A lot of older sci-fi shows had to rely more on better acting than glossy special effects.
There are some fine acting moments in all the trek shows and movies,but an over-emphasis on the dreaded cgi can dwarf the shows finer moments in incompetent hands.
Almost all the older trek stars worked in theater at some stage .Patrick Stewart being a fine example,so they had to project themselves a bit differently,that is possibly why older trek can appear better-even f not always the case.
Shatner is a strange case-if you read his bio,he pretty much started as a Shakespearean actor,possibly one of the reasons he can over-act a lot.Forgets he is not in a small theater.,yet he was brilliant in the Wrath Of Khan-so go figure.
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.
I've said it before, that DSC has gone backwards with regards to the characters. The nature of arc based storytelling and the relatively fixed location of Disco herself lends itself to a DS9 style cast. Instead it's very like TNG.
I've compared it to TOS and ENT in the past which is unfair. Those two shows were awful for characters, with three mains, the Brit than then got all the spare lines, and the rest who are indistinguishable from the wallpaper.
DSC is more like TNG, where they are secondary characters present who have developed personalities and occasionally feature in a B-Plot, but primarily all focus is still on the main three characters.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
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.
I've said it before, that DSC has gone backwards with regards to the characters. The nature of arc based storytelling and the relatively fixed location of Disco herself lends itself to a DS9 style cast. Instead it's very like TNG.
I've compared it to TOS and ENT in the past which is unfair. Those two shows were awful for characters, with three mains, the Brit than then got all the spare lines, and the rest who are indistinguishable from the wallpaper.
DSC is more like TNG, where they are secondary characters present who have developed personalities and occasionally feature in a B-Plot, but primarily all focus is still on the main three characters.
I agree with most of your analysis, but I don't think that Discovery (as in, the show) had that much of a fixed location. Most of season two was dedicated to visiting places and meeting people who were important for the finale. Before that, we had the Mycelium network and the mirror universe which, either because of location or introduction of a whole new group of characters, did not lend itself that much to focussing on the ship and the people on board.
Yet, we've still seen two captains (Lorca and Pike), Mudd, an additional engineer, a doctor and another engineer, miracle cadet Tilly, Tyler, Saru and his whole culture and Burnham. There are more than two fleshed out characters here. You don't necessarily need a fixed location to focus on the people.
The focus on places outside the ship is likely to continue in the next season, because now we'll also be in a very different time. As the first two seasons suggest, this need not be bad for B-character development. Also because they may be alone out there in terms of representatives of the Federation, maybe we'll see some more B-character development.
[4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother
A lot of older sci-fi shows had to rely more on better acting than glossy special effects.
There are some fine acting moments in all the trek shows and movies,but an over-emphasis on the dreaded cgi can dwarf the shows finer moments in incompetent hands.
Almost all the older trek stars worked in theater at some stage .Patrick Stewart being a fine example,so they had to project themselves a bit differently,that is possibly why older trek can appear better-even f not always the case.
Shatner is a strange case-if you read his bio,he pretty much started as a Shakespearean actor,possibly one of the reasons he can over-act a lot.Forgets he is not in a small theater.,yet he was brilliant in the Wrath Of Khan-so go figure.
That's not just the case with older shows. When I watch The Expanse, I see briljant acting everywhere.
TE may not be very reliant on special effects (for a Sci-fi show of course) but, but I am convinced that even if it was, the talented actors would still be able to compensate for those special effects and CGI.
Either way, I think the importance of special effects is exxagerated. Sure, there is a clear difference between the Kelvin TOS and the Original and DSC looks fancier than TNG. But when I think about the scene between Pike and Kirk after the volcano event, the acting is simply good. Better graphics don't preclude and have not precluded good acting to serve as the basis for creating deep characters.
And it's not really fair to compare movies with tv series anyway. The audience is different, as is the format and the sequence of displaying events. Just like someone once said here that 'Jesus weeped' had to be the most interesting words from a literary perspective that person could think of, that was likely only the case because there was a whole book written around those words.
