Why does Star Trek: Discovery evoke more "negative" passion than "positive" passion?
Probably has something to do with the fact that generally, when we like the show we're not desperate to prove to those who hate it that they're wrong. Meanwhile, everyone who hates the show (yes, including you, Red) seems to sweat bullets over the fact that there are people who disagree with their sacred and holy opinion-which-is-of-course-actually-fact.
I have to disagree. I don't think either side has claim to any kind of silent majority or vocal minority. I have seen just as many people who seem to think the show is nearly perfect and feel the need to correct anyone who disagrees as I have on the opposite side of the spectrum.
Basically, our modern culture has radicalized a good portion of society. No matter what the topic many people gravitate to an extreme position and feel personally insulted if you don't agree with them. The reasonable group in the middle that can agree to disagree but still respect each others' opinions is getting smaller every day.
It's not getting smaller, it's staying silent, because in today's culture if you're not on the extremes both sides will shout you down, so it's just not worth the effort.
i certainly do; it's only their two sequel films that are terrible, and that's mainly because they had a feminazi witch and an utter moron on staff; both R1 and Solo were actually decent, Rebels is great and they're even going back to finish Clone Wars S6 AND giving it a 7th season
Actually found Solo to be far better than Last Jedi. Last Jedi was just so boring for most of the movie. The bad reception that Last Jedi got likely burned a lot of Star Wars fans from seeing Solo.
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 dislike ST:D because I recognized some red flags right away and it's been downhill from there.
For example CBS told us from the outset that they were going into this with the intent of being cheap. The Klingon and Ship design were leftovers that were rejected in the '70's. MY GOD THE '70'S! This was a decade in which visual asthetics took a huge hit. It's as though "garish" was a foreign concept.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they went with that hideous uniform design. Though, to be fair, there is one element I like from those uniforms; the metallic department designation. Its implementation sucked, but I like the concept.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they decided to reuse the JJ verse sets. Now in principle I'm all for the cost savings this creates if done in a creative manner. But, no. JJ's brig was Discovery's brig. They didn't even try.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they decided to lean too hard into social engineering. Not in a well thought out way, either. Personally I take no issue with TRIBBLE characters on a show. It's when the TRIBBLE characters are TRIBBLE because they are TRIBBLE and do TRIBBLE things to be TRIBBLE while constantly reminding us that they're TRIBBLE. It gets tedious. What's his favorite color? Where did she fly her first hot air balloon? After he put the lime in the coconut did he decide to have some cheesecake instead? Did she drive to the academy or pack a bag lunch? That's the kind of stuff that's worth knowing about. It's called character development. Look into it, Bad Robot.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they just had to lean hard into contemporary politics so now we're no longer looking at a future worth creating, but a future where humanity is populated by entitled, self-important nincompoops. I remember an era when Starfleet consisted mostly of professionals. Experts in their fields, even. Can we say that today?
The action in Star Trek used to be a treat, because most of the time it involved thinking. This has become less true as the franchise has aged. Where Star Trek once inspired people to get into the sciences, I suspect this current incarnation will inspire people to get into vapidity by comparison.
I know I'm being a bit harsh, and if you like Star Trek: Discovery more power to you. It's not my place to make up your mind.
The interesting part is that for how much I dislike Discovery and the JJ verse, I have to say that Cryptic had make those ship models look good! It amazes me. Those hack frauds at Bad Robot make things look like junk, but Cryptic manages to make them look good. I don't know how that happened, but well done Devs, well done.
Well I am going to throw in my two cents worth in this.
I have been watching Star Trek most of my life, all the series, the cartoon, the movies, etc..
And I have seen change a lot, and have I liked all those changes - NO, but that is part of being human.
Now when ST: Discovery first started to come up, I saw all the YouTube videos in support or against the new show. BUT I thought what the heck I give a try.
It is really not that bad (IMO), and yes it does not follow "Canon", but as someone said on here Trek has never followed canon or Klingons would still be green with bad fu manchu mustaches.
Is Discovery perfect nope never will be, but the same can be said about ALL the series including TOS. My biggest gripe about Discovery is how it is on CBS special channel BS
I dislike ST:D because I recognized some red flags right away and it's been downhill from there.
