DSC season 3 has all the earmarks of an extreme damage control story.
Only in the minds of conspiracy theorists. Discovery S3 is just CBS taking Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda and making it canon like it was always meant to be, something already attempted not too long after Enterprise stopped airing with the show Star Trek: Federation.
as part of setting up a paradox solution to the compatibility problem it has with even an updated TOS.
Discovery has no problems with TOS, or even an updated TOS. The only "problems" come from people who try to force the idea of visual literalism in a science fiction show, when even the people who made TOS have said they only made it that way because that is what they could afford.
to coattail the then still popular Kelvin universe stuff with even more Star Wars-isms thrown in along with a "Fast and Furious" style shallow action format.
Ironic given that TOS was pitched, and made, as a space western, an action show, and had Kirk and crew fighting their enemies more then anything else. Star Trek originally was an action show, it was TNG that tried to change it, then DS9 and VOY went back to more TOS like.
Plugging one's ears and chanting "conspiracy theory" does not make the facts go away (and people say TOS traditionalists are obstinate...). I was not talking about the exaggerations, wild corporate shenanigans theories, and whatnot of Midnights Edge and Doomcock (and I am not going to follow you down that rabbit hole so that is the last I will say about those clowns here).
I was referring to the fact that Moonves made no secret whatsoever about his contempt for Star Trek (and TOS most of all) in the years before before the DSC project started, and to comments others on the production team have made in legitimate interviews and even behind the scenes clips (in the clips there is even body language that supports my point).
First off, they made no attempt whatsoever to actually update The Cage/TOS when they created DSC, the target template was always The Undiscovered Country, along with obvious Abramsisms like the picture window on the bridges, the silly bedazzling on the uniforms, and the truly execrable gunnery. In fact, the costume designer mentioned first suggesting an updated TOS uniform but that "they" didn't like it and she brushed off a follow-up question as to why with a quick "it just didn't work out" or words to that effect.
The overall anti-TOS atmosphere was thick with things like the big signs in the design rooms that screamed "NO ROUND ENGINES!!!" in bold block letters and other things. It was not exactly a sign that they were trying very hard to mesh with TOS in any constructive way.
Ah, the old Genisis II > Star Trek > Andromeda progression theory. That brings back memories from back when it was argued over while Andromeda was still on the air. Personally I do favor the Genisis II > Star Trek part, though canon wise the link was broken by First Contact. Comments by Roddenberry at least gave the impression that he developed the series out of Star Trek backstory material however.
The Andromeda connection is more complicated. His original pitch never actually said it was the Federation, he used phrases such as "like the Federation" and "it could be the Federation" but he obviously was keeping his options open while at the same time fishing using the popularity of Star Trek as bait. And the Andromeda put together from his pitch and notes that actually aired broke that connection rather thoroughly with its very different backstory (for instance where are the space centaurs in Trek? and why do they use kinetic weapons in Andromeda when they are made obsolete by warp drive in Trek which would have been much earlier than when Andromeda herself was built?).
If they had ever made Star Trek: Federation it might have had some bearing on the "post Federation" stuff (though it was more of a slump than a fall), but instead it is just an oblique example of CBS (under Moonves) disinterest in making another Star Trek show. Singer and company stopped trying to pitch it when they saw that CBS was ignoring Trek even as Paramount was gearing up for ST:2009.
Actually TOS was conceived as "Hornblower in space", and was developed and pitched that way up until The Cage. Roddenberry found that the pitch did not work on a Hollywood tired of sailing ship movies in general and, without changing anything about the show itself, started using the currently number one show on the air, Wagon Train, in the pitch instead of the Hornblower novels, and toned down any other naval references. Notice how the rank structure was more like sailing ship days, and Roddenberry used a lot of sailing ship schticks like dismounting one of the ships guns and sending it with a landing party. The "western in space" thing is just a myth based on a last ditch sales tactic (though they made a sort of in-joke reference to it with the episode Spectre of the Gun).
Phoenix, Andromeda is substantially different because there are legal aspects to copying your own work, if someone else holds the copyright. (Look up JMS's response to people who want him to do a lookalike of Babylon 5; don't ask him yourself on Twitter, as he's so tired of answering that one that he's taken to blocking instead.)
However, there are notes from Gene indicating that he envisioned the series as a potential future spinoff - "what if the Federation fell? What happens centuries later?" The changes, it would appear, came after, probably on advice from his attorneys. And the ubermensch Dylan Hunt has been weaving in and out of his narratives since the initial pitch for The Questor Tapes.
The rest of your post is based on your own innate prejudices (and really, there are much better reasons for hating Les Moonves than that).
Phoenix, Andromeda is substantially different because there are legal aspects to copying your own work, if someone else holds the copyright. (Look up JMS's response to people who want him to do a lookalike of Babylon 5; don't ask him yourself on Twitter, as he's so tired of answering that one that he's taken to blocking instead.)
However, there are notes from Gene indicating that he envisioned the series as a potential future spinoff - "what if the Federation fell? What happens centuries later?" The changes, it would appear, came after, probably on advice from his attorneys. And the ubermensch Dylan Hunt has been weaving in and out of his narratives since the initial pitch for The Questor Tapes.
The rest of your post is based on your own innate prejudices (and really, there are much better reasons for hating Les Moonves than that).
True, there are IP ownership considerations in something like that, and Roddenberry undoubtedly took them into account, but the overall feel of the pitch was that he was keeping options open rather than skirting copyright. Actually pitching it as a Star Trek sequel would have locked it into a market of exactly one: Paramount, and I doubt he wanted to limit his options like that. Pitching it the way he did meant that he could sell to Paramount as an idea he would redevelop into a Star Trek, but if they did not take it he could go around to the other studios and sell it as a standalone.
The keyword here is "potential", he was not averse to adapting it either way but the jury is still out on whether he intended it to the Federation from the start.
The Questor Tapes was one of the series pilots that did not contain Dylan Hunt at all in name or function. It was a definite Holmes and Watson dynamic such as he used in Spectre and Assignment: Earth.
Dylan Hunt was always used in a triangle dynamic where he is the focal point between an ivory tower companion and a devil's advocate one like you see in Genesis II, the original Star Trek, and Andromeda. The details are different in each (and Pike does not have the name) but the pattern is clear with Isiah (probably anyway), Spock (the Cage version), and Andromeda (or possibly Rev Bem at times) as the "angel" side and an enhanced female companion with a darker or wild side on the other (Lyra-a, Number One, and Bekka Valentine). A lot of authors recycle stuff like that.
I am not sure what you are referring to by "your own innate prejudices" since that could be about several things.