Similarly, the only reason anybody cared about Kirk's death in Generations, was because there was an entire series featuring the character before that. The performance in the movies back then was not necessarily better; hence why the performance in today's movies is not necessarily worse.
[4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother
I agree with most of your analysis, but I don't think that Discovery (as in, the show) had that much of a fixed location. Most of season two was dedicated to visiting places and meeting people who were important for the finale. Before that, we had the Mycelium network and the mirror universe which, either because of location or introduction of a whole new group of characters, did not lend itself that much to focussing on the ship and the people on board.
I mean, unlike TNG, where (excluding two-parters) the ship would move to a entirely unconnected location by the next episode, DSC spends several episodes at a time in either the same location or carrying the same characters and plot along.
The Mirror Arc is a good example of this as it feels very rushed. More time could have been spent with other characters researching their Terran counterparts as all the haste was on Lorca's part. Both Burnham on the Charon and the Disco crew were relatively unhurried. It's not that they're literally in a fixed location, but that their arcs span so many episodes that they have a stability that TNG didn't. VGR and ENT had this same stability but squandered it massivly.
Yet, we've still seen two captains (Lorca and Pike), Mudd, an additional engineer, a doctor and another engineer, miracle cadet Tilly, Tyler, Saru and his whole culture and Burnham. There are more than two fleshed out characters here. You don't necessarily need a fixed location to focus on the people.
Lorca and Pike swap places for a place in the main trio (with Burnham fixed in position) as do Tilly and Saru (both between series 1 and 2) and Stamatts, Culber, and Tyler have their B-Plots running parallel.
This mirrors TNG with Picard, Data and Riker (later swapped with Worf) as mains with Crusher, LaForge, and Troi getting minor B-Plots.
Tilly (in series 2), Saru (in series 1), Detmer, Ariam, helmsman who's name I can't spell, Pike's security officer, and Reno get less plot than O'Brien did, or Wesley, or Ro, or Yar, or Beverly. I assume the tactical officer, communications officer (Brice?), and the CMO are supposed to be extras unlike the aforementioned bridge crew so I can exclude them.
The focus on places outside the ship is likely to continue in the next season, because now we'll also be in a very different time. As the first two seasons suggest, this need not be bad for B-character development. Also because they may be alone out there in terms of representatives of the Federation, maybe we'll see some more B-character development.
Hopefully they'll be a tighter focus in the future because it may well be one ship against the Galaxy and they can do VGR better than VGR did.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
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.
So it's really about dislike dynamic cameras and not really about Discovery?
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.
So it's really about dislike dynamic cameras and not really about Discovery?
Well if you don't like a filming style it's going to affect the level of like you have for any media that uses it.
People like different things about media, some people have complained about the colour grading of the MCU films not made by Sony and that they're unwatchable due to the dullness, I've not even noticed it when it's pointed out. Some people can't read books in first person, some can't watch subtitled or dubbed films or TV.
If you dislike a style of presentation then you're going to dislike the media that uses it for using it when options, you find, more palatable are available.
DSC is not humanities magnum opus. It has flaws, flaws that should be able to be discussed, without the assumption being made that everybody who does so, is one of the lazy parrots who needs to lie about the perfection of previous series or make stuff up about DSC in order to fill post space.
There's enough basement dwelling, gatekeeping, fanbois making endless off-topic, argumentum ad nauseam, tangents in any thread going on dozens of different websites to draw ire to not have to polarise yourselves whenever somebody levels a subjective but legitimate criticism.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I mean, unlike TNG, where (excluding two-parters) the ship would move to a entirely unconnected location by the next episode, DSC spends several episodes at a time in either the same location or carrying the same characters and plot along.
The Mirror Arc is a good example of this as it feels very rushed. More time could have been spent with other characters researching their Terran counterparts as all the haste was on Lorca's part. Both Burnham on the Charon and the Disco crew were relatively unhurried. It's not that they're literally in a fixed location, but that their arcs span so many episodes that they have a stability that TNG didn't. VGR and ENT had this same stability but squandered it massivly.
