holds them together. DS9 was full of them, fun loving sitcom style episodes that make it seem like these are real 3 Dimensional people. You will certainly never see a "The Sound of Her Voice" DS9 episode again. The movies are all flash and no feel, Generations certainly wasn't a fan favorite but when Kirk died it hit you like a photon to the gut. Wrath of Kahn the same way but over time Kirk's death in Generations still hits me, unlike Spock's (because we know he comes back). As you grow up with these characters and appreciate them as an adult you realize just how lucky you were to have had them when you were young. Discovery completely lacks the magic that made the 24th Century Star Trek series so cool. Picard I have a feeling will do a ton of fan service without a soul, and Picard's ironically is the man I would argue is the most soulful character of any ST series. Take "Family" or "Lessons" for example.

Again, those episodes were created in different times in different worlds. There was no netflix then and even the internet was not what it is today. The audiences were different, you and me were the audience and we'd watch the episodes when they aired.... we had to.... these days the audience has netflix/hulu and i think cbs has something simular and the shows have to compete for the (rather shorter due to the massive overload of content competing for it) attention of the viewer who's watching the eps when, where and how they want it, if they want it. It's the generation that has youtube, facebook and the rest of the internet they have to convince to watch the show, not you and me. And i have to admit that i like very different kinds of entertainment than 99% of everyone more than 10 years older than me.

So there

jake477 wrote: »

Enough with the shoot'em up and more with the feels.

We’ll allways have “Plato’s Stepchildren”

jake477 wrote: »

We are NOT Star Wars.....for a reason. Leave the pew pew to the idiots with the laser swords.

Sigh…. That last line makes me wish I had decided not to respond to this post, and feel sorry for you tbh.

jonsills

There's no point in arguing with angrytarg, he doesn't argue in good faith. Instead, any disagreement with his Great and Holy Point of View is taken as slavish bootlicking of whomever he wishes to disagree with - as seen above.

artan42

I like DSC for a number of reasons (I like Time Travel, I like the era between the 2160s and 2290s, I like the characters, and I like war stories). I dislike several things (Burnham is used up as a main character, the 3 main character format is as terrible as it always has been, I hate the Mirror Universe( but the primary dislike of mine is the cinematography.

It is not a constant helicopter nor is it stylistic only when it would serve a dramatic necessity but it is off putting. The cinematic style of series 2 exacerbates this by using film style aspect ratios, lense shapes, and both series have issues with not focusing on the shipporn on offer despite the stunning models of both Starfleet and Klingon ships made. And series 1 has a painful blue filter saturating everything and series 2 is too dark.

The idea it has lost it's 'soul' is laughable stupid. Nostalgia is a powerful drug that makes one loose all objectivity and the idea that Trek prior to 2018 (or 2009, or 2002 or whenever your own subjective line is drawn between 'classic' and 'modern' Trek) is significantly different in any way beyond the fact that you haven't had 30 to 50 years to build it into your identity, is just wrong.

ENT was cancelled but contained all the elements it has always had, the KT series was cancelled but contained all the elements of the other films, and DSC is two series in to a run of unknown length and has every element the series has always had. If you can't see past the filming style then that's your problem, not CBS'.

I find it very difficult to watch black and white media or old media with very poor special effects (Doctor Who being the only one I've persevered with) but I don't cast aspersions upon their tone, emotion, plot or anything else I'm not able to judge because I can't get over the superficial (i.e. the filming style).

Unless you're prepared to actually watch DSC properly and not just lazily regurgitate the circlejerk or whatever opinion you think you can form from watching it with your eyes half closed then what's the point of this thread? People who are as lazy as you are going to automatically agree, and people who have watched it will suddenly double down in its defence, ignoring it's issues. You've not presented anything compelling, you've not found a new objective measure of the franchise as a whole. You've just drawn an arbitrary line separating the franchise in two and declared the first half to 'have soul' and the second half to 'not have soul'. You've not looked for counter examples on either side of your arbitrary line. You've not watched the show/s on the second half of your arbitrary line. And you've not said what is wrong with 'Star Wars style Pew Pew'.

---

0/10, lack of effort or original work.​​

angrytarg

azrael605 wrote: »

A slow pan around a group is a camera technique as old as cinema, at the very least as old as the dolly zoom, and that is all that scene had. It did not have the blurringly fast start and stop spins used in many newer films and shows. As for motion sickness loss of orientation, the first trip through the Stargate in theatres made me puke, no joke, took me multiple times trying to get all the way through gate travel. Of course I have inner ear problems and my sense of balance is mostly visual because of it, meaning I cannot pass field sobriety tests even with .000000000000 blood alcohol content because the instant I close my eyes I start swaying.

I didn't say Discovery invented it, but the constant movement of the camera even during simple conversations is something recent filming techniques heavily emphasize. And to me it is really annoying and makes me motion sick while watching on my TV, not on a big cinema screen in the dark. To me, this changes the paste and heavily taints my enjoyment of the show which yes, has other problems, but I was just talking about the filming and factors that come with it. I'd really wish that "criticizes Discovery" would not equal "Has not seen it" in your book. The same technique is used on at least one other action scene on the bridge, where the people shout status reports and the camera rotates along with them, it's terrible. Whether or not this is what you would call "spinning" is irrelevant, as I mean what I showed with the linked clip. If you are simply dismissive of criticism ("none of this applies to Discovery" because you simply call it by another term), don't expect a well meaning debate about it.

jonsills wrote: »

There's no point in arguing with angrytarg, he doesn't argue in good faith. Instead, any disagreement with his Great and Holy Point of View is taken as slavish bootlicking of whomever he wishes to disagree with - as seen above.

This was completely uncalled for, and highly presumptuous on your part. I honestly didn't expect this behaviour from you. It's... disappointing.​​

fleetcaptain5

For some characters it is definitely true that they could be fleshed out more. Rhys, Bryce, Airiam: they don't have or did not have an extensive background story.

Some others are truly unique though, such as Saru and Pike. A couple more relations (not necessarily romantic ones) would be nice indeed.

fleetcaptain5

In that one episode where it seemed that Saru would be killed off, it felt almost as bad as when Data was killed, or Tucker for example, to be honest.

I grew up with Voyager and later Enterprise, so Kirk's death did not do much for me.