If you are saying I am a "DSC hater" or whatever, I assure you that I am not. I do not hate the show like the popular caricature of a TOS traditionalist, I actually think it is a good generic sci-fi action show. It is not a favorite (I prefer Dark Matter and Killjoys over it for instance), but I do watch it when I get the chance (which is not often so I have mostly seen it out of sequence with plot synopses and transcripts filling in the remaining blanks).
If it is that I prefer period shows to actually look reasonably like the period they portray (real or fictional) or that I am disappointed that CBS chose to make DSC in a way guaranteed to be divisive instead of bringing old and new fans together (which would be far less difficult than many here seem to think), it is true enough in that one respect, but it does not change the facts that I presented one bit.
Facts like how they made no attempt to actually update TOS and skipped straight to TUC, which some of the top production people mentioned in interviews. For example, watch the one with the set designer if you do not believe me, she talks about how there was no way they were going to consider even for a second the "cardboard Enterprise" as she called it so they went straight to TUC as their aesthetic template.
I hope they make some effort this time to do that updating they skipped with DSC, but I doubt that they will bother, especially since they have most of the same people at the top with their anti-TOS prejudice that DSC has.
DSC season 3 has all the earmarks of an extreme damage control story.
Only in the minds of conspiracy theorists. Discovery S3 is just CBS taking Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda and making it canon like it was always meant to be, something already attempted not too long after Enterprise stopped airing with the show Star Trek: Federation.
At least the finale of DIS' second season means they can now do whatever they want, without "purists" screaming that it's all "wrong". It might turn out really good, or not.
And getting a better 'Andromeda' would certainly be an added bonus. That show did have some potential, but Kevin Sorbo and the writers quickly wore it down. Early on they were also trying hard to make Andromeda a "cool sci-fi". Sunglasses at the VR-battlestations-cool.
I'm optimistic about this series. I like the call-back to more exploring at least by the title & hopefully by the script. So far I've enjoyed the Pike character, Number 1 I've not really enjoyed yet but they haven't really focused on yet neither & I'm also warming up to their Spock character. I'm still worried that CBS is over-saturating with Star Trek.
Right now the biggest danger for oversaturation is the still unhealed split in the fanbase. The oldest most loyal fans are either already alienated (over the compatibility issues between CBS Trek and the older ones) or are getting fed up with the shallow action movie style format CBS seems to be stuck on lately.
If they can do something to heal the breach and bring back the people who stuck to Star Trek for a long time but left over DSC there would not be an oversaturation point for the most part since they never get enough good Trek.
Of course there is also the Hollywood-speak usage of the term "over saturation" that really means that the writers ran out of ideas and they want to shut down the show before they end up embarrassing themselves with their own "Great Vegetable Rebellion".
Right now the biggest danger for oversaturation is the still unhealed split in the fanbase. The oldest most loyal fans are either already alienated (over the compatibility issues between CBS Trek and the older ones) or are getting fed up with the shallow action movie style format CBS seems to be stuck on lately.
If they can do something to heal the breach and bring back the people who stuck to Star Trek for a long time but left over DSC there would not be an oversaturation point for the most part since they never get enough good Trek.
Of course there is also the Hollywood-speak usage of the term "over saturation" that really means that the writers ran out of ideas and they want to shut down the show before they end up embarrassing themselves with their own "Great Vegetable Rebellion".
Don't confuse keyboard warriors with real life action. The majority of people complaining about the new shows (myself included, to some degree) still watched them and will continue to do so. Some, like me, will watch them hoping they improve. Others will watch them just be able to pick apart the flaws. But either way, viewers are viewers as far as CBS is concerned.
Just to clarify my opinion: I both liked and disliked a bunch of different things in both Discovery and Picard, so I'm not saying I hated the shows. I also really enjoyed disco s2 mainly because of Pike, which is why I'm really looking forward to SNW.
But I do agree with the potential problem of oversaturation. I was really enjoying the Marvel movies until one day I just got tired of seeing them all the time and still haven't watched the last few. One day I'll catch up and probably enjoy, but yeah.
Right now the biggest danger for oversaturation is the still unhealed split in the fanbase. The oldest most loyal fans are either already alienated (over the compatibility issues between CBS Trek and the older ones) or are getting fed up with the shallow action movie style format CBS seems to be stuck on lately.
If they can do something to heal the breach and bring back the people who stuck to Star Trek for a long time but left over DSC there would not be an oversaturation point for the most part since they never get enough good Trek.
Of course there is also the Hollywood-speak usage of the term "over saturation" that really means that the writers ran out of ideas and they want to shut down the show before they end up embarrassing themselves with their own "Great Vegetable Rebellion".
Don't confuse keyboard warriors with real life action. The majority of people complaining about the new shows (myself included, to some degree) still watched them and will continue to do so. Some, like me, will watch them hoping they improve. Others will watch them just be able to pick apart the flaws. But either way, viewers are viewers as far as CBS is concerned.
Just to clarify my opinion: I both liked and disliked a bunch of different things in both Discovery and Picard, so I'm not saying I hated the shows. I also really enjoyed disco s2 mainly because of Pike, which is why I'm really looking forward to SNW.
But I do agree with the potential problem of oversaturation. I was really enjoying the Marvel movies until one day I just got tired of seeing them all the time and still haven't watched the last few. One day I'll catch up and probably enjoy, but yeah.
That is true too, I am another one of them who watches the CBS Trek on a (very in my case) casual basis in fact.
Still, there are a lot of the old fans who either do not watch the new stuff at all, or (like me) are not interested in the 'new interpretation' enough to watch it with any regularly. Personally I think it is an OK generic sci-fi but nothing special and not even particularly nostalgic because it simply is so far off the beam of the original for it to feel that way. Frankly, if it was on old-time regular TV opposite Dark Matter or Killjoys back in the days before DVRs and streaming were a thing I would have probably watched one of the latter shows instead of DSC.
Even many of the purist "rage watchers" that just watch it to scoff and pick it apart have tired of the game and moved on to something else (and I know at least one irl who has done exactly that).
But I do agree with the potential problem of oversaturation. I was really enjoying the Marvel movies until one day I just got tired of seeing them all the time and still haven't watched the last few. One day I'll catch up and probably enjoy, but yeah.
I think this is why they're going with different genres. It gives you a bigger pie by broadening the audience.
The problem with DSC has always been that Moonves intended for DSC to destroy the TOS that he hated so much..
No, that was Gene Roddenberry when he was developing Star Trek: The Next Generation circa 1985/86. GR hated the fact that he had sold all TOS rights to Paramount at the end of that series run and got no part of the last (then) 18 years of TOS merchandising; and now with this second chance he saw TNG as one day totally supplanting TOS so that he could reap all the merchandising rewards.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
The problem with DSC has always been that Moonves intended for DSC to destroy the TOS that he hated so much..