TNG was very episodic in nature. No overall story arc. It was all self contained stories. DS9 had this as well, but had an underlying arc with the Dominion War. Voyager and Enterprise did something similar, with Voyager trying to get home and Enterprise trying to explore. Enterprise also toyed with an arc style story in season 3, but it was still somewhat episodic.
Discovery is following the current trend in shows of having an overall story arc, and each episode is pretty much a chapter of the story. This is also somewhat easier to pull off as a show that is broadcast on a streaming service for the most part as you don't have to worry about missing an episode. Season 2 feels a bit more episodic at times, but there's still the overall story arc of the season and it all comes together in the season finale.
I mean, unlike TNG, where (excluding two-parters) the ship would move to a entirely unconnected location by the next episode, DSC spends several episodes at a time in either the same location or carrying the same characters and plot along.
The Mirror Arc is a good example of this as it feels very rushed. More time could have been spent with other characters researching their Terran counterparts as all the haste was on Lorca's part. Both Burnham on the Charon and the Disco crew were relatively unhurried. It's not that they're literally in a fixed location, but that their arcs span so many episodes that they have a stability that TNG didn't. VGR and ENT had this same stability but squandered it massivly.
TNG was very episodic in nature. No overall story arc. It was all self contained stories. DS9 had this as well, but had an underlying arc with the Dominion War. Voyager and Enterprise did something similar, with Voyager trying to get home and Enterprise trying to explore. Enterprise also toyed with an arc style story in season 3, but it was still somewhat episodic.
Discovery is following the current trend in shows of having an overall story arc, and each episode is pretty much a chapter of the story. This is also somewhat easier to pull off as a show that is broadcast on a streaming service for the most part as you don't have to worry about missing an episode. Season 2 feels a bit more episodic at times, but there's still the overall story arc of the season and it all comes together in the season finale.
VGR cloned TNG excessively. It had the opportunity to use the format of DS9 (which was far more connected than simply having the Dominion War as an underlying arc) but decided simply mentioning they wanted to get home was enough of that and reverted to a 'plot of the week' style. ENT flip-flopped between the two going from TNG style in series 1 and 2 to DS9 style in series 3 before finishing in DSC style in series 4.
The only difference between DS9s style of arcs and DSCs style of arcs is that the former would spread the arc around the series and have more 'filler' episodes whereas the latter had several blocks of mini-arcs with very little 'filler'. Series 2 reverted to a more DS9 style of arc
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Funny thing is I actually like targ, at least he isn't a loser who has to hide his posts from people he disagrees with like nix or pat.
neither of them hid their posts; they were shadowbanned by a moderator
All we can do is edit our posts, but that doesn't stop people from quoting our posts and preserve our original post as a result. However, changing the context of a post is in extremely bad taste. If someone can't stand for the words they have personally written, then it shouldn't be written in the first place. After all, it is only by our words that we can understand each other.
Funny thing is I actually like targ, at least he isn't a loser who has to hide his posts from people he disagrees with like nix or pat.
neither of them hid their posts; they were shadowbanned by a moderator
All we can do is edit our posts, but that doesn't stop people from quoting our posts and preserve our original post as a result. However, changing the context of a post is in extremely bad taste. If someone can't stand for the words they have personally written, then it shouldn't be written in the first place. After all, it is only by our words that we can understand each other.
I have no idea what your response has to do with Shadow banning. Shadow bans mean that they can post and it looks to them like their post is perfectly fine, but it won't show up to anyone else ever again unless they go through a specific link to it. Shadow Banning is an extremely sinister way to quiet criticism and is honestly pretty despicable. The person who is shadowbanned has no way of knowing it themselves unless somehow they find out no one is seeing their posts.
Funny thing is I actually like targ, at least he isn't a loser who has to hide his posts from people he disagrees with like nix or pat.
neither of them hid their posts; they were shadowbanned by a moderator
All we can do is edit our posts, but that doesn't stop people from quoting our posts and preserve our original post as a result. However, changing the context of a post is in extremely bad taste. If someone can't stand for the words they have personally written, then it shouldn't be written in the first place. After all, it is only by our words that we can understand each other.