For example CBS told us from the outset that they were going into this with the intent of being cheap. The Klingon and Ship design were leftovers that were rejected in the '70's. MY GOD THE '70'S! This was a decade in which visual asthetics took a huge hit. It's as though "garish" was a foreign concept.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they went with that hideous uniform design. Though, to be fair, there is one element I like from those uniforms; the metallic department designation. Its implementation sucked, but I like the concept.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they decided to reuse the JJ verse sets. Now in principle I'm all for the cost savings this creates if done in a creative manner. But, no. JJ's brig was Discovery's brig. They didn't even try.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they decided to lean too hard into social engineering. Not in a well thought out way, either. Personally I take no issue with TRIBBLE characters on a show. It's when the TRIBBLE characters are TRIBBLE because they are TRIBBLE and do TRIBBLE things to be TRIBBLE while constantly reminding us that they're TRIBBLE. It gets tedious. What's his favorite color? Where did she fly her first hot air balloon? After he put the lime in the coconut did he decide to have some cheesecake instead? Did she drive to the academy or pack a bag lunch? That's the kind of stuff that's worth knowing about. It's called character development. Look into it, Bad Robot.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they just had to lean hard into contemporary politics so now we're no longer looking at a future worth creating, but a future where humanity is populated by entitled, self-important nincompoops. I remember an era when Starfleet consisted mostly of professionals. Experts in their fields, even. Can we say that today?
The action in Star Trek used to be a treat, because most of the time it involved thinking. This has become less true as the franchise has aged. Where Star Trek once inspired people to get into the sciences, I suspect this current incarnation will inspire people to get into vapidity by comparison.
I know I'm being a bit harsh, and if you like Star Trek: Discovery more power to you. It's not my place to make up your mind.
The interesting part is that for how much I dislike Discovery and the JJ verse, I have to say that Cryptic had make those ship models look good! It amazes me. Those hack frauds at Bad Robot make things look like junk, but Cryptic manages to make them look good. I don't know how that happened, but well done Devs, well done.
EDITED to fix a formatting error
The leaning on contemporary politics is because you're not looking at a show made by science-fiction people, (by that, I mean people who actually like science fiction) but by people who want to impress Critics who despise science fiction.
of all sorts, except that Kafka-esque 'Art house' stuff their profs told them to like and consider 'deep'.
Once you understand that there's no equivalent of a DC Fontana, Harlan Ellison, or Larry Niven within a hundred miles of the CBS production crew, everything else makes more sense.
They lean on contemporary politics because that's what their film-school told them was Trek's only strength, they lean on mindless action sequences that don't make sense, because those sell to test audiences conditioned on eighties action movies, they toss in a try at legitimacy with hiring a Mycologist, because they need to be able to claim some (remote) connection to a real science to justify their fantasy magic (even when said science is almost completely kitchen sink and bogus, based on discredited hypotheses.)
Basically, they're trying to be meta. This shows up with a LOT of the positive press about the show, from people who basically didn't like any previous version of Star Trek mixed with people terrified that if Discovery fails, there won't be another try at new Star Trek. (aka Fans whom are Fans because they're fans of the Franchise on a meta level and don't want another situation like what happened with Enterprise, where dropping audience numbers killed the show just as it was coming out of the shadow of previous versions.)
so there's a lot of that. There's also a lot of cross-emulation in how the over-all property of "Science Fiction" is being handled on a meta scale, with BBC's decision to hire political playwrights to write for Doctor Who the last two seasons, instead of hiring British Science Fiction writers-Hollywood's doing the same thing, but using a (mildly) wider pool; cop show writers, sitcom writers, and unemployed art-house type literarys in addition to the political activists.
this is largely because their 'core audience' they're trying to reach, are not science fiction people, so they don't hire science fiction people (could also be that somehow, Syfy and HBO have hired all the science fiction people who could find work in Burbank...)
If I may be permitted to shorten my first comment and your reply...
A hack hired a hack production company, populated by hacks, to produce a hack version of a known and generally liked property. The hacks used the contemporary, and obvious, hack method of "deconstructing" that which came before because the hacks are unable imagine a way to succeed without leaning all too heavily on popular characters that have been established prior to their own hackneyed efforts. Once the pay wall fails (Oh, sure, now a wall is perfectly moral...) well, there is always ad revenue from Youtube.
I don't buy that most of the production is as monotagonistic (I think I just invented that word) as you suggest. What I mean by that, for example, is that I'm not just a gamer. I'm also a sociopolitical analyst/commentator, a painter, screen writer, etc... These are all things I have done that, by themselves, are different but being that they are my experiences they bleed into and inform each other. I assume that most people somewhat similar. That would mean that the actions taken in the attempts to murder the most beloved franchises is in part a choice. That choice reveals things.
