I think any potential swing at "haters" is because of the old arguments when Discovery first came out where those who hated it tried to justify their hate and followed through with attacks on those that do like it using the "No True Scotsman" line of attack, declaring anyone who doesn't jump on the hate train is "not a TRUE Trek fan".
Luckily the Mods have decided that the "No True Scotsman" strategy is a form of gatekeeping and trolling, and thus have elected to clamp down on such behavior because NO ONE has a right to declare who is and who isn't a Trek fan. Its just a means to launch personal attacks under the guise of "defending the faith" as it were.
Probably a combination of recreating TOS environments whenever something TOS came up in TNG, DS9, and Enterprise, and the whole idea of "We KNOW what the tech looked like in that time period. It looked like this. That doesn't look like this, therefor ITS WRONG!"
I like how Discovery did the consoles because not only is it supposed to look advanced compared to what we have today, it feels like a natural evolution from Ent through to TNG. They still have the toggle switches and physical buttons here and there like were seen in TOS, but they did away with the jellybean buttons and lack of displays for data in favor of touchscreens, which we also saw on the Enterprise-A. Discovery's systems look like something that would evolve more naturally into what we see aboard Ent-A, and it looks functional.
I could never figure out how they can control a starship with the jellybean buttons. Its just a box of buttons. No displays or anything to provide data for the user. I give TMP era a pass because they DO have displays and stuff to help with displaying data, but TOS... there's nothing. And a lot of wasted space on the consoles.
I know there was talk behind the scenes of some kind of holographic interface in those blank areas, but it never made it on screen. While Spock had something to display data, Sulu didn't, and he's the helmsman. You kinda need that data to help navigate. And that pop up thing wasn't always there. Just his set of jellybeans.
Not hating on it. Just... that's how I feel about the consoles themselves.
I see it as a mixed bag, I think DSC has best visual overall(not everything but overall) which is normal considering how old most star trek episodes and movies are and while I do like its story content, it isnt my best. That said, it doesnt have to be the best to be good. Oh and added one of my favourite ships, the Sarcophagus. While I guess there are people that legitimately dislike it, I think most people exaggerate cause its just not their favourite, but again, something can be Good and not be a favourite.
By the way I am getting curious if Klingons and Romulans do exist as seperate entities in 31st/32nd centuries, on what condition and what ships they got if so. On STO weirdly, in the temporal episodes where the treaty for not using time travel is signed, the Fed representative is a klingon and we dont see a separate klingon ambassador that represents the empire. That always made me wonder if Cryptics plan was to just unite Federation and Empire.(I am not sure if I would like that idea)
And the old core fans DON'T want "more of the same", they just want anything new to respect what came before and fit in to a reasonable degree. There is absolutely nothing from DSC that could not have been done in a way that was compatible with the rest of Trek, the DSC producers simply could not be bothered with even trying.
That does not mean repeating old storylines (though it seems almost every Trek series has done that to some degree anyway), setting things up for 1960s cameras and low-res TV screens or any other weird ideas the people complaining about TOS have. It means taking into account the situations and at least some of the aesthetics (and there is no reason they would not be able to mix the original googie with the current art deco, or use the "relaxed comfortable" look of the original uniforms) and doing scripts with some depth to them, not the gee-wiz shallow stuff they are doing now. Seriously, some of the TOS episodes had as much depth in just an hour as DSC and PIC have in an entire season.
Perfectly put... but wait! No, it must be because "it doesn't look like anything from TOS".
Not agreeing with someone doesn't give you the right to be an TRIBBLE.
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
I see it as a mixed bag, I think DSC has best visual overall(not everything but overall) which is normal considering how old most star trek episodes and movies are and while I do like its story content, it isnt my best. That said, it doesnt have to be the best to be good. Oh and added one of my favourite ships, the Sarcophagus. While I guess there are people that legitimately dislike it, I think most people exaggerate cause its just not their favourite, but again, something can be Good and not be a favourite.
By the way I am getting curious if Klingons and Romulans do exist as seperate entities in 31st/32nd centuries, on what condition and what ships they got if so. On STO weirdly, in the temporal episodes where the treaty for not using time travel is signed, the Fed representative is a klingon and we dont see a separate klingon ambassador that represents the empire. That always made me wonder if Cryptics plan was to just unite Federation and Empire.(I am not sure if I would like that idea)
It was always intended as part of star trek that the klingons would become part of the federation. You can choose to not like it, but its what Gene intended.