I have no idea what your response has to do with Shadow banning. Shadow bans mean that they can post and it looks to them like their post is perfectly fine, but it won't show up to anyone else ever again unless they go through a specific link to it. Shadow Banning is an extremely sinister way to quiet criticism and is honestly pretty despicable. The person who is shadowbanned has no way of knowing it themselves unless somehow they find out no one is seeing their posts.
It was about forum users trying to hide posts not about shadow banning. Not sure if the moderators can shadow ban on these forums. Deleting posts or hiding them so that no one can see them, but not have it so that only the shadow banned person could see their posts.
Funny thing is I actually like targ, at least he isn't a loser who has to hide his posts from people he disagrees with like nix or pat.
neither of them hid their posts; they were shadowbanned by a moderator
All we can do is edit our posts, but that doesn't stop people from quoting our posts and preserve our original post as a result. However, changing the context of a post is in extremely bad taste. If someone can't stand for the words they have personally written, then it shouldn't be written in the first place. After all, it is only by our words that we can understand each other.
I have no idea what your response has to do with Shadow banning. Shadow bans mean that they can post and it looks to them like their post is perfectly fine, but it won't show up to anyone else ever again unless they go through a specific link to it. Shadow Banning is an extremely sinister way to quiet criticism and is honestly pretty despicable. The person who is shadowbanned has no way of knowing it themselves unless somehow they find out no one is seeing their posts.
It was about forum users trying to hide posts not about shadow banning. Not sure if the moderators can shadow ban on these forums. Deleting posts or hiding them so that no one can see them, but not have it so that only the shadow banned person could see their posts.
Oh no, the Moderators can shadow ban posts. They probably do it more often than you or even I think, because the thing is, its extremely hard to find out that a shadow ban has happened. And there aren't many Forum users that have attempted to hide posts. Almost every forum and form of social media has shadow ban features. Its a staple at this point.
they certainly can - it's literally listed as a feature in vanilla's moderation section
Eradicate Spammers & Trolls
Quickly and easily remove and ban a user and all the user’s data. Find out if a user has multiple accounts. Deal with Trolls by making them invisible to other members.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
I mostly agree with the OP.
I think that star trek lost some of its identity and soul with the newest iterations. For example, i newer before felt a whole ST series continously being inadequate, incoherent and illogical.
I also don't see the point or the necessity of reboots. Nor do I like them.
I also don't see the point or the necessity of reboots. Nor do I like them.
Well that's okay because Star Trek has never been rebooted.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I also don't see the point or the necessity of reboots. Nor do I like them.
Well that's okay because Star Trek has never been rebooted.
If that is the case, then there is only one Reboot since they just happen in an alternate realities. The less said about the live action Reboot show the better. Turned one of the best animated shows from the 90s into a monstrosity.
I also don't see the point or the necessity of reboots. Nor do I like them.
Well that's okay because Star Trek has never been rebooted.
If that is the case, then there is only one Reboot since they just happen in an alternate realities. The less said about the live action Reboot show the better. Turned one of the best animated shows from the 90s into a monstrosity.
I also don't see the point or the necessity of reboots. Nor do I like them.
Well that's okay because Star Trek has never been rebooted.
If that is the case, then there is only one Reboot since they just happen in an alternate realities. The less said about the live action Reboot show the better. Turned one of the best animated shows from the 90s into a monstrosity.
Wait, what? There was a live-action ReBoot?
ReBoot: The Guardian Code on Netflix and YTV. It is about a few Users that become Guardians and Megabyte seems to play a somewhat significant role, but he seems to be under the control of a hacker. So whenever they are in the real word, it is live action, but CG when they enter cyberspace. A Reboot of ReBoot would be interesting where they could use modern games, but I have no desire to watch The Guardian Code since it ignored almost everything that made ReBoot great.
I mostly agree with the OP.
I think that star trek lost some of its identity and soul with the newest iterations. For example, i newer before felt a whole ST series continously being inadequate, incoherent and illogical.
I also don't see the point or the necessity of reboots. Nor do I like them.