Re: the SyFy/HBO/Burbank thing... What about all that fan content on Youtube? The is a significant portion of which that is well written and produced on less that a shoestring budget. Hollywood in general seems more interested in remaining the in-cestuous legacy circle-jurk than making solid business decisions. Spending $350,000,000 to make $600,000,000 is not as great an outcome as spending $10,000,000 to make $500,000,000. I'm saying give 10 million to a fan production with proven ability and tell them to make you a feature-length film. Or keep hiring the hacks who are considered by many to be franchise killers.
I dislike ST:D because I recognized some red flags right away and it's been downhill from there.
For example CBS told us from the outset that they were going into this with the intent of being cheap. The Klingon and Ship design were leftovers that were rejected in the '70's. MY GOD THE '70'S! This was a decade in which visual asthetics took a huge hit. It's as though "garish" was a foreign concept.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they went with that hideous uniform design. Though, to be fair, there is one element I like from those uniforms; the metallic department designation. Its implementation sucked, but I like the concept.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they decided to reuse the JJ verse sets. Now in principle I'm all for the cost savings this creates if done in a creative manner. But, no. JJ's brig was Discovery's brig. They didn't even try.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they decided to lean too hard into social engineering. Not in a well thought out way, either. Personally I take no issue with TRIBBLE characters on a show. It's when the TRIBBLE characters are TRIBBLE because they are TRIBBLE and do TRIBBLE things to be TRIBBLE while constantly reminding us that they're TRIBBLE. It gets tedious. What's his favorite color? Where did she fly her first hot air balloon? After he put the lime in the coconut did he decide to have some cheesecake instead? Did she drive to the academy or pack a bag lunch? That's the kind of stuff that's worth knowing about. It's called character development. Look into it, Bad Robot.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they just had to lean hard into contemporary politics so now we're no longer looking at a future worth creating, but a future where humanity is populated by entitled, self-important nincompoops. I remember an era when Starfleet consisted mostly of professionals. Experts in their fields, even. Can we say that today?
The action in Star Trek used to be a treat, because most of the time it involved thinking. This has become less true as the franchise has aged. Where Star Trek once inspired people to get into the sciences, I suspect this current incarnation will inspire people to get into vapidity by comparison.
I know I'm being a bit harsh, and if you like Star Trek: Discovery more power to you. It's not my place to make up your mind.
The interesting part is that for how much I dislike Discovery and the JJ verse, I have to say that Cryptic had make those ship models look good! It amazes me. Those hack frauds at Bad Robot make things look like junk, but Cryptic manages to make them look good. I don't know how that happened, but well done Devs, well done.
EDITED to fix a formatting error
The leaning on contemporary politics is because you're not looking at a show made by science-fiction people, (by that, I mean people who actually like science fiction) but by people who want to impress Critics who despise science fiction.
of all sorts, except that Kafka-esque 'Art house' stuff their profs told them to like and consider 'deep'.
Once you understand that there's no equivalent of a DC Fontana, Harlan Ellison, or Larry Niven within a hundred miles of the CBS production crew, everything else makes more sense.
They lean on contemporary politics because that's what their film-school told them was Trek's only strength, they lean on mindless action sequences that don't make sense, because those sell to test audiences conditioned on eighties action movies, they toss in a try at legitimacy with hiring a Mycologist, because they need to be able to claim some (remote) connection to a real science to justify their fantasy magic (even when said science is almost completely kitchen sink and bogus, based on discredited hypotheses.)
Basically, they're trying to be meta. This shows up with a LOT of the positive press about the show, from people who basically didn't like any previous version of Star Trek mixed with people terrified that if Discovery fails, there won't be another try at new Star Trek. (aka Fans whom are Fans because they're fans of the Franchise on a meta level and don't want another situation like what happened with Enterprise, where dropping audience numbers killed the show just as it was coming out of the shadow of previous versions.)
so there's a lot of that. There's also a lot of cross-emulation in how the over-all property of "Science Fiction" is being handled on a meta scale, with BBC's decision to hire political playwrights to write for Doctor Who the last two seasons, instead of hiring British Science Fiction writers-Hollywood's doing the same thing, but using a (mildly) wider pool; cop show writers, sitcom writers, and unemployed art-house type literarys in addition to the political activists.
this is largely because their 'core audience' they're trying to reach, are not science fiction people, so they don't hire science fiction people (could also be that somehow, Syfy and HBO have hired all the science fiction people who could find work in Burbank...)