I don't know about the romulans though, but I think it would be best if they went with the original idea that klingons would join the federation
By that time period... its entirely possible. Even if we consider the events of STO to be canon, with the formation of the Romulan Republic as a successor state to the Star Empire... we do have the mission where we're supposed to see the signing of the Temporal Accords, and the Romulan rep actually says something about the Romulans joining the Federation sometime before the Temporal Accords, but we know is sometime long after the events of STO.
i think people fear change, Discovery is a big step forward in star trek. also you all have a right to your opinion, so do i, if i want to call you guys non-trekkies for not liking Discovery, or even giving it a chance, then i will same reason your calling me a troll, witch i was only stating my opinion.
i think people fear change, Discovery is a big step forward in star trek. also you all have a right to your opinion, so do i, if i want to call you guys non-trekkies for not liking Discovery, or even giving it a chance, then i will same reason your calling me a troll, witch i was only stating my opinion.
None of this is about fearing changes, but thank you for attempting to use a blanket statement to deflect all criticism directed towards the show.
i think people fear change, Discovery is a big step forward in star trek. also you all have a right to your opinion, so do i, if i want to call you guys non-trekkies for not liking Discovery, or even giving it a chance, then i will same reason your calling me a troll, witch i was only stating my opinion.
None of this is about fearing changes, but thank you for attempting to use a blanket statement to deflect all criticism directed towards the show.
i think people fear change, Discovery is a big step forward in star trek. also you all have a right to your opinion, so do i, if i want to call you guys non-trekkies for not liking Discovery, or even giving it a chance, then i will same reason your calling me a troll, witch i was only stating my opinion.
None of this is about fearing changes, but thank you for attempting to use a blanket statement to deflect all criticism directed towards the show.
well then im wrong, its just the actions of some of you guys who dont like the show have shown me that, but guess its not all of you
> @captainhaseo said: > (Quote) > > well then im wrong, its just the actions of some of you guys who dont like the show have shown me that, but guess its not all of you
They are frustrated and unhappy. I would not read too much into it. Be glad you are not one of them and keep on enjoying Discovery.
I was uncertain if the timetravel into the next millennium would sit well with me. Turns out after 15 minutes into the new season that it does.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
They had every opportunity to keep it to the ongoing continuity with the smallest of changes but decided that they would be new and edgy, and then everyone who doesn't like it is just because they're old fans who can't stand change.
Just because they CAN rewrite things doesn't mean they have to. They could have easily respected what has come before while doing something new. I think it would be better written to take place after Nemesis as it would make so much more sense story wise but it almost feels like they really wanted to deliberately re-write things...that's purely IMHO of course, but it is a feeling I get from watching the show.
I still don't understand how Discovery didn't keep it to the ongoing continuity with only small changes, and didn't respect what came before.
Well, if you didn't see the second episode from last week, the 'respect' is no more, and replaced with a slap and kick to the ankles.
It involved cleaning up body parts in a scene, and the name of the person doing it.
i think people fear change, Discovery is a big step forward in star trek. also you all have a right to your opinion, so do i, if i want to call you guys non-trekkies for not liking Discovery, or even giving it a chance, then i will same reason your calling me a troll, witch i was only stating my opinion.
Change...can be good or bad, it just depends on how it is delivered. But when a newbie studio created to handle back then, a late 40ish old franchise, and spun a variant look on what is called Trek, uses sprinkles of past moments from its predecessors to entice folks to come and watch it.
Well, there's a lot of history to do a comparison...and when certain standards are not met, or surpassed. You know how that goes; we choose to view what is relevant to us.
What has not been done, since Voyager, that none of the Treks after 2009, never went forward, they went back into the past/and starting in the past, Picard is maybe only the expectation, cause it is placed just before of the century to the 25th.
Now, we have a show starting the era before TOS *10 year before* and now, it jumped past all known Trek Lore, kaput the Time Travel Accords, and stone age the majority of the Federation, with almost no means to travel at higher warp speeds.
It was illustrated as a greater future, an advance one, and what is shown now...is what actually? Hundreds of years of knowledge can't solve a major problem of a mineral that helps ships reactor to create the more than normal amount energy to get faster speeds of warp.
Here's the rub, most of us has been schooled on the knowledge on makes Trek tick, what is going now, is a rip down and build back up to what...less science and more fantasy applications?
The science part inspired many folks to go into that field and they are forever grateful for that.
As it was entertainment before the changes of 2009, it was almost educational.
Now, can you tell me...does Discovery offers the latter now, as it predecessors was doing that along? (LD & Picard not included)
> @captainhaseo said:
> (Quote)
>
> well then im wrong, its just the actions of some of you guys who dont like the show have shown me that, but guess its not all of you
They are frustrated and unhappy. I would not read too much into it. Be glad you are not one of them and keep on enjoying Discovery.