I am fairly sure that it is because DSC uses the action flick format since they are trying for a "movie" effect and movie trek is almost all action style. Action format tends to be shallow because it is the SFX and action that is important and the characters take a back seat to that. TOS was a control-room drama (as was TAS more or less), TNG was a more laid-back "procedural" (very similar to the police procedurals of the time) and the rest of the series shows were various combinations of procedural and drama up until DSC with its action format.
Not only is it the only non-movie Trek to use that format (or at least so far anyway), it is also the only one that is organized around cable-network style half-seasons instead of broadcast style full seasons (if you think that does not make a difference just take a look at Supergirl, the series started out on CBS with full 22 episode seasons with several arcs per season then was transferred to the CW and chopped down to half-season length with only one slightly longer arc per season) which makes for a different pacing and (to a lesser extent) tone.
That theme of the season schtick makes a series seem to be on rails to a significant degree instead of happening naturally. Straczynski had the right idea with Babylon5, the mix of arc episodes with self-contained episodes produced a much more realistic and dynamic mix than all-arc or all self-contained, and it was possible to control pacing and add tension by increasing the number of arc-episodes in the mix leading to a major turning point then dialing back afterwards.
Also, the camera work in DSC is completely different from the other Treks. Most of the others used a fairly straightforward dramatic style while DSC uses a more frenetic style to keep the pace up (which is pretty much a staple in action movies).
I feel a degree of empathy for the OP, as commentary along those lines .... these days ..... is generally an invitation to toxic debate. I agree with the sentiment expressed, but view the core of the implied issue as something more akin to original Star Trek having outlived its era.
There is no need to "prove" that at all; it seems rather obvious. The writers, actors and producers who originated this content have either passed away or have aged out and that amounts to the same thing. 'Star Trek' has been ceded over to hands and minds that prefer to wring something else from it or who stamp their own ideas onto the base concept to go where no one has gone before.
That might not resonate with those of us who were along for the older stuff, but calling out the latest generation of fans of say Discovery, for instance, serves no purpose. This is not an apple or oranges discussion!
For better or worse, Star Trek is going to change and change is the universe's only constant. Live long and prosper!
I feel a degree of empathy for the OP, as commentary along those lines .... these days ..... is generally an invitation to toxic debate.
I don't. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't make a badly justified and little thought out repeat of clickbait youtube videos in lieu of actual thought in public and expect not to be laughed at.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I feel a degree of empathy for the OP, as commentary along those lines .... these days ..... is generally an invitation to toxic debate.
I don't. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't make a badly justified and little thought out repeat of clickbait youtube videos in lieu of actual thought in public and expect not to be laughed at.
See! It doesn't take long and the lines of trolls are ever endless ........
Wells, I was "along" for TOS (grew up watching it - my earliest clear memory is watching the Enterprise slide across the TV screen, backed by one of those cheesy planets that looked like my dad's bowling ball), and I quite enjoy DSC. Its pacing is different from TOS, yes - just as TNG's, DS9's, VOY's, and ENT's were. (And in my less-than-humble opinion, the major mistakes made in both VOY and ENT were the attempts to try to make them feel like TNG. When you're in a survival situation in unknown space, like the Voyager, or exploring places where humans have never been while being out of touch with the UESPA back on Earth, like NX-01, your writers shouldn't be striving to imitate the far-more-comfortable setting of a massive starship patrolling mostly known space, like the Ent-D.)
Yes, a couple of episodes went a little overboard with shakycam and weird camera angles, but the directors seem to have mostly settled down in the second season, and I became inured to such things while watching nBSG. Those guys really loved their shakycam!
Anyway, kindly not to lump all us old folks into the same bag of "people whose tastes haven't changed with the years", because some of us have. Yes, I still love to watch Jim Kirk practice his cowboy diplomacy all over the quadrant, with Spock at one shoulder telling him to think it through and McCoy at the other trying to clarify how they all feel about it, but I'm also into watching things like Burnham suddenly realizing she's the crux of a predestination paradox - if she doesn't use the suit to go to certain place/times to gather the forces needed for this battle, then it'll turn out that they didn't have what they needed to get to the point where they have a Red Angel suit in the first place.