No, that was Gene Roddenberry when he was developing Star Trek: The Next Generation circa 1985/86. GR hated the fact that he had sold all TOS rights to Paramount at the end of that series run and got no part of the last (then) 18 years of TOS merchandising; and now with this second chance he saw TNG as one day totally supplanting TOS so that he could reap all the merchandising rewards.
That is not quite the same thing. For one, Roddenberry hated the "space procedural" format of TNG and kept trying to get them to go back to a control room drama format or at least something close. And he insisted that TNG respect TOS as much as possible (in fact he had blue-faced, howling, desk banging arguments with Berman about that). He did have a few capricious periods where he "decanonized" things when someone got him really irritated, only to officially accept them back a week or two later after he cooled down.
One good example is the D7. In TNG the D7 was the same as it was in TOS except for it being refitted into K't'ingas like the way the Constitutions were refitted, but the D7 in DSC was what is now called the Sech (listen to the dialog where it appears, they distinctly call it a D7) before CBS went into damage control mode and made a big deal out of the Klingons suddenly making a "new" ship class, a familiar-looking D7 and ignored the earlier attempt to overwrite the TOS D7 with the Sech.
Moonves on the other hand made no secret of his dislike for science fiction in general and how much he hated Star Trek (the real reason he killed ENT, they said it was for lack of viewership but the actual numbers showed it was well on its way in recovering from a slump with no sign of another downturn when it was axed), and he has stated in interviews that he "disliked" (read "hated") TOS most of all.
By the 1980s, Roddenberry hated the idea that Starfleet was run on anything even vaguely resembling military lines; the reason there are couches for the First Officer and ship's counselor flanking the Captain's seat, with two more perches nearby, was because his original idea was to run the ship with a council, not a Captain. It reportedly took some time to disabuse him of the notion that emergencies could be handled by a committee.
I wouldn't say he "hated" TOS, but he certainly had come to disavow much of the show's content. He seemed to have run afoul of the "Hollywood Liberal" mindset, the one that's over the top about such things.
By the 1980s, Roddenberry hated the idea that Starfleet was run on anything even vaguely resembling military lines; the reason there are couches for the First Officer and ship's counselor flanking the Captain's seat, with two more perches nearby, was because his original idea was to run the ship with a council, not a Captain. It reportedly took some time to disabuse him of the notion that emergencies could be handled by a committee.
I wouldn't say he "hated" TOS, but he certainly had come to disavow much of the show's content. He seemed to have run afoul of the "Hollywood Liberal" mindset, the one that's over the top about such things.
The defining part of that is probably a statement he made in anger about him considering any Star Trek that he was not directly involved in non-canon (which included much of the third season of TOS), then recanted a week or so later after he cooled down. He was not against the idea of a loose military basis for Starfleet, he was against the extremes Paramount wanted to take the concept in pursuit of the unexpected action film fans (and the box office success) Star Wars turned up.
In the case of TNG there was even the problem that Roddenberry figured the Federation would have moved out of the "wild west" phase by then and become more civilized and cosmopolitan, which in turn would make Star Fleet drift that direction a bit as the old guard died out and the newer people filtered into top positions in it. In fact, there was supposed to be a running gag in TNG about that generational gap in outlook, but like many other things TNG was supposed to be/have it was dropped.
Paramount on the other hand wanted chaos and a Federation/Klingon war in their first proposal for TNG, very similar to first season Discovery (it even had the captain die in the pilot episode). Roddenberry was adamantly against it and the back and forth apparently resulted in the split military/civilian format and two overlapping crews on a ship that could split into the two roles physically that TNG was first greenlit with. The writers failed to get a handle on it however and Berman was brought in as a level head to hammer it into a more conventional, workable format (it wasn't until Macross 7 that someone came out with a successful series based on that kind of concept), and eventually Roddenberry butted heads with Berman over his use of formulaic police procedural format adapted to sci-fi.
Anyway, Roddenberry's concepts for Star Trek were a complex balance, not the simple unicorns-and-rainbows utopia some people think they were (even in some scholarly papers).
I don't understand the hate towards Discovery's darker story. I mean... war isn't pretty? War isn't fun? This was a dark time in the Federation's canonical history. Of course its not going be to all starlight and farts. So you what, people only want to see the parts of this FICTIONAL universe that are happy? That's called setting yourself up for disappointment. And its not realistic.
It's pretty darn simple, actually. Nobody has a problem with dark stories/episodes. What some/many people have a problem with is an entire show being dark...when it was the only Trek show on the air. Don't get me wrong, many people (including myself) feel DS9 is the best overall Trek show, and it certainly had a darker tone. But one of the reasons that worked so well is because both TNG and VOY were on at the same time keeping the more optimistic Trek tones alive and well.
So the problem a lot of folks had with Discovery when it first came out was the fact that it was the first Trek show in a while, the only Trek show on, and the entire show had a dark tone. Then Picard came out and did the same thing, which only compounded the way many people felt. Fortunately Lower Decks did the complete opposite, and hopefully SNW will too.
See, here is the thing: Discovery and Picard are still going to exist and continue with new seasons going forward. And there is nothing wrong with having some dark Trek shows. But don't argue that ALL Trek should be that way. If Discovery and Picard are going to be dark shows, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with SNW having a lighter optimistic tone.
Seriously, for fans of a show about infinite diversity and exploring TRIBBLE, and pushing limits and embracing change, I see a lot of people here that are so opposed to that, and all I can ask is...how are you a star trek fan? LOL
You were doing ok until the end, when you started gatekeeping. Literally no one is opposed to exploration of new things and that is a complete strawman argument.
Seriously, for fans of a show about infinite diversity and exploring TRIBBLE, and pushing limits and embracing change, I see a lot of people here that are so opposed to that, and all I can ask is...how are you a star trek fan? LOL
I can't speak to ST:D as I haven't seen it. For a fictional work, though, people expect it to have consistent themes. Infinite diversity doesn't mean anything if tossing out the core themes of a franchise is part of that.
I mean they could have had episodes of Kirk and Spock as New York detectives, not as if they went to Iotia or some similar planet, but literally NYPD. That would have been diverse, right?
It would be having Kirk jump into the cop car, "Come on, Spock, get into the Enterprise! Warp speed!" And he slams the gas to speed through the streets. "Get your phaser ready!" Spock checks his .38 revolver.
So when you turn Star Trek into a grimdark universe of conflict, destruction, murder, and treachery, it isn't recognizable as Star Trek even if you use the same names, or even faces. For many people I think its fair to say they saw ST:D and ST:P as twisting the franchise too much, and taking too many liberties with it to be recognizable.
I don't understand the hate towards Discovery's darker story. I mean... war isn't pretty? War isn't fun? This was a dark time in the Federation's canonical history. Of course its not going be to all starlight and farts. So you what, people only want to see the parts of this FICTIONAL universe that are happy? That's called setting yourself up for disappointment. And its not realistic.