If I may be permitted to shorten my first comment and your reply...
A hack hired a hack production company, populated by hacks, to produce a hack version of a known and generally liked property. The hacks used the contemporary, and obvious, hack method of "deconstructing" that which came before because the hacks are unable imagine a way to succeed without leaning all too heavily on popular characters that have been established prior to their own hackneyed efforts. Once the pay wall fails (Oh, sure, now a wall is perfectly moral...) well, there is always ad revenue from Youtube.
I don't buy that most of the production is as monotagonistic (I think I just invented that word) as you suggest. What I mean by that, for example, is that I'm not just a gamer. I'm also a sociopolitical analyst/commentator, a painter, screen writer, etc... These are all things I have done that, by themselves, are different but being that they are my experiences they bleed into and inform each other. I assume that most people somewhat similar. That would mean that the actions taken in the attempts to murder the most beloved franchises is in part a choice. That choice reveals things.
Re: the SyFy/HBO/Burbank thing... What about all that fan content on Youtube? The is a significant portion of which that is well written and produced on less that a shoestring budget. Hollywood in general seems more interested in remaining the in-cestuous legacy circle-jurk than making solid business decisions. Spending $350,000,000 to make $600,000,000 is not as great an outcome as spending $10,000,000 to make $500,000,000. I'm saying give 10 million to a fan production with proven ability and tell them to make you a feature-length film. Or keep hiring the hacks who are considered by many to be franchise killers.
OI but I think you caught some of it. The problem is a Culture Problem. That fan producer is not only an unknown, but they're also 'the competition', a threat to the echo-chambers and um... yeah, the 'family' as it were. (people who didn't go to the right film school, don't belong to the right sociopolitical activist groups, don't reside or originate in the right zip-code. Outsiders, in other words.)
Consider who are the pro critics? what makes them 'credible'?
well, they attended the right schools, and belong to the right trade organizations. Those are two major factors. The 'right' clubs and active in the 'right' causes. Thus, Those critics get quoted on Rotten Tomatoes, get to vote in 'critic's choice' events and get their articles featured in major magazines.
It's the same way with the amatuer fan-filmer with the pro-quality writing and efficient use of ridiculously limited resources vice the 'hollywood pro' who hasn't ever had to be more than a hack with good social graces (for the community they're in.)
Why do a lot of folks like The Orville and despise Discovery?
It's because Discovery is made for the Critics, and for the people 'inside' the community (but mostly the critics). It's that 'incestuous' relationship you bring up. The money-men are right in there with the activist hacks and the has-beens protecting their 'turf', they don't want to take the risk of a small investment for possible big gains, because it kinda makes them look stupid when they're pushing out hundred million dollar flops and some amatuer breaks in with a budget in the five or six digits and does it better than they do.
Fair points. At least we see many of the same issues.
The saddest part is that, and I speculate, those of us who have been fans for decades truly wanted ST:D to work and be brilliant. Then it seemed that with each press release, each social media post, and each sneak peek we were being pushed further and further away. Not walking away, mind you, being pushed. By the time that ST:D was released this seemed to be the industry standard; Throwing the built in fan base overboard. It happened with Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, and (I hope I'm wrong) Marvel.
Speaking of sad parts, what will get the blame? "Franchise Fatigue." That will be a lie. Such a thing doesn't really exist for the fan-for-life demographic. On the other hand, "Hack Fatigue" is all too real.
Honestly... I think you're both barking at the wind. No one cares about film critics enough to the extent that they'd introduce plot elements just so a handful of people would like it. TOS was meant to appeal to what was judged to be a reasonably popular demographic at the time. The more recent shows? Same principle applies now, just with flashier graphics and less boring dialog.
Honestly... I think you're both barking at the wind. No one cares about film critics enough to the extent that they'd introduce plot elements just so a handful of people would like it. TOS was meant to appeal to what was judged to be a reasonably popular demographic at the time. The more recent shows? Same principle applies now, just with flashier graphics and less boring dialog.
"Less boring" dialogue? have you SEEN Discovery?? adding the 7 dirty words George Carlin talked about in the sixties doesn't make inanity less inane or mundanity less mundane or vapidity less vapid. (damn, couldn't make it fit the rhythm.)