I was uncertain if the timetravel into the next millennium would sit well with me. Turns out after 15 minutes into the new season that it does.
i think people fear change, Discovery is a big step forward in star trek. also you all have a right to your opinion, so do i, if i want to call you guys non-trekkies for not liking Discovery, or even giving it a chance, then i will same reason your calling me a troll, witch i was only stating my opinion.
Change...can be good or bad, it just depends on how it is delivered. But when a newbie studio created to handle back then, a late 40ish old franchise, and spun a variant look on what is called Trek, uses sprinkles of past moments from its predecessors to entice folks to come and watch it.
Well, there's a lot of history to do a comparison...and when certain standards are not met, or surpassed. You know how that goes; we choose to view what is relevant to us.
What has not been done, since Voyager, that none of the Treks after 2009, never went forward, they went back into the past/and starting in the past, Picard is maybe only the expectation, cause it is placed just before of the century to the 25th.
Now, we have a show starting the era before TOS *10 year before* and now, it jumped past all known Trek Lore, kaput the Time Travel Accords, and stone age the majority of the Federation, with almost no means to travel at higher warp speeds.
It was illustrated as a greater future, an advance one, and what is shown now...is what actually? Hundreds of years of knowledge can't solve a major problem of a mineral that helps ships reactor to create the more than normal amount energy to get faster speeds of warp.
Here's the rub, most of us has been schooled on the knowledge on makes Trek tick, what is going now, is a rip down and build back up to what...less science and more fantasy applications?
The science part inspired many folks to go into that field and they are forever grateful for that.
As it was entertainment before the changes of 2009, it was almost educational.
Now, can you tell me...does Discovery offers the latter now, as it predecessors was doing that along? (LD & Picard not included)
i think its all based on matter of opinion, like for example, i dont like TNG, at all, but you make like it, i get where i was wrong in this conversation, and if i upset anything im sorry, my whole point was i like "star trek for being star trek", but ya i get it.
I still don't understand how Discovery didn't keep it to the ongoing continuity with only small changes, and didn't respect what came before.
If I had to guess... because it doesn't look anything like TOS.
"To fit into the time period, it MUST, WITHOUT QUESTION, look like TOS".
Although frankly... this...
looks like a great modernization of this...
Are you completely incapable of operating on an adult level?
I post a request to stop inventing ridiculous arguments to attack people who don't agree with you and the first thing you do is invent a ridiculous argument to attack me because I don't agree with your OPINION.
Ask a question and I will happily answer you, come up with these kind of silly attacks and I'll just ignore you to speak with the adults who CAN ask a question or discuss without the blatant hostility. If you have a question as to my opinion, then feel free to ask.
If I had to guess... because it doesn't look anything like TOS.
"To fit into the time period, it MUST, WITHOUT QUESTION, look like TOS".
I have never understood this mindset myself.
The idea of visual literalism in fiction(scifi or fantasy), the idea that what we see on screen should ever be taken as anything but an abstraction of what it actually looks like, seems like nothing more then a bad straw man.
So long as you can tell what the thing is, it really shouldn't matter what it looks like. The only exception to this is in the case where there is an explicitly mentioned on screen reason for something to look that way(like if it was mentioned that the Klingon symbols three points reference X,Y, and Z)
Beyond that, if you can ask yourself the question of "If Star Trek began 50 years later then when it actually did, and the stories, characters, and episodes were otherwise the same, would X, Y, or Z, still look like it did when that episode was made however long ago?" If the answer is no then it doesn't matter.
Hell, back when they made TMP they threw out all the design of TOS because they had the money too. TMP doesn't really look like a natural evolution of TOS, and TNG doesn't really either. TOS has always stood out visually for not looking like anything else. Why is it an issue now?
Believe it or not- I think they could have gone the DS-9 route and kept MOST of the old look, with just some updates to the displays etc....adding a few extras here and there, and there's a specific reason for it.
In one of the books an officer from another ship comes aboard the Enterprise and comments on how low-tech everything looks with the old style buttons and switches and no touch screens and gets schooled by Uhura. It's been a few years so I forget the exact quote but she basically says that the Enterprise is meant to be out on the frontier of the Federation on extended missions, she was built from the ground up to accomplish this mission as opposed to these other ships that can sit safely in the heart of the Federation never that far from supply and repair bases. If they were caught by an Ion storm that blew out every circuit and relay on the ship...having a bunch of exploding touch screens wouldn't do much good. If she had to, given time, she could repair and rewire every circuit on the ship if she had to...try doing that with a bunch of broken touch screens.