And I'm sorry to be the one to say this. But Roddenberry is dead. And Star Trek has grown beyond him, he created a wonderful universe. But it did not end with him, nor should it. You can either accept that or live in denial. Stark Trek is an ever changing, living thing, by its very nature. A point it was supposed to teach people. And constantly demanding that it only exist in one way or another is the very antithesis of what it is.
I am looking forward to Strange New Worlds. But I also hope they don't let the fandom influence too much of their creative decisions. That's the worst thing that could happen to it. And considering that SNW will be set in a post-war Federation, of course it will return to the optimism. Like, they canonically have to return to that. Its not something they are doing by choice as some kind of favor to the fans. The Federation will be returning to peacetime, according to it's own timeline.
Seriously, for fans of a show about infinite diversity and exploring TRIBBLE, and pushing limits and embracing change, I see a lot of people here that are so opposed to that, and all I can ask is...how are you a star trek fan? LOL
The "dark" that people are talking about has nothing to do with war, in fact the Dominion war was one of the most popular arcs in Trek. Well done dark is not a problem, "In The Pale Moonlight" and "Siege of AR-558" are about as grim as TV gets but they were both done well. "Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night" was full of betrayal and rather perverted on top of it and it was also a popular episode.
The "dark" in DSC and PIC is not dramatic dark like the older shows, it is in the divisiveness, ruthless lack of empathy, backbiting and overall pessimistic outlook in the Kurtzman style Federation, and that is quit a different thing. Dramatic dark adds depth and tension, the shallow, cynical dark does does not add anything except annoyance for long time fans.
What I don't understand is the hate directed at TOS. That series was done with high quality writing, the only thing really dated about it is the lower production value they had back then which was hard pressed to do any kind of science fiction.
And even the hardcore purists don't generally want everything exactly the same, they just want something reasonably compatible with TOS (or the TNG era shows in the case of PIC) since they tend to treat anything in the show as a solid fictional history, and get annoyed when a new production team comes in and decides they don't care for the already existing story and just do whatever they want and "damn the continuity, full speed ahead". They are not against "diversity", they are against arbitrary changes just for the sake of change, if Kurtzman's bunch actually knew the original material and made some effort to build upon it instead of discarding it then they (and the other Trek fans) would be happy.
I don't understand the hate towards Discovery's darker story. I mean... war isn't pretty? War isn't fun? This was a dark time in the Federation's canonical history. Of course its not going be to all starlight and farts. So you what, people only want to see the parts of this FICTIONAL universe that are happy? That's called setting yourself up for disappointment. And its not realistic.
And I'm sorry to be the one to say this. But Roddenberry is dead. And Star Trek has grown beyond him, he created a wonderful universe. But it did not end with him, nor should it. You can either accept that or live in denial. Stark Trek is an ever changing, living thing, by its very nature. A point it was supposed to teach people. And constantly demanding that it only exist in one way or another is the very antithesis of what it is.
I am looking forward to Strange New Worlds. But I also hope they don't let the fandom influence too much of their creative decisions. That's the worst thing that could happen to it. And considering that SNW will be set in a post-war Federation, of course it will return to the optimism. Like, they canonically have to return to that. Its not something they are doing by choice as some kind of favor to the fans. The Federation will be returning to peacetime, according to it's own timeline.
Seriously, for fans of a show about infinite diversity and exploring TRIBBLE, and pushing limits and embracing change, I see a lot of people here that are so opposed to that, and all I can ask is...how are you a star trek fan? LOL
The "dark" that people are talking about has nothing to do with war, in fact the Dominion war was one of the most popular arcs in Trek. Well done dark is not a problem, "In The Pale Moonlight" and "Siege of AR-558" are about as grim as TV gets but they were both done well. "Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night" was full of betrayal and rather perverted on top of it and it was also a popular episode.
Also, like I mentioned in my previous post, DS9 was not the only Trek on TV at the time. The entire time it was on the air it had either TNG, VOY, or both, to do the 'normal'/optimistic Trek thing, while it did it's own 'darker' story. So, IMO, there is a big difference between:
A: having a more 'dark' toned Trek show happening *alongside* more traditional Trek, and
B: having a 'dark' themed Trek show being the ONLY Trek on. And for a while, that's what Disco was.
I mean, that stuff certainly has it's place(again, DS9 in my favorite overall show), but that "place" should never be the ONLY Trek show on at any given time(in my opinion). Any time there is a SINGLE Trek show on the "air"(or streaming), that show needs to really represent the feelings and themes of Trek (hopeful, optimistic, with SOME dark stories and themes every now and then, but not constant). Then, when you have more than one Trek show happening at the same time you have more room to explore that side of things with one of the shows while the other keeps to the course.
Of course, we now have Lower Decks and we also have SNW coming, which alleviates the concerns describe above. But that still doesn't change the initial reaction to those shows and the feelings and reactions many folks had for several years now.
Gatekeepers gonna gatekeep. And haters gonna hate.
There are things about TNG, DS9 and VOY I really don't like at all. There are other things which make these same series 'must watch' for me. Same with the JJ Abrams films.
The things I don't like? I'm keeping them to myself. Out of respect to the Star Trek fans who do like them. Star Trek has become a big enough tent so there is room for everybody. And isn't there plenty of divisiveness to go around already?
Just because you like a part of Star Trek which someone else does not isn't enough of a justification for them to tell you're not a "real" Star Trek fan. Or that the parts of Star Trek they prefer are superior in some way you are unable to understand.
How sad I find it a series of television shows and films which gave us the brilliant concept of I.D.I.C. has "fans" which draw knives and rail at each other behind the alleged anonymity of the Internet.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
The thing with the dark cynicism, in my opinion, is that it messes with the whole. You can watch and enjoy the more optimistic stories, but the other shows tell you everything is awful all the time...
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Gatekeepers gonna gatekeep. And haters gonna hate.
There are things about TNG, DS9 and VOY I really don't like at all. There are other things which make these same series 'must watch' for me. Same with the JJ Abrams films.
The things I don't like? I'm keeping them to myself. Out of respect to the Star Trek fans who do like them. Star Trek has become a big enough tent so there is room for everybody. And isn't there plenty of divisiveness to go around already?
Just because you like a part of Star Trek which someone else does not isn't enough of a justification for them to tell you're not a "real" Star Trek fan. Or that the parts of Star Trek they prefer are superior in some way you are unable to understand.
How sad I find it a series of television shows and films which gave us the brilliant concept of I.D.I.C. has "fans" which draw knives and rail at each other behind the alleged anonymity of the Internet.