Honestly though, good luck writing something without having "inane", "mundane", or "vapid" dialog. Especially since those terms are subjective and open to interpretation.
Honestly... I think you're both barking at the wind. No one cares about film critics enough to the extent that they'd introduce plot elements just so a handful of people would like it. TOS was meant to appeal to what was judged to be a reasonably popular demographic at the time. The more recent shows? Same principle applies now, just with flashier graphics and less boring dialog.
"Less boring" dialogue? have you SEEN Discovery?? adding the 7 dirty words George Carlin talked about in the sixties doesn't make inanity less inane or mundanity less mundane or vapidity less vapid. (damn, couldn't make it fit the rhythm.)
Honestly though, good luck writing something without having "inane", "mundane", or "vapid" dialog. Especially since those terms are subjective and open to interpretation.
*reads*
You're using that, what fans think of as worst bit of TOS (eh, I'm fine with the episode, but I can see why folks don't like it), compared to the 'best' of Discovery?
Yea.....real campy.....real cringe-worthy. That'd why it's been well loved for over 50 years, that's what, during the decade between the end of TOS and TMP fans were keeping it alive because it's so cringe-worthy. That's why they keep trying remakes of it, and 'visual reboots' of it, and so many comparing said remakes and reboots to the original. Just because it had the budget of a modern production's catering bill, and little to no resources (the visual effects folks and the set makers often scrounged in dumpsters for stuff.....the same could be said for classic, pre 2005 Doctor Who).......you know what? I find the stuff made with little to no resources and creativity far more enjoyable, and repeat viewing worthy than a vast majority of today's multi-million buck productions
Anyhow.
It does now seem the normal, throw the existing fanbases out with the bathwater,
I never really cared what rotten tomatoes, or guys of the past, like Siskel and Ebert, say about this or that. Could give a damn about these overrated folks who made it to the 'big clubs'.
Also, as stated by Pat, here. OI but I think you caught some of it. The problem is a Culture Problem. That fan producer is not only an unknown, but they're also 'the competition', a threat to the echo-chambers and um... yeah, the 'family' as it were. (people who didn't go to the right film school, don't belong to the right sociopolitical activist groups, don't reside or originate in the right zip-code. Outsiders, in other words.)
Consider who are the pro critics? what makes them 'credible'?
well, they attended the right schools, and belong to the right trade organizations. Those are two major factors. The 'right' clubs and active in the 'right' causes. Thus, Those critics get quoted on Rotten Tomatoes, get to vote in 'critic's choice' events and get their articles featured in major magazines.
It's the same way with the amatuer fan-filmer with the pro-quality writing and efficient use of ridiculously limited resources vice the 'hollywood pro' who hasn't ever had to be more than a hack with good social graces (for the community they're in.)
Why do a lot of folks like The Orville and despise Discovery?
It's because Discovery is made for the Critics, and for the people 'inside' the community (but mostly the critics). It's that 'incestuous' relationship you bring up. The money-men are right in there with the activist hacks and the has-beens protecting their 'turf', they don't want to take the risk of a small investment for possible big gains, because it kinda makes them look stupid when they're pushing out hundred million dollar flops and some amatuer breaks in with a budget in the five or six digits and does it better than they do. <- Bingo, Pat.
Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who and all that super hero stuff seems to really be just flash, and no substance or heart, anymore.
So far, Discovery, I can compare to the TNG episode Royale ...not the story, I enjoyed that, fun episode....but the book that was what Col. Richey's virtual world was based on. Being described as a second rate novelist, where Richey said, in his diary, that he welcomes death when it happens, because it was so awful. I could see a Todd Mathews among the Discovery staff.
The thing is CBS is at fault mostly why ST-D isn't well received, first off its on their premium streaming service which is ignoring the fact star trek is a niche show, what I mean is there is only certain people who like and love trek, with that said a lot of those people might not or not willing to pay to watch discovery, this fact is why its not as well received CBS forgot the growing pains with TNG but TNG was on cable and eventually a lot of TOS fans came around and started loving it.
In the end CBS is at fault tbh they should've and could've put it on cable , this way it could've possibly even garnered its own trek following because we all have our own trek.
Or at least put it on Netflix NA. It's already on Netflix here in Europe, which gives it a pretty wide audience here. A lot of people on this side of the pond don't watch cable any more.