I always though this was the most brilliant answer to why the Enterprise looks old-school...and it's one of the reasons that I never had a problem with ships like the Discovery having very modern displays and interfaces. It's an experimental science ship...it's not built for the same mission as a ship like the Enterprise. I don't think they needed to make such drastic changes to the appearance of the Enterprise outside either as DS-9 showed that the original looks damned fine using modern graphics...imagine if they had taken the original design and kept it, maybe a few lighting effects? I think it would have looked damned good.
Now - I'm not ranting or raving about it "must be da same" or whatever nonsense others might try to say...I just feel they could have kept some of the original esthetics and updated them without going quite so far overboard because "it's newer therefore must be different"'. I would have loved to have seen someone from Discovery go aboard the Enterprise and make the comment about how old tech it looks and get schooled over it...because it does make sense. Yes - there would have needed to be some updates...of course...but they could have kept some of that old school design and it would have been logical and allowed a smooth evolution into the TOS.
As to other things that didn't make sense...well the entire Klingon thing (really...I know you completely believe in all of it being totally fine, and hey that's great...but try to see where others are coming from). I feel like they made all these changes for no real reason other than "we're new, TRIBBLE you". They messed with a great and classic alien race that had the ship esthetics and race more or less all worked out (even the TOS "we don't talk about it" had been all worked out in Ent)...there really was no reason to make all those changes as it ended up being a disaster for the most part (actors who could barely speak through the mouth appliances, fingers that couldn't do much fine work with those silly extra claw/finger attachments). If they wanted to make them some sort of strange augments or something then hey, sure I could go with that...but no that wasn't what they were going to do.
There were a lot of very silly things - the beacon of Kahless was a silly idea that the writers didn't even try to make sense with. The big epic battle of season 2 was really quite silly etc. Many things that just didn't make a lot of sense but were done just because it "looks cool", hey, that's fine...but they could have written it to add some dialog to try and have it make more sense (one of the reasons I felt it wasn't well written).
As I've said...this is how I feel about it - it doesn't mean I think less of anyone who enjoys it (I only think less of those who blindly attack others for NOT enjoying it), I'm actually glad that there's a ST that you can enjoy because everyone should have something they enjoy in ST. It did have a few good moments with a couple of good actors, but what I'm really enjoying is Picard and LD - if you don't enjoy them then that's fine...I don't expect everyone to have to enjoy what I do.
> @captainhaseo said:
> (Quote)
>
> well then im wrong, its just the actions of some of you guys who dont like the show have shown me that, but guess its not all of you
They are frustrated and unhappy. I would not read too much into it. Be glad you are not one of them and keep on enjoying Discovery.
I was uncertain if the timetravel into the next millennium would sit well with me. Turns out after 15 minutes into the new season that it does.
i think people fear change, Discovery is a big step forward in star trek. also you all have a right to your opinion, so do i, if i want to call you guys non-trekkies for not liking Discovery, or even giving it a chance, then i will same reason your calling me a troll, witch i was only stating my opinion.
Change...can be good or bad, it just depends on how it is delivered. But when a newbie studio created to handle back then, a late 40ish old franchise, and spun a variant look on what is called Trek, uses sprinkles of past moments from its predecessors to entice folks to come and watch it.
Well, there's a lot of history to do a comparison...and when certain standards are not met, or surpassed. You know how that goes; we choose to view what is relevant to us.
What has not been done, since Voyager, that none of the Treks after 2009, never went forward, they went back into the past/and starting in the past, Picard is maybe only the expectation, cause it is placed just before of the century to the 25th.
Now, we have a show starting the era before TOS *10 year before* and now, it jumped past all known Trek Lore, kaput the Time Travel Accords, and stone age the majority of the Federation, with almost no means to travel at higher warp speeds.
It was illustrated as a greater future, an advance one, and what is shown now...is what actually? Hundreds of years of knowledge can't solve a major problem of a mineral that helps ships reactor to create the more than normal amount energy to get faster speeds of warp.
Here's the rub, most of us has been schooled on the knowledge on makes Trek tick, what is going now, is a rip down and build back up to what...less science and more fantasy applications?
The science part inspired many folks to go into that field and they are forever grateful for that.
As it was entertainment before the changes of 2009, it was almost educational.
Now, can you tell me...does Discovery offers the latter now, as it predecessors was doing that along? (LD & Picard not included)
i think its all based on matter of opinion, like for example, i dont like TNG, at all, but you make like it, i get where i was wrong in this conversation, and if i upset anything im sorry, my whole point was i like "star trek for being star trek", but ya i get it.