I have no idea what you're talking about with this post. No one is gatekeeping or hating other people whom they disagree with. Some people think X, some think Y, and that is okay. There are no riots or fires here, just strong disagreement, though you seem to see otherwise so I'm curious where you see the flames.
I'd be real surprised if anyone on either side of these sorts of threads would not have a friendly chat and a drink with each other IRL, because of these discussions.
"Catspaw"
"And the Children Shall Lead"
"The Way to Eden"
"The Paradise Syndrome"
"The Omega Glory"
"Spock's Brain"
"Turnabout Intruder"
Shall I continue?
^This
TOS honestly has some of the most consistently bad writing of any of the Trek series. People rag on TNG and later shows for not following continuity, TOS couldn't even do it within one episode most of the time.
Of course they had some bad episodes, all shows do. And not everyone agrees on which are the bad ones and which are the good ones, just like any other show. Overall though they had good writing, some of it was even done by the big names in sci-fi and a lot of the things that some modern viewers think is the worst comes from allegories that seem off in today's zeitgeist but resonated better in the zeitgeist of the mid to late 1960s.
I don't understand the hate towards Discovery's darker story. I mean... war isn't pretty? War isn't fun? This was a dark time in the Federation's canonical history. Of course its not going be to all starlight and farts. So you what, people only want to see the parts of this FICTIONAL universe that are happy? That's called setting yourself up for disappointment. And its not realistic.
And I'm sorry to be the one to say this. But Roddenberry is dead. And Star Trek has grown beyond him, he created a wonderful universe. But it did not end with him, nor should it. You can either accept that or live in denial. Stark Trek is an ever changing, living thing, by its very nature. A point it was supposed to teach people. And constantly demanding that it only exist in one way or another is the very antithesis of what it is.
I am looking forward to Strange New Worlds. But I also hope they don't let the fandom influence too much of their creative decisions. That's the worst thing that could happen to it. And considering that SNW will be set in a post-war Federation, of course it will return to the optimism. Like, they canonically have to return to that. Its not something they are doing by choice as some kind of favor to the fans. The Federation will be returning to peacetime, according to it's own timeline.
Seriously, for fans of a show about infinite diversity and exploring TRIBBLE, and pushing limits and embracing change, I see a lot of people here that are so opposed to that, and all I can ask is...how are you a star trek fan? LOL
The "dark" that people are talking about has nothing to do with war, in fact the Dominion war was one of the most popular arcs in Trek. Well done dark is not a problem, "In The Pale Moonlight" and "Siege of AR-558" are about as grim as TV gets but they were both done well. "Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night" was full of betrayal and rather perverted on top of it and it was also a popular episode.
Also, like I mentioned in my previous post, DS9 was not the only Trek on TV at the time. The entire time it was on the air it had either TNG, VOY, or both, to do the 'normal'/optimistic Trek thing, while it did it's own 'darker' story. So, IMO, there is a big difference between:
A: having a more 'dark' toned Trek show happening *alongside* more traditional Trek, and
B: having a 'dark' themed Trek show being the ONLY Trek on. And for a while, that's what Disco was.
I mean, that stuff certainly has it's place(again, DS9 in my favorite overall show), but that "place" should never be the ONLY Trek show on at any given time(in my opinion). Any time there is a SINGLE Trek show on the "air"(or streaming), that show needs to really represent the feelings and themes of Trek (hopeful, optimistic, with SOME dark stories and themes every now and then, but not constant). Then, when you have more than one Trek show happening at the same time you have more room to explore that side of things with one of the shows while the other keeps to the course.
Of course, we now have Lower Decks and we also have SNW coming, which alleviates the concerns describe above. But that still doesn't change the initial reaction to those shows and the feelings and reactions many folks had for several years now.
DS9 had a generally darker tone than TNG but what mattered was not that "lighter" shows overlapped a bit with it, what made the darkness work was the fact that aside from the tone it was consistent with TNG, the Federation and Starfleet were still the same between them despite the fact that DS9 was in a "darker" spot of the frontier and was mostly seen through the lens of people with horrific experiences in the past and severe strain and impossible choices in the present of the show. The fact that "Lower Decks" is on in the same year as DSC, PIC, (and eventually SNW) is irrelevant, especially with the way animated shows are seen as "kids stuff" and so many people would not watch it.
For example, in DS9 Section 31 was a departure from the norm of the show, which increased the drama, while in DSC and PIC it is just another Tuesday so they came across flat and somewhat hokey.
DS9 had a generally darker tone than TNG but what mattered was not that "lighter" shows overlapped a bit with it, what made the darkness work was the fact that aside from the tone it was consistent with TNG, the Federation and Starfleet were still the same between them despite the fact that DS9 was in a "darker" spot of the frontier and was mostly seen through the lens of people with horrific experiences in the past and severe strain and impossible choices in the present of the show. The fact that "Lower Decks" is on in the same year as DSC, PIC, (and eventually SNW) is irrelevant, especially with the way animated shows are seen as "kids stuff" and so many people would not watch it.
For example, in DS9 Section 31 was a departure from the norm of the show, which increased the drama, while in DSC and PIC it is just another Tuesday so they came across flat and somewhat hokey.
I both agree and disagree. I agree with your points that there is a difference between a 'dark show done well' and 'a dark show not done well'. However I still stand by my opinion that 'dark Trek show'(even if good) needs to exist alongside 'normal Trek show'. I don't think 'dark Trek show' being the only Trek show on the air is going to be pleasing to many Trek fans. If you disagree, that's fine.
I have no idea what you're talking about with this post. No one is gatekeeping
I do think jjotterbear's post I replied to earlier on this page ended with a hint of gatekeeping. Anytime someone says 'I don't know how you can be a Star Trek fan for (reasons)' that sounds too much like 'You're not a real Star Trek fan unless you agree with me and my definition of a Star Trek fan'. People should avoid any statements like that altogether.
I have no idea what you're talking about with this post. No one is gatekeeping
I do think jjotterbear's post I replied to earlier on this page ended with a hint of gatekeeping. Anytime someone says 'I don't know how you can be a Star Trek fan for (reasons)' that sounds too much like 'You're not a real Star Trek fan unless you agree with me and my definition of a Star Trek fan'. People should avoid any statements like that altogether.
Well I missed that, and I can understand the issue with statements like that. However I don't believe that is remotely common here, nor would I ever call it gatekeeping.
Saying the equivalent of "your opinions are wrong, shut up!" doesn't prevent you from continuing to have and voicing those opinions. Unless people are getting banned for those opinions, its just the internet being the internet.