What happened to the good old days when advertisers paid for our entertainment? Now not only do we have to pay, but we have to view advertisements too.
Those days didn't exist in UK. In the UK, to view live broadcasts you have to have a TV license, which comes with an annual fee. That fee is then used to subsidise or Public Service Broadcasters (BBC, ITV, etc.).
What happened to the good old days when advertisers paid for our entertainment? Now not only do we have to pay, but we have to view advertisements too.
Commercial advertising on a service that you pay for is basically a double dip. I say take the chips away. Let them dip alone.
Also Royale was one of the most cringe-worthy episodes of TNG. It's one of those eps that I choose to forget exists simply because it doesn't fit into the fictional universe. Sure, the astronaut-ish guy kinda fits, it's everything else.
Im gonna chip in here and say i wasnt a fan of the first season (still watched it) but then again im not a fan of many first seasons of star trek, whenever i re-watch next gen Ds9 or voyager ill often skip episodes cause i cant stand them (Code of Honor has to be one of the worst episodes in season 1 of next gen).
But the one thing they have in common is that they are finding their footing and often a series gets better by season 2 (Enterprise not included as it got better by season 3).
So far season two of disco im enjoying a lot more, and it seams to me they are litening
SPOILERS AHEAD
I mean my biggest gripe has been about the design of the klingons yet in the last episode i couldnt beleive how much nicer they looked just with hair, i mean im still not a fan of the grey skin but i can live with it, and there adding a background to the D7 was a nice touch.
As for the entire thing looking to different technology wise that has never botherd me we have to face it the origional series is old and dated, hell Geane himself chaged everything including the klingons as soon as he got a bigger budget with the motion picture.
So to sum up im enjoying season 2 so far and if they keep the same path i think it will become a great adition to the franchise.
Plus im also a tiny bit hoping the angel is a iconion.
"It appears we have lost our sex appeal, captain."- Tuvok
My main issue with Discovery isn't the new Klingorcs or that certain events rewrite Star Trek canon. It's that Discovery abandons the core philosophy of Star Trek. Instead of Roddenberry's optimistic view of our future in which a united humanity has finally grown up, we get that same gritty, dark, pessimistic universe that so many other Scify franchises chose to portray. With Discovery, Star Trek has lost what made it unique.
The trailer for season 2 looks promising though. I hope it's gonna be less like Star Wars and more like Star Trek.
Ditto
Lyradius
Fleet Admiral
Exploration and Trade Alliance
Season 1 made very bad choices, very very bad. Aesthetic, plot, writing, characterisation it was TNG season 1 levels. Then Empress Sato Georgiou happened and enjoyment could be found. Season 2 is fixing some of its mistakes (who knew hair made such a big difference to the "Those Are Klingons?") Maybe Discovery has found its beard.
Yes because alien races should speak English perfectly
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Comments
It's not getting smaller, it's staying silent, because in today's culture if you're not on the extremes both sides will shout you down, so it's just not worth the effort.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Actually found Solo to be far better than Last Jedi. Last Jedi was just so boring for most of the movie. The bad reception that Last Jedi got likely burned a lot of Star Wars fans from seeing Solo.
#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 dislike ST:D because I recognized some red flags right away and it's been downhill from there.
For example CBS told us from the outset that they were going into this with the intent of being cheap. The Klingon and Ship design were leftovers that were rejected in the '70's. MY GOD THE '70'S! This was a decade in which visual asthetics took a huge hit. It's as though "garish" was a foreign concept.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they went with that hideous uniform design. Though, to be fair, there is one element I like from those uniforms; the metallic department designation. Its implementation sucked, but I like the concept.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they decided to reuse the JJ verse sets. Now in principle I'm all for the cost savings this creates if done in a creative manner. But, no. JJ's brig was Discovery's brig. They didn't even try.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they decided to lean too hard into social engineering. Not in a well thought out way, either. Personally I take no issue with TRIBBLE characters on a show. It's when the TRIBBLE characters are TRIBBLE because they are TRIBBLE and do TRIBBLE things to be TRIBBLE while constantly reminding us that they're TRIBBLE. It gets tedious. What's his favorite color? Where did she fly her first hot air balloon? After he put the lime in the coconut did he decide to have some cheesecake instead? Did she drive to the academy or pack a bag lunch? That's the kind of stuff that's worth knowing about. It's called character development. Look into it, Bad Robot.