It's funny - I wasn't a terribly big fan of TNG for the first few seasons (though I have to admit I didn't have cable back when it was on, it was well into it's run before I had cable and could watch it - though I did get to watch the finale at a big party at the skydome in Toronto).
I thought the first couple of seasons were fairly bad much of the time (though I liked most of the actors...some of them didn't seem to get the best scripts), though there were real gems and they had set great groundwork for the show. By the end of it I was really enjoying it, they seemed to finally start pulling it together much better.
Who knows though - this might be how Discovery ends up going...the first 2-3 seasons are meh for me but by the end I enjoy it. I AM glad they went to the future even if it's just because now they can do more or less whatever they want without it feeling silly or like they're trying to take the TRIBBLE from previous shows (that again is just purely how I felt at times, nothing against those who enjoy it!).
i think people fear change, Discovery is a big step forward in star trek. also you all have a right to your opinion, so do i, if i want to call you guys non-trekkies for not liking Discovery, or even giving it a chance, then i will same reason your calling me a troll, witch i was only stating my opinion.
But then how is that any different from gate keeping?
"If you don't like Discovery then you're not a trekkie".
That's gate-keeping. If I were to say that you weren't a trekkie for liking discovery then, heck, I'd have the mods in here after me but when you say the opposite it's just fine? I think it was Rattler who pointed out that it was good that the mods stopped people from doing that...why do you think it's okay for you to do it?
It's not a fear of change (as myself and others have said before) - I'm fine with change...but "...just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing." to quote the Federation President.
Doing something new is great...but there was no need to do it in such a way that it upsets some fans...it could easily have been done without that. That you feel that it's good to split the fandom and that if you don't like the show you aren't a trekkie suggests that you are just as bad a culprit as anyone.
I still don't understand how Discovery didn't keep it to the ongoing continuity with only small changes, and didn't respect what came before.
If I had to guess... because it doesn't look anything like TOS.
"To fit into the time period, it MUST, WITHOUT QUESTION, look like TOS".
Although frankly... this...
looks like a great modernization of this...
You're inventing why people don't like ST:D without listening to them. Now personally, I've made it clear I've never seen ST:D and don't want to. Of the visuals I have seen, though, they are pretty awful, and not necessarily because they are low quality, but because they look absurd. This problem was in Picard as well.
Just look at that picture. Its about twice as large as the TOS bridge with a ton of wasted space, and has an absurd amount of shine and glare on it. That isn't an environment people can be functional in for a long time. ST:P's holographic displays were nonsensically impractical. Other pics I've seen have shown absurdly dark poorly lit corridors, and many others have shown a nonsensical amount of wasted, empty space in the ships. ST:P's lighting in the La Sirena was ludicrously bad.
The consoles looking more current day than TOS? That's fine with me, I don't care. But does the rest of it make me not like ST:D? No, I've never seen the show, so I have no opinion of it as a whole, only of the visuals I've seen. Does it make me not like ST:P? No there are many other reasons to dislike it.
What it tells me though, is that ST being science fiction, they should be trying to make things look plausible and reasonable in universe, not absurd and ridiculous, and they don't understand what they are doing, visually. They don't have practical people on the cast and crew, apparently, to ask questions like, why is the lighting in our shows so awful, how could anyone reasonably function in this environment? They haven't put any serious thought into anything they've done with set design.
That goes doubly for their space shots, like whatever scene it was from ST:D that had two ships fighting with swarms of drones, or the copy/paste fleet from Picard, and the poor shot that started this thread, none of those looked good at all. They clearly don't understand the concept that sometimes less is more, or how to make a shot look plausible. And yes DS9s huge battle scenes were guilty of this to a degree.
> @captainhaseo said:
> (Quote)
>
> well then im wrong, its just the actions of some of you guys who dont like the show have shown me that, but guess its not all of you
They are frustrated and unhappy. I would not read too much into it. Be glad you are not one of them and keep on enjoying Discovery.
I was uncertain if the timetravel into the next millennium would sit well with me. Turns out after 15 minutes into the new season that it does.
i think people fear change, Discovery is a big step forward in star trek. also you all have a right to your opinion, so do i, if i want to call you guys non-trekkies for not liking Discovery, or even giving it a chance, then i will same reason your calling me a troll, witch i was only stating my opinion.
Change...can be good or bad, it just depends on how it is delivered. But when a newbie studio created to handle back then, a late 40ish old franchise, and spun a variant look on what is called Trek, uses sprinkles of past moments from its predecessors to entice folks to come and watch it.
Well, there's a lot of history to do a comparison...and when certain standards are not met, or surpassed. You know how that goes; we choose to view what is relevant to us.