I think it's also worth noting that even within DS9, it wasn't all grimdark, all the time. Even in the depths of the Dominion War they still found time for things like Jadzia and Worf's wedding... https://youtu.be/aaD8cDUV29M
And we should also note, Section 31? Was written as an ANTAGONIST. They weren't simply "extremists on the same side" who had something "go horribly wrong"—i.e. season 2 with Control. The crew actively worked against them, because they were founded on the notion that the ideals of the Federation are nothing more than childish fantasies and that surviving in the real world means Hard Men Doing Hard Things for King and Country™.
Instead, the Federation and its allies save the lives of billions and end the war by THWARTING Section 31.
Let me repeat that: not thwarting some idiot AI of Section 31's they ripped off from an even worse David Mack novel, but thwarting the very concept of Section 31 itself, and offering mercy and friendship to a mortal enemy instead of death and intrigue.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Comments
Plugging one's ears and chanting "conspiracy theory" does not make the facts go away (and people say TOS traditionalists are obstinate...). I was not talking about the exaggerations, wild corporate shenanigans theories, and whatnot of Midnights Edge and Doomcock (and I am not going to follow you down that rabbit hole so that is the last I will say about those clowns here).
I was referring to the fact that Moonves made no secret whatsoever about his contempt for Star Trek (and TOS most of all) in the years before before the DSC project started, and to comments others on the production team have made in legitimate interviews and even behind the scenes clips (in the clips there is even body language that supports my point).
First off, they made no attempt whatsoever to actually update The Cage/TOS when they created DSC, the target template was always The Undiscovered Country, along with obvious Abramsisms like the picture window on the bridges, the silly bedazzling on the uniforms, and the truly execrable gunnery. In fact, the costume designer mentioned first suggesting an updated TOS uniform but that "they" didn't like it and she brushed off a follow-up question as to why with a quick "it just didn't work out" or words to that effect.
The overall anti-TOS atmosphere was thick with things like the big signs in the design rooms that screamed "NO ROUND ENGINES!!!" in bold block letters and other things. It was not exactly a sign that they were trying very hard to mesh with TOS in any constructive way.
Ah, the old Genisis II > Star Trek > Andromeda progression theory. That brings back memories from back when it was argued over while Andromeda was still on the air. Personally I do favor the Genisis II > Star Trek part, though canon wise the link was broken by First Contact. Comments by Roddenberry at least gave the impression that he developed the series out of Star Trek backstory material however.
The Andromeda connection is more complicated. His original pitch never actually said it was the Federation, he used phrases such as "like the Federation" and "it could be the Federation" but he obviously was keeping his options open while at the same time fishing using the popularity of Star Trek as bait. And the Andromeda put together from his pitch and notes that actually aired broke that connection rather thoroughly with its very different backstory (for instance where are the space centaurs in Trek? and why do they use kinetic weapons in Andromeda when they are made obsolete by warp drive in Trek which would have been much earlier than when Andromeda herself was built?).
If they had ever made Star Trek: Federation it might have had some bearing on the "post Federation" stuff (though it was more of a slump than a fall), but instead it is just an oblique example of CBS (under Moonves) disinterest in making another Star Trek show. Singer and company stopped trying to pitch it when they saw that CBS was ignoring Trek even as Paramount was gearing up for ST:2009.
Actually TOS was conceived as "Hornblower in space", and was developed and pitched that way up until The Cage. Roddenberry found that the pitch did not work on a Hollywood tired of sailing ship movies in general and, without changing anything about the show itself, started using the currently number one show on the air, Wagon Train, in the pitch instead of the Hornblower novels, and toned down any other naval references. Notice how the rank structure was more like sailing ship days, and Roddenberry used a lot of sailing ship schticks like dismounting one of the ships guns and sending it with a landing party. The "western in space" thing is just a myth based on a last ditch sales tactic (though they made a sort of in-joke reference to it with the episode Spectre of the Gun).
However, there are notes from Gene indicating that he envisioned the series as a potential future spinoff - "what if the Federation fell? What happens centuries later?" The changes, it would appear, came after, probably on advice from his attorneys. And the ubermensch Dylan Hunt has been weaving in and out of his narratives since the initial pitch for The Questor Tapes.
The rest of your post is based on your own innate prejudices (and really, there are much better reasons for hating Les Moonves than that).
True, there are IP ownership considerations in something like that, and Roddenberry undoubtedly took them into account, but the overall feel of the pitch was that he was keeping options open rather than skirting copyright. Actually pitching it as a Star Trek sequel would have locked it into a market of exactly one: Paramount, and I doubt he wanted to limit his options like that. Pitching it the way he did meant that he could sell to Paramount as an idea he would redevelop into a Star Trek, but if they did not take it he could go around to the other studios and sell it as a standalone.
The keyword here is "potential", he was not averse to adapting it either way but the jury is still out on whether he intended it to the Federation from the start.
The Questor Tapes was one of the series pilots that did not contain Dylan Hunt at all in name or function. It was a definite Holmes and Watson dynamic such as he used in Spectre and Assignment: Earth.
Dylan Hunt was always used in a triangle dynamic where he is the focal point between an ivory tower companion and a devil's advocate one like you see in Genesis II, the original Star Trek, and Andromeda. The details are different in each (and Pike does not have the name) but the pattern is clear with Isiah (probably anyway), Spock (the Cage version), and Andromeda (or possibly Rev Bem at times) as the "angel" side and an enhanced female companion with a darker or wild side on the other (Lyra-a, Number One, and Bekka Valentine). A lot of authors recycle stuff like that.
I am not sure what you are referring to by "your own innate prejudices" since that could be about several things.
If you are saying I am a "DSC hater" or whatever, I assure you that I am not. I do not hate the show like the popular caricature of a TOS traditionalist, I actually think it is a good generic sci-fi action show. It is not a favorite (I prefer Dark Matter and Killjoys over it for instance), but I do watch it when I get the chance (which is not often so I have mostly seen it out of sequence with plot synopses and transcripts filling in the remaining blanks).
If it is that I prefer period shows to actually look reasonably like the period they portray (real or fictional) or that I am disappointed that CBS chose to make DSC in a way guaranteed to be divisive instead of bringing old and new fans together (which would be far less difficult than many here seem to think), it is true enough in that one respect, but it does not change the facts that I presented one bit.
Facts like how they made no attempt to actually update TOS and skipped straight to TUC, which some of the top production people mentioned in interviews. For example, watch the one with the set designer if you do not believe me, she talks about how there was no way they were going to consider even for a second the "cardboard Enterprise" as she called it so they went straight to TUC as their aesthetic template.
I hope they make some effort this time to do that updating they skipped with DSC, but I doubt that they will bother, especially since they have most of the same people at the top with their anti-TOS prejudice that DSC has.
At least the finale of DIS' second season means they can now do whatever they want, without "purists" screaming that it's all "wrong". It might turn out really good, or not.