Then, when that wasn't enough, they just had to lean hard into contemporary politics so now we're no longer looking at a future worth creating, but a future where humanity is populated by entitled, self-important nincompoops. I remember an era when Starfleet consisted mostly of professionals. Experts in their fields, even. Can we say that today?
The action in Star Trek used to be a treat, because most of the time it involved thinking. This has become less true as the franchise has aged. Where Star Trek once inspired people to get into the sciences, I suspect this current incarnation will inspire people to get into vapidity by comparison.
I know I'm being a bit harsh, and if you like Star Trek: Discovery more power to you. It's not my place to make up your mind.
The interesting part is that for how much I dislike Discovery and the JJ verse, I have to say that Cryptic had make those ship models look good! It amazes me. Those hack frauds at Bad Robot make things look like junk, but Cryptic manages to make them look good. I don't know how that happened, but well done Devs, well done.
EDITED to fix a formatting error
I have been watching Star Trek most of my life, all the series, the cartoon, the movies, etc..
And I have seen change a lot, and have I liked all those changes - NO, but that is part of being human.
Now when ST: Discovery first started to come up, I saw all the YouTube videos in support or against the new show. BUT I thought what the heck I give a try.
It is really not that bad (IMO), and yes it does not follow "Canon", but as someone said on here Trek has never followed canon or Klingons would still be green with bad fu manchu mustaches.
Is Discovery perfect nope never will be, but the same can be said about ALL the series including TOS. My biggest gripe about Discovery is how it is on CBS special channel BS
If I may be permitted to shorten my first comment and your reply...
A hack hired a hack production company, populated by hacks, to produce a hack version of a known and generally liked property. The hacks used the contemporary, and obvious, hack method of "deconstructing" that which came before because the hacks are unable imagine a way to succeed without leaning all too heavily on popular characters that have been established prior to their own hackneyed efforts. Once the pay wall fails (Oh, sure, now a wall is perfectly moral...) well, there is always ad revenue from Youtube.
I don't buy that most of the production is as monotagonistic (I think I just invented that word) as you suggest. What I mean by that, for example, is that I'm not just a gamer. I'm also a sociopolitical analyst/commentator, a painter, screen writer, etc... These are all things I have done that, by themselves, are different but being that they are my experiences they bleed into and inform each other. I assume that most people somewhat similar. That would mean that the actions taken in the attempts to murder the most beloved franchises is in part a choice. That choice reveals things.
Re: the SyFy/HBO/Burbank thing... What about all that fan content on Youtube? The is a significant portion of which that is well written and produced on less that a shoestring budget. Hollywood in general seems more interested in remaining the in-cestuous legacy circle-jurk than making solid business decisions. Spending $350,000,000 to make $600,000,000 is not as great an outcome as spending $10,000,000 to make $500,000,000. I'm saying give 10 million to a fan production with proven ability and tell them to make you a feature-length film. Or keep hiring the hacks who are considered by many to be franchise killers.
Fair points. At least we see many of the same issues.
The saddest part is that, and I speculate, those of us who have been fans for decades truly wanted ST:D to work and be brilliant. Then it seemed that with each press release, each social media post, and each sneak peek we were being pushed further and further away. Not walking away, mind you, being pushed. By the time that ST:D was released this seemed to be the industry standard; Throwing the built in fan base overboard. It happened with Ghostbusters, Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, and (I hope I'm wrong) Marvel.
Speaking of sad parts, what will get the blame? "Franchise Fatigue." That will be a lie. Such a thing doesn't really exist for the fan-for-life demographic. On the other hand, "Hack Fatigue" is all too real.
My character Tsin'xing
Yes, TOS... so much campy cringeworthy dialog there.
Honestly though, good luck writing something without having "inane", "mundane", or "vapid" dialog. Especially since those terms are subjective and open to interpretation.
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
*reads*
You're using that, what fans think of as worst bit of TOS (eh, I'm fine with the episode, but I can see why folks don't like it), compared to the 'best' of Discovery?
Ugh.....
For a comparison, a real comparison, mind you, why not use some of this?