What has not been done, since Voyager, that none of the Treks after 2009, never went forward, they went back into the past/and starting in the past, Picard is maybe only the expectation, cause it is placed just before of the century to the 25th.
Now, we have a show starting the era before TOS *10 year before* and now, it jumped past all known Trek Lore, kaput the Time Travel Accords, and stone age the majority of the Federation, with almost no means to travel at higher warp speeds.
It was illustrated as a greater future, an advance one, and what is shown now...is what actually? Hundreds of years of knowledge can't solve a major problem of a mineral that helps ships reactor to create the more than normal amount energy to get faster speeds of warp.
Here's the rub, most of us has been schooled on the knowledge on makes Trek tick, what is going now, is a rip down and build back up to what...less science and more fantasy applications?
The science part inspired many folks to go into that field and they are forever grateful for that.
As it was entertainment before the changes of 2009, it was almost educational.
Now, can you tell me...does Discovery offers the latter now, as it predecessors was doing that along? (LD & Picard not included)
i think its all based on matter of opinion, like for example, i dont like TNG, at all, but you make like it, i get where i was wrong in this conversation, and if i upset anything im sorry, my whole point was i like "star trek for being star trek", but ya i get it.
((((((((HUGS))))))))... keep the mind open, never close it, see not the world through narrow eyes.
> @captainhaseo said:
> (Quote)
>
> well then im wrong, its just the actions of some of you guys who dont like the show have shown me that, but guess its not all of you
They are frustrated and unhappy. I would not read too much into it. Be glad you are not one of them and keep on enjoying Discovery.
I was uncertain if the timetravel into the next millennium would sit well with me. Turns out after 15 minutes into the new season that it does.
i think people fear change, Discovery is a big step forward in star trek. also you all have a right to your opinion, so do i, if i want to call you guys non-trekkies for not liking Discovery, or even giving it a chance, then i will same reason your calling me a troll, witch i was only stating my opinion.
Change...can be good or bad, it just depends on how it is delivered. But when a newbie studio created to handle back then, a late 40ish old franchise, and spun a variant look on what is called Trek, uses sprinkles of past moments from its predecessors to entice folks to come and watch it.
Well, there's a lot of history to do a comparison...and when certain standards are not met, or surpassed. You know how that goes; we choose to view what is relevant to us.
What has not been done, since Voyager, that none of the Treks after 2009, never went forward, they went back into the past/and starting in the past, Picard is maybe only the expectation, cause it is placed just before of the century to the 25th.
Now, we have a show starting the era before TOS *10 year before* and now, it jumped past all known Trek Lore, kaput the Time Travel Accords, and stone age the majority of the Federation, with almost no means to travel at higher warp speeds.
It was illustrated as a greater future, an advance one, and what is shown now...is what actually? Hundreds of years of knowledge can't solve a major problem of a mineral that helps ships reactor to create the more than normal amount energy to get faster speeds of warp.
Here's the rub, most of us has been schooled on the knowledge on makes Trek tick, what is going now, is a rip down and build back up to what...less science and more fantasy applications?
The science part inspired many folks to go into that field and they are forever grateful for that.
As it was entertainment before the changes of 2009, it was almost educational.
Now, can you tell me...does Discovery offers the latter now, as it predecessors was doing that along? (LD & Picard not included)
i think its all based on matter of opinion, like for example, i dont like TNG, at all, but you make like it, i get where i was wrong in this conversation, and if i upset anything im sorry, my whole point was i like "star trek for being star trek", but ya i get it.
((((((((HUGS))))))))... keep the mind open, never close it, see not the world through narrow eyes.
Are you completely incapable of operating on an adult level?
I post a request to stop inventing ridiculous arguments to attack people who don't agree with you and the first thing you do is invent a ridiculous argument to attack me because I don't agree with your OPINION.
Ask a question and I will happily answer you, come up with these kind of silly attacks and I'll just ignore you to speak with the adults who CAN ask a question or discuss without the blatant hostility. If you have a question as to my opinion, then feel free to ask.
I fail to see how I attacked you in any way. And your response is to attack me and accuse me of being "blatantly hostile?"
What is the one big thing people kept complaining about Discovery when it first came out?
"It didn't look like TOS".
So... how is that inventing an argument?
You're inventing why people don't like ST:D without listening to them.
Honestly no I'm not. Many people have openly attacked Discovery for not looking like TOS because of when the show was set, and like to point out every episode of every show that has ever dealt with TOS era stuff as evidence. The PROBLEM however is not listening to them, its filtering out legit criticizm from all the venom and vitriol being thrown around.
Are you completely incapable of operating on an adult level?