I feel a degree of empathy for the OP, as commentary along those lines .... these days ..... is generally an invitation to toxic debate.
I don't. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't make a badly justified and little thought out repeat of clickbait youtube videos in lieu of actual thought in public and expect not to be laughed at.
See! It doesn't take long and the lines of trolls are ever endless ........
I know, I've had fun reading them.
Oh, sorry, you meant me. I don't think you know what 'toxic' means, or 'debate' for that matter.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Comments
There are some fine acting moments in all the trek shows and movies,but an over-emphasis on the dreaded cgi can dwarf the shows finer moments in incompetent hands.
Almost all the older trek stars worked in theater at some stage .Patrick Stewart being a fine example,so they had to project themselves a bit differently,that is possibly why older trek can appear better-even f not always the case.
Shatner is a strange case-if you read his bio,he pretty much started as a Shakespearean actor,possibly one of the reasons he can over-act a lot.Forgets he is not in a small theater.,yet he was brilliant in the Wrath Of Khan-so go figure.
I've said it before, that DSC has gone backwards with regards to the characters. The nature of arc based storytelling and the relatively fixed location of Disco herself lends itself to a DS9 style cast. Instead it's very like TNG.
I've compared it to TOS and ENT in the past which is unfair. Those two shows were awful for characters, with three mains, the Brit than then got all the spare lines, and the rest who are indistinguishable from the wallpaper.
DSC is more like TNG, where they are secondary characters present who have developed personalities and occasionally feature in a B-Plot, but primarily all focus is still on the main three characters.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I agree with most of your analysis, but I don't think that Discovery (as in, the show) had that much of a fixed location. Most of season two was dedicated to visiting places and meeting people who were important for the finale. Before that, we had the Mycelium network and the mirror universe which, either because of location or introduction of a whole new group of characters, did not lend itself that much to focussing on the ship and the people on board.
Yet, we've still seen two captains (Lorca and Pike), Mudd, an additional engineer, a doctor and another engineer, miracle cadet Tilly, Tyler, Saru and his whole culture and Burnham. There are more than two fleshed out characters here. You don't necessarily need a fixed location to focus on the people.
The focus on places outside the ship is likely to continue in the next season, because now we'll also be in a very different time. As the first two seasons suggest, this need not be bad for B-character development. Also because they may be alone out there in terms of representatives of the Federation, maybe we'll see some more B-character development.
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
That's not just the case with older shows. When I watch The Expanse, I see briljant acting everywhere.
TE may not be very reliant on special effects (for a Sci-fi show of course) but, but I am convinced that even if it was, the talented actors would still be able to compensate for those special effects and CGI.
Either way, I think the importance of special effects is exxagerated. Sure, there is a clear difference between the Kelvin TOS and the Original and DSC looks fancier than TNG. But when I think about the scene between Pike and Kirk after the volcano event, the acting is simply good. Better graphics don't preclude and have not precluded good acting to serve as the basis for creating deep characters.
And it's not really fair to compare movies with tv series anyway. The audience is different, as is the format and the sequence of displaying events. Just like someone once said here that 'Jesus weeped' had to be the most interesting words from a literary perspective that person could think of, that was likely only the case because there was a whole book written around those words.
Similarly, the only reason anybody cared about Kirk's death in Generations, was because there was an entire series featuring the character before that. The performance in the movies back then was not necessarily better; hence why the performance in today's movies is not necessarily worse.
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
I mean, unlike TNG, where (excluding two-parters) the ship would move to a entirely unconnected location by the next episode, DSC spends several episodes at a time in either the same location or carrying the same characters and plot along.
The Mirror Arc is a good example of this as it feels very rushed. More time could have been spent with other characters researching their Terran counterparts as all the haste was on Lorca's part. Both Burnham on the Charon and the Disco crew were relatively unhurried. It's not that they're literally in a fixed location, but that their arcs span so many episodes that they have a stability that TNG didn't. VGR and ENT had this same stability but squandered it massivly.