And getting a better 'Andromeda' would certainly be an added bonus. That show did have some potential, but Kevin Sorbo and the writers quickly wore it down. Early on they were also trying hard to make Andromeda a "cool sci-fi". Sunglasses at the VR-battlestations-cool.
If they can do something to heal the breach and bring back the people who stuck to Star Trek for a long time but left over DSC there would not be an oversaturation point for the most part since they never get enough good Trek.
Of course there is also the Hollywood-speak usage of the term "over saturation" that really means that the writers ran out of ideas and they want to shut down the show before they end up embarrassing themselves with their own "Great Vegetable Rebellion".
Don't confuse keyboard warriors with real life action. The majority of people complaining about the new shows (myself included, to some degree) still watched them and will continue to do so. Some, like me, will watch them hoping they improve. Others will watch them just be able to pick apart the flaws. But either way, viewers are viewers as far as CBS is concerned.
Just to clarify my opinion: I both liked and disliked a bunch of different things in both Discovery and Picard, so I'm not saying I hated the shows. I also really enjoyed disco s2 mainly because of Pike, which is why I'm really looking forward to SNW.
But I do agree with the potential problem of oversaturation. I was really enjoying the Marvel movies until one day I just got tired of seeing them all the time and still haven't watched the last few. One day I'll catch up and probably enjoy, but yeah.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
That is true too, I am another one of them who watches the CBS Trek on a (very in my case) casual basis in fact.
Still, there are a lot of the old fans who either do not watch the new stuff at all, or (like me) are not interested in the 'new interpretation' enough to watch it with any regularly. Personally I think it is an OK generic sci-fi but nothing special and not even particularly nostalgic because it simply is so far off the beam of the original for it to feel that way. Frankly, if it was on old-time regular TV opposite Dark Matter or Killjoys back in the days before DVRs and streaming were a thing I would have probably watched one of the latter shows instead of DSC.
Even many of the purist "rage watchers" that just watch it to scoff and pick it apart have tired of the game and moved on to something else (and I know at least one irl who has done exactly that).
My character Tsin'xing
No, that was Gene Roddenberry when he was developing Star Trek: The Next Generation circa 1985/86. GR hated the fact that he had sold all TOS rights to Paramount at the end of that series run and got no part of the last (then) 18 years of TOS merchandising; and now with this second chance he saw TNG as one day totally supplanting TOS so that he could reap all the merchandising rewards.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
That is not quite the same thing. For one, Roddenberry hated the "space procedural" format of TNG and kept trying to get them to go back to a control room drama format or at least something close. And he insisted that TNG respect TOS as much as possible (in fact he had blue-faced, howling, desk banging arguments with Berman about that). He did have a few capricious periods where he "decanonized" things when someone got him really irritated, only to officially accept them back a week or two later after he cooled down.
One good example is the D7. In TNG the D7 was the same as it was in TOS except for it being refitted into K't'ingas like the way the Constitutions were refitted, but the D7 in DSC was what is now called the Sech (listen to the dialog where it appears, they distinctly call it a D7) before CBS went into damage control mode and made a big deal out of the Klingons suddenly making a "new" ship class, a familiar-looking D7 and ignored the earlier attempt to overwrite the TOS D7 with the Sech.
Moonves on the other hand made no secret of his dislike for science fiction in general and how much he hated Star Trek (the real reason he killed ENT, they said it was for lack of viewership but the actual numbers showed it was well on its way in recovering from a slump with no sign of another downturn when it was axed), and he has stated in interviews that he "disliked" (read "hated") TOS most of all.
I wouldn't say he "hated" TOS, but he certainly had come to disavow much of the show's content. He seemed to have run afoul of the "Hollywood Liberal" mindset, the one that's over the top about such things.
The defining part of that is probably a statement he made in anger about him considering any Star Trek that he was not directly involved in non-canon (which included much of the third season of TOS), then recanted a week or so later after he cooled down. He was not against the idea of a loose military basis for Starfleet, he was against the extremes Paramount wanted to take the concept in pursuit of the unexpected action film fans (and the box office success) Star Wars turned up.
In the case of TNG there was even the problem that Roddenberry figured the Federation would have moved out of the "wild west" phase by then and become more civilized and cosmopolitan, which in turn would make Star Fleet drift that direction a bit as the old guard died out and the newer people filtered into top positions in it. In fact, there was supposed to be a running gag in TNG about that generational gap in outlook, but like many other things TNG was supposed to be/have it was dropped.
Paramount on the other hand wanted chaos and a Federation/Klingon war in their first proposal for TNG, very similar to first season Discovery (it even had the captain die in the pilot episode). Roddenberry was adamantly against it and the back and forth apparently resulted in the split military/civilian format and two overlapping crews on a ship that could split into the two roles physically that TNG was first greenlit with. The writers failed to get a handle on it however and Berman was brought in as a level head to hammer it into a more conventional, workable format (it wasn't until Macross 7 that someone came out with a successful series based on that kind of concept), and eventually Roddenberry butted heads with Berman over his use of formulaic police procedural format adapted to sci-fi.
Anyway, Roddenberry's concepts for Star Trek were a complex balance, not the simple unicorns-and-rainbows utopia some people think they were (even in some scholarly papers).
Great news 😁👍
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
It's pretty darn simple, actually. Nobody has a problem with dark stories/episodes. What some/many people have a problem with is an entire show being dark...when it was the only Trek show on the air. Don't get me wrong, many people (including myself) feel DS9 is the best overall Trek show, and it certainly had a darker tone. But one of the reasons that worked so well is because both TNG and VOY were on at the same time keeping the more optimistic Trek tones alive and well.
So the problem a lot of folks had with Discovery when it first came out was the fact that it was the first Trek show in a while, the only Trek show on, and the entire show had a dark tone. Then Picard came out and did the same thing, which only compounded the way many people felt. Fortunately Lower Decks did the complete opposite, and hopefully SNW will too.
See, here is the thing: Discovery and Picard are still going to exist and continue with new seasons going forward. And there is nothing wrong with having some dark Trek shows. But don't argue that ALL Trek should be that way. If Discovery and Picard are going to be dark shows, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with SNW having a lighter optimistic tone.
You were doing ok until the end, when you started gatekeeping. Literally no one is opposed to exploration of new things and that is a complete strawman argument.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I can't speak to ST:D as I haven't seen it. For a fictional work, though, people expect it to have consistent themes. Infinite diversity doesn't mean anything if tossing out the core themes of a franchise is part of that.
I mean they could have had episodes of Kirk and Spock as New York detectives, not as if they went to Iotia or some similar planet, but literally NYPD. That would have been diverse, right?
It would be having Kirk jump into the cop car, "Come on, Spock, get into the Enterprise! Warp speed!" And he slams the gas to speed through the streets. "Get your phaser ready!" Spock checks his .38 revolver.