I post a request to stop inventing ridiculous arguments to attack people who don't agree with you and the first thing you do is invent a ridiculous argument to attack me because I don't agree with your OPINION.
Ask a question and I will happily answer you, come up with these kind of silly attacks and I'll just ignore you to speak with the adults who CAN ask a question or discuss without the blatant hostility. If you have a question as to my opinion, then feel free to ask.
I fail to see how I attacked you in any way. And your response is to attack me and accuse me of being "blatantly hostile?"
What is the one big thing people kept complaining about Discovery when it first came out?
"It didn't look like TOS".
So... how is that inventing an argument?
You're inventing why people don't like ST:D without listening to them.
Honestly no I'm not. Many people have openly attacked Discovery for not looking like TOS because of when the show was set, and like to point out every episode of every show that has ever dealt with TOS era stuff as evidence. The PROBLEM however is not listening to them, its filtering out legit criticizm from all the venom and vitriol being thrown around.
You honestly think that saying
"If I had to guess... because it doesn't look anything like TOS.
"To fit into the time period, it MUST, WITHOUT QUESTION, look like TOS"."
as your response is normal? It's a silly nonsensical attempt to attack by using exaggeration. No one says "MUST, WITHOUT QUESTION". But apparently that's all you took from my request to tone down the attacks on people who don't like the show.
You carry what could have been a simple conversation to extremes for no reason...even Som had a calm and reasonable reply and (please don't take offense Som) I do consider him one of the more emotional defenders of the studio and shows...you skipped it entirely to go to exaggeration.
You see a lot of venom and vitriol when others express a different opinion from yours. Other people can have different opinions on the show - it's not an attack on you, we can have perfectly valid criticisms that you may not agree with, but it doesn't make them wrong...it just means we don't agree.
There are those who do take it to that extreme. And it drives me up a wall when those arguments come out as if its Word of God truth, and anything that doesn't follow that percieved Truth is Blasphemy and must be burned.
Could I have worded it better? Perhaps. But the intent was never to attack anyone like I'm being accused of. I was trying to point out one of the common arguments used against DSC.
Also as I usually used " " around them I had hoped people would recognize that I was not using it as my own opinion, but a statement of "this is what most of them boil down to". Again, probably could have worded it better.
The thing we can probably both agree on is that those arguments are rediculus.
Comments
Luckily the Mods have decided that the "No True Scotsman" strategy is a form of gatekeeping and trolling, and thus have elected to clamp down on such behavior because NO ONE has a right to declare who is and who isn't a Trek fan. Its just a means to launch personal attacks under the guise of "defending the faith" as it were.
If I had to guess... because it doesn't look anything like TOS.
"To fit into the time period, it MUST, WITHOUT QUESTION, look like TOS".
Although frankly... this...
looks like a great modernization of this...
I like how Discovery did the consoles because not only is it supposed to look advanced compared to what we have today, it feels like a natural evolution from Ent through to TNG. They still have the toggle switches and physical buttons here and there like were seen in TOS, but they did away with the jellybean buttons and lack of displays for data in favor of touchscreens, which we also saw on the Enterprise-A. Discovery's systems look like something that would evolve more naturally into what we see aboard Ent-A, and it looks functional.
I could never figure out how they can control a starship with the jellybean buttons. Its just a box of buttons. No displays or anything to provide data for the user. I give TMP era a pass because they DO have displays and stuff to help with displaying data, but TOS... there's nothing. And a lot of wasted space on the consoles.
I know there was talk behind the scenes of some kind of holographic interface in those blank areas, but it never made it on screen. While Spock had something to display data, Sulu didn't, and he's the helmsman. You kinda need that data to help navigate. And that pop up thing wasn't always there. Just his set of jellybeans.
Not hating on it. Just... that's how I feel about the consoles themselves.
By the way I am getting curious if Klingons and Romulans do exist as seperate entities in 31st/32nd centuries, on what condition and what ships they got if so. On STO weirdly, in the temporal episodes where the treaty for not using time travel is signed, the Fed representative is a klingon and we dont see a separate klingon ambassador that represents the empire. That always made me wonder if Cryptics plan was to just unite Federation and Empire.(I am not sure if I would like that idea)
Perfectly put... but wait! No, it must be because "it doesn't look like anything from TOS".
Ci sono tre tipi di giocatori:
- quelli a cui non va mai bene niente... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che sono talmente imbesuiti da credere a qualunque cosa i dev dicano, perfino che la luna è fatta di formaggio... e vanno sul forum a trollare;
- quelli che credono a quello a cui è giusto credere, sono d'accordo con quello con cui è giusto essere d'accordo e sono critici con quello che non va;
Ai giocatori dei primi due tipi, gratis in omaggio un bello specchio lucente su cui arrampicarsi. E una mazzata in testa per la loro poca intelligenza e compassione verso gli altri giocatori che non la pensano come loro.