Yea.....real campy.....real cringe-worthy. That'd why it's been well loved for over 50 years, that's what, during the decade between the end of TOS and TMP fans were keeping it alive because it's so cringe-worthy. That's why they keep trying remakes of it, and 'visual reboots' of it, and so many comparing said remakes and reboots to the original. Just because it had the budget of a modern production's catering bill, and little to no resources (the visual effects folks and the set makers often scrounged in dumpsters for stuff.....the same could be said for classic, pre 2005 Doctor Who).......you know what? I find the stuff made with little to no resources and creativity far more enjoyable, and repeat viewing worthy than a vast majority of today's multi-million buck productions
Anyhow.
It does now seem the normal, throw the existing fanbases out with the bathwater,
I never really cared what rotten tomatoes, or guys of the past, like Siskel and Ebert, say about this or that. Could give a damn about these overrated folks who made it to the 'big clubs'.
Also, as stated by Pat, here.
OI but I think you caught some of it. The problem is a Culture Problem. That fan producer is not only an unknown, but they're also 'the competition', a threat to the echo-chambers and um... yeah, the 'family' as it were. (people who didn't go to the right film school, don't belong to the right sociopolitical activist groups, don't reside or originate in the right zip-code. Outsiders, in other words.)
Consider who are the pro critics? what makes them 'credible'?
well, they attended the right schools, and belong to the right trade organizations. Those are two major factors. The 'right' clubs and active in the 'right' causes. Thus, Those critics get quoted on Rotten Tomatoes, get to vote in 'critic's choice' events and get their articles featured in major magazines.
It's the same way with the amatuer fan-filmer with the pro-quality writing and efficient use of ridiculously limited resources vice the 'hollywood pro' who hasn't ever had to be more than a hack with good social graces (for the community they're in.)
Why do a lot of folks like The Orville and despise Discovery?
It's because Discovery is made for the Critics, and for the people 'inside' the community (but mostly the critics). It's that 'incestuous' relationship you bring up. The money-men are right in there with the activist hacks and the has-beens protecting their 'turf', they don't want to take the risk of a small investment for possible big gains, because it kinda makes them look stupid when they're pushing out hundred million dollar flops and some amatuer breaks in with a budget in the five or six digits and does it better than they do. <- Bingo, Pat.
Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who and all that super hero stuff seems to really be just flash, and no substance or heart, anymore.
So far, Discovery, I can compare to the TNG episode Royale ...not the story, I enjoyed that, fun episode....but the book that was what Col. Richey's virtual world was based on. Being described as a second rate novelist, where Richey said, in his diary, that he welcomes death when it happens, because it was so awful. I could see a Todd Mathews among the Discovery staff.
In the end CBS is at fault tbh they should've and could've put it on cable , this way it could've possibly even garnered its own trek following because we all have our own trek.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Commercial advertising on a service that you pay for is basically a double dip. I say take the chips away. Let them dip alone.
Clip 1: outside of context it's meaningless jabbering. IIRC in-context it's kind along-winded and pompous.
Clip 2: it's an OK speech, but the only reason it works is that the situation it's spoken in is so absurdly contrived that it makes no sense.
Clip 3: yeah... not sure why you like it. It doesn't feel like people talking. It feels like caricatures imitating people.
Now for what I think was a REALLY good speech:
It really gets to the heart of the matter and makes you think.
Also Royale was one of the most cringe-worthy episodes of TNG. It's one of those eps that I choose to forget exists simply because it doesn't fit into the fictional universe. Sure, the astronaut-ish guy kinda fits, it's everything else.
My character Tsin'xing
But the one thing they have in common is that they are finding their footing and often a series gets better by season 2 (Enterprise not included as it got better by season 3).
So far season two of disco im enjoying a lot more, and it seams to me they are litening
SPOILERS AHEAD
I mean my biggest gripe has been about the design of the klingons yet in the last episode i couldnt beleive how much nicer they looked just with hair, i mean im still not a fan of the grey skin but i can live with it, and there adding a background to the D7 was a nice touch.
As for the entire thing looking to different technology wise that has never botherd me we have to face it the origional series is old and dated, hell Geane himself chaged everything including the klingons as soon as he got a bigger budget with the motion picture.
So to sum up im enjoying season 2 so far and if they keep the same path i think it will become a great adition to the franchise.
Plus im also a tiny bit hoping the angel is a iconion.
"It appears we have lost our sex appeal, captain."- Tuvok
Ditto
Fleet Admiral
Exploration and Trade Alliance
Someone should create a video of that scene where they replace the TOS Klingons with Discovery Klingons.
We'd have TOS with adversaries that talk like they got a mouthful of marbles XD
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.