So when you turn Star Trek into a grimdark universe of conflict, destruction, murder, and treachery, it isn't recognizable as Star Trek even if you use the same names, or even faces. For many people I think its fair to say they saw ST:D and ST:P as twisting the franchise too much, and taking too many liberties with it to be recognizable.
The "dark" that people are talking about has nothing to do with war, in fact the Dominion war was one of the most popular arcs in Trek. Well done dark is not a problem, "In The Pale Moonlight" and "Siege of AR-558" are about as grim as TV gets but they were both done well. "Wrongs Darker Than Death or Night" was full of betrayal and rather perverted on top of it and it was also a popular episode.
The "dark" in DSC and PIC is not dramatic dark like the older shows, it is in the divisiveness, ruthless lack of empathy, backbiting and overall pessimistic outlook in the Kurtzman style Federation, and that is quit a different thing. Dramatic dark adds depth and tension, the shallow, cynical dark does does not add anything except annoyance for long time fans.
What I don't understand is the hate directed at TOS. That series was done with high quality writing, the only thing really dated about it is the lower production value they had back then which was hard pressed to do any kind of science fiction.
And even the hardcore purists don't generally want everything exactly the same, they just want something reasonably compatible with TOS (or the TNG era shows in the case of PIC) since they tend to treat anything in the show as a solid fictional history, and get annoyed when a new production team comes in and decides they don't care for the already existing story and just do whatever they want and "damn the continuity, full speed ahead". They are not against "diversity", they are against arbitrary changes just for the sake of change, if Kurtzman's bunch actually knew the original material and made some effort to build upon it instead of discarding it then they (and the other Trek fans) would be happy.
"And the Children Shall Lead"
"The Way to Eden"
"The Paradise Syndrome"
"The Omega Glory"
"Spock's Brain"
"Turnabout Intruder"
Shall I continue?
Also, like I mentioned in my previous post, DS9 was not the only Trek on TV at the time. The entire time it was on the air it had either TNG, VOY, or both, to do the 'normal'/optimistic Trek thing, while it did it's own 'darker' story. So, IMO, there is a big difference between:
A: having a more 'dark' toned Trek show happening *alongside* more traditional Trek, and
B: having a 'dark' themed Trek show being the ONLY Trek on. And for a while, that's what Disco was.
I mean, that stuff certainly has it's place(again, DS9 in my favorite overall show), but that "place" should never be the ONLY Trek show on at any given time(in my opinion). Any time there is a SINGLE Trek show on the "air"(or streaming), that show needs to really represent the feelings and themes of Trek (hopeful, optimistic, with SOME dark stories and themes every now and then, but not constant). Then, when you have more than one Trek show happening at the same time you have more room to explore that side of things with one of the shows while the other keeps to the course.
Of course, we now have Lower Decks and we also have SNW coming, which alleviates the concerns describe above. But that still doesn't change the initial reaction to those shows and the feelings and reactions many folks had for several years now.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
There are things about TNG, DS9 and VOY I really don't like at all. There are other things which make these same series 'must watch' for me. Same with the JJ Abrams films.
The things I don't like? I'm keeping them to myself. Out of respect to the Star Trek fans who do like them. Star Trek has become a big enough tent so there is room for everybody. And isn't there plenty of divisiveness to go around already?
Just because you like a part of Star Trek which someone else does not isn't enough of a justification for them to tell you're not a "real" Star Trek fan. Or that the parts of Star Trek they prefer are superior in some way you are unable to understand.
How sad I find it a series of television shows and films which gave us the brilliant concept of I.D.I.C. has "fans" which draw knives and rail at each other behind the alleged anonymity of the Internet.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I have no idea what you're talking about with this post. No one is gatekeeping or hating other people whom they disagree with. Some people think X, some think Y, and that is okay. There are no riots or fires here, just strong disagreement, though you seem to see otherwise so I'm curious where you see the flames.
I'd be real surprised if anyone on either side of these sorts of threads would not have a friendly chat and a drink with each other IRL, because of these discussions.
Of course they had some bad episodes, all shows do. And not everyone agrees on which are the bad ones and which are the good ones, just like any other show. Overall though they had good writing, some of it was even done by the big names in sci-fi and a lot of the things that some modern viewers think is the worst comes from allegories that seem off in today's zeitgeist but resonated better in the zeitgeist of the mid to late 1960s.
DS9 had a generally darker tone than TNG but what mattered was not that "lighter" shows overlapped a bit with it, what made the darkness work was the fact that aside from the tone it was consistent with TNG, the Federation and Starfleet were still the same between them despite the fact that DS9 was in a "darker" spot of the frontier and was mostly seen through the lens of people with horrific experiences in the past and severe strain and impossible choices in the present of the show. The fact that "Lower Decks" is on in the same year as DSC, PIC, (and eventually SNW) is irrelevant, especially with the way animated shows are seen as "kids stuff" and so many people would not watch it.
For example, in DS9 Section 31 was a departure from the norm of the show, which increased the drama, while in DSC and PIC it is just another Tuesday so they came across flat and somewhat hokey.
I both agree and disagree. I agree with your points that there is a difference between a 'dark show done well' and 'a dark show not done well'. However I still stand by my opinion that 'dark Trek show'(even if good) needs to exist alongside 'normal Trek show'. I don't think 'dark Trek show' being the only Trek show on the air is going to be pleasing to many Trek fans. If you disagree, that's fine.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I do think jjotterbear's post I replied to earlier on this page ended with a hint of gatekeeping. Anytime someone says 'I don't know how you can be a Star Trek fan for (reasons)' that sounds too much like 'You're not a real Star Trek fan unless you agree with me and my definition of a Star Trek fan'. People should avoid any statements like that altogether.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Well I missed that, and I can understand the issue with statements like that. However I don't believe that is remotely common here, nor would I ever call it gatekeeping.
Saying the equivalent of "your opinions are wrong, shut up!" doesn't prevent you from continuing to have and voicing those opinions. Unless people are getting banned for those opinions, its just the internet being the internet.
... a Ferengi caper...
... and baseball.
And we should also note, Section 31? Was written as an ANTAGONIST. They weren't simply "extremists on the same side" who had something "go horribly wrong"—i.e. season 2 with Control. The crew actively worked against them, because they were founded on the notion that the ideals of the Federation are nothing more than childish fantasies and that surviving in the real world means Hard Men Doing Hard Things for King and Country™.
Instead, the Federation and its allies save the lives of billions and end the war by THWARTING Section 31.
Let me repeat that: not thwarting some idiot AI of Section 31's they ripped off from an even worse David Mack novel, but thwarting the very concept of Section 31 itself, and offering mercy and friendship to a mortal enemy instead of death and intrigue.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/