Lorca and Pike swap places for a place in the main trio (with Burnham fixed in position) as do Tilly and Saru (both between series 1 and 2) and Stamatts, Culber, and Tyler have their B-Plots running parallel.
This mirrors TNG with Picard, Data and Riker (later swapped with Worf) as mains with Crusher, LaForge, and Troi getting minor B-Plots.
Tilly (in series 2), Saru (in series 1), Detmer, Ariam, helmsman who's name I can't spell, Pike's security officer, and Reno get less plot than O'Brien did, or Wesley, or Ro, or Yar, or Beverly. I assume the tactical officer, communications officer (Brice?), and the CMO are supposed to be extras unlike the aforementioned bridge crew so I can exclude them.
Hopefully they'll be a tighter focus in the future because it may well be one ship against the Galaxy and they can do VGR better than VGR did.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
My character Tsin'xing
Well if you don't like a filming style it's going to affect the level of like you have for any media that uses it.
People like different things about media, some people have complained about the colour grading of the MCU films not made by Sony and that they're unwatchable due to the dullness, I've not even noticed it when it's pointed out. Some people can't read books in first person, some can't watch subtitled or dubbed films or TV.
If you dislike a style of presentation then you're going to dislike the media that uses it for using it when options, you find, more palatable are available.
DSC is not humanities magnum opus. It has flaws, flaws that should be able to be discussed, without the assumption being made that everybody who does so, is one of the lazy parrots who needs to lie about the perfection of previous series or make stuff up about DSC in order to fill post space.
There's enough basement dwelling, gatekeeping, fanbois making endless off-topic, argumentum ad nauseam, tangents in any thread going on dozens of different websites to draw ire to not have to polarise yourselves whenever somebody levels a subjective but legitimate criticism.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
TNG was very episodic in nature. No overall story arc. It was all self contained stories. DS9 had this as well, but had an underlying arc with the Dominion War. Voyager and Enterprise did something similar, with Voyager trying to get home and Enterprise trying to explore. Enterprise also toyed with an arc style story in season 3, but it was still somewhat episodic.
Discovery is following the current trend in shows of having an overall story arc, and each episode is pretty much a chapter of the story. This is also somewhat easier to pull off as a show that is broadcast on a streaming service for the most part as you don't have to worry about missing an episode. Season 2 feels a bit more episodic at times, but there's still the overall story arc of the season and it all comes together in the season finale.
VGR cloned TNG excessively. It had the opportunity to use the format of DS9 (which was far more connected than simply having the Dominion War as an underlying arc) but decided simply mentioning they wanted to get home was enough of that and reverted to a 'plot of the week' style. ENT flip-flopped between the two going from TNG style in series 1 and 2 to DS9 style in series 3 before finishing in DSC style in series 4.
The only difference between DS9s style of arcs and DSCs style of arcs is that the former would spread the arc around the series and have more 'filler' episodes whereas the latter had several blocks of mini-arcs with very little 'filler'. Series 2 reverted to a more DS9 style of arc
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
neither of them hid their posts; they were shadowbanned by a moderator
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
All we can do is edit our posts, but that doesn't stop people from quoting our posts and preserve our original post as a result. However, changing the context of a post is in extremely bad taste. If someone can't stand for the words they have personally written, then it shouldn't be written in the first place. After all, it is only by our words that we can understand each other.
I have no idea what your response has to do with Shadow banning. Shadow bans mean that they can post and it looks to them like their post is perfectly fine, but it won't show up to anyone else ever again unless they go through a specific link to it. Shadow Banning is an extremely sinister way to quiet criticism and is honestly pretty despicable. The person who is shadowbanned has no way of knowing it themselves unless somehow they find out no one is seeing their posts.
It was about forum users trying to hide posts not about shadow banning. Not sure if the moderators can shadow ban on these forums. Deleting posts or hiding them so that no one can see them, but not have it so that only the shadow banned person could see their posts.
Oh no, the Moderators can shadow ban posts. They probably do it more often than you or even I think, because the thing is, its extremely hard to find out that a shadow ban has happened. And there aren't many Forum users that have attempted to hide posts. Almost every forum and form of social media has shadow ban features. Its a staple at this point.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
I think that star trek lost some of its identity and soul with the newest iterations. For example, i newer before felt a whole ST series continously being inadequate, incoherent and illogical.
I also don't see the point or the necessity of reboots. Nor do I like them.
Well that's okay because Star Trek has never been rebooted.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
If that is the case, then there is only one Reboot since they just happen in an alternate realities. The less said about the live action Reboot show the better. Turned one of the best animated shows from the 90s into a monstrosity.
My character Tsin'xing
ReBoot: The Guardian Code on Netflix and YTV. It is about a few Users that become Guardians and Megabyte seems to play a somewhat significant role, but he seems to be under the control of a hacker. So whenever they are in the real word, it is live action, but CG when they enter cyberspace. A Reboot of ReBoot would be interesting where they could use modern games, but I have no desire to watch The Guardian Code since it ignored almost everything that made ReBoot great.
I am fairly sure that it is because DSC uses the action flick format since they are trying for a "movie" effect and movie trek is almost all action style. Action format tends to be shallow because it is the SFX and action that is important and the characters take a back seat to that. TOS was a control-room drama (as was TAS more or less), TNG was a more laid-back "procedural" (very similar to the police procedurals of the time) and the rest of the series shows were various combinations of procedural and drama up until DSC with its action format.
Not only is it the only non-movie Trek to use that format (or at least so far anyway), it is also the only one that is organized around cable-network style half-seasons instead of broadcast style full seasons (if you think that does not make a difference just take a look at Supergirl, the series started out on CBS with full 22 episode seasons with several arcs per season then was transferred to the CW and chopped down to half-season length with only one slightly longer arc per season) which makes for a different pacing and (to a lesser extent) tone.
That theme of the season schtick makes a series seem to be on rails to a significant degree instead of happening naturally. Straczynski had the right idea with Babylon5, the mix of arc episodes with self-contained episodes produced a much more realistic and dynamic mix than all-arc or all self-contained, and it was possible to control pacing and add tension by increasing the number of arc-episodes in the mix leading to a major turning point then dialing back afterwards.
Also, the camera work in DSC is completely different from the other Treks. Most of the others used a fairly straightforward dramatic style while DSC uses a more frenetic style to keep the pace up (which is pretty much a staple in action movies).
There is no need to "prove" that at all; it seems rather obvious. The writers, actors and producers who originated this content have either passed away or have aged out and that amounts to the same thing. 'Star Trek' has been ceded over to hands and minds that prefer to wring something else from it or who stamp their own ideas onto the base concept to go where no one has gone before.
That might not resonate with those of us who were along for the older stuff, but calling out the latest generation of fans of say Discovery, for instance, serves no purpose. This is not an apple or oranges discussion!
For better or worse, Star Trek is going to change and change is the universe's only constant. Live long and prosper!
I don't. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't make a badly justified and little thought out repeat of clickbait youtube videos in lieu of actual thought in public and expect not to be laughed at.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
See! It doesn't take long and the lines of trolls are ever endless ........
Yes, a couple of episodes went a little overboard with shakycam and weird camera angles, but the directors seem to have mostly settled down in the second season, and I became inured to such things while watching nBSG. Those guys really loved their shakycam!
Anyway, kindly not to lump all us old folks into the same bag of "people whose tastes haven't changed with the years", because some of us have. Yes, I still love to watch Jim Kirk practice his cowboy diplomacy all over the quadrant, with Spock at one shoulder telling him to think it through and McCoy at the other trying to clarify how they all feel about it, but I'm also into watching things like Burnham suddenly realizing she's the crux of a predestination paradox - if she doesn't use the suit to go to certain place/times to gather the forces needed for this battle, then it'll turn out that they didn't have what they needed to get to the point where they have a Red Angel suit in the first place.
I know, I've had fun reading them.
Oh, sorry, you meant me. I don't think you know what 'toxic' means, or 'debate' for that matter.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!