Agli appartenenti al terzo tipo, invece, dico grazie. Anche se non sempre si riesce a mantenere la calma, siete quelli per cui vale la pena incazzarsi.
It was always intended as part of star trek that the klingons would become part of the federation. You can choose to not like it, but its what Gene intended.
I don't know about the romulans though, but I think it would be best if they went with the original idea that klingons would join the federation
@rattler2
@ucgsquawk#5883
None of this is about fearing changes, but thank you for attempting to use a blanket statement to deflect all criticism directed towards the show.
None of this is about fearing changes, but thank you for attempting to use a blanket statement to deflect all criticism directed towards the show.
well then im wrong, its just the actions of some of you guys who dont like the show have shown me that, but guess its not all of you
> (Quote)
>
> well then im wrong, its just the actions of some of you guys who dont like the show have shown me that, but guess its not all of you
They are frustrated and unhappy. I would not read too much into it. Be glad you are not one of them and keep on enjoying Discovery.
I was uncertain if the timetravel into the next millennium would sit well with me. Turns out after 15 minutes into the new season that it does.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
Well, if you didn't see the second episode from last week, the 'respect' is no more, and replaced with a slap and kick to the ankles.
It involved cleaning up body parts in a scene, and the name of the person doing it.
Change...can be good or bad, it just depends on how it is delivered. But when a newbie studio created to handle back then, a late 40ish old franchise, and spun a variant look on what is called Trek, uses sprinkles of past moments from its predecessors to entice folks to come and watch it.
Well, there's a lot of history to do a comparison...and when certain standards are not met, or surpassed. You know how that goes; we choose to view what is relevant to us.
What has not been done, since Voyager, that none of the Treks after 2009, never went forward, they went back into the past/and starting in the past, Picard is maybe only the expectation, cause it is placed just before of the century to the 25th.
Now, we have a show starting the era before TOS *10 year before* and now, it jumped past all known Trek Lore, kaput the Time Travel Accords, and stone age the majority of the Federation, with almost no means to travel at higher warp speeds.
It was illustrated as a greater future, an advance one, and what is shown now...is what actually? Hundreds of years of knowledge can't solve a major problem of a mineral that helps ships reactor to create the more than normal amount energy to get faster speeds of warp.
Here's the rub, most of us has been schooled on the knowledge on makes Trek tick, what is going now, is a rip down and build back up to what...less science and more fantasy applications?
The science part inspired many folks to go into that field and they are forever grateful for that.
As it was entertainment before the changes of 2009, it was almost educational.
Now, can you tell me...does Discovery offers the latter now, as it predecessors was doing that along? (LD & Picard not included)
fair.
i think its all based on matter of opinion, like for example, i dont like TNG, at all, but you make like it, i get where i was wrong in this conversation, and if i upset anything im sorry, my whole point was i like "star trek for being star trek", but ya i get it.
Are you completely incapable of operating on an adult level?
I post a request to stop inventing ridiculous arguments to attack people who don't agree with you and the first thing you do is invent a ridiculous argument to attack me because I don't agree with your OPINION.
Ask a question and I will happily answer you, come up with these kind of silly attacks and I'll just ignore you to speak with the adults who CAN ask a question or discuss without the blatant hostility. If you have a question as to my opinion, then feel free to ask.
Believe it or not- I think they could have gone the DS-9 route and kept MOST of the old look, with just some updates to the displays etc....adding a few extras here and there, and there's a specific reason for it.
In one of the books an officer from another ship comes aboard the Enterprise and comments on how low-tech everything looks with the old style buttons and switches and no touch screens and gets schooled by Uhura. It's been a few years so I forget the exact quote but she basically says that the Enterprise is meant to be out on the frontier of the Federation on extended missions, she was built from the ground up to accomplish this mission as opposed to these other ships that can sit safely in the heart of the Federation never that far from supply and repair bases. If they were caught by an Ion storm that blew out every circuit and relay on the ship...having a bunch of exploding touch screens wouldn't do much good. If she had to, given time, she could repair and rewire every circuit on the ship if she had to...try doing that with a bunch of broken touch screens.
I always though this was the most brilliant answer to why the Enterprise looks old-school...and it's one of the reasons that I never had a problem with ships like the Discovery having very modern displays and interfaces. It's an experimental science ship...it's not built for the same mission as a ship like the Enterprise. I don't think they needed to make such drastic changes to the appearance of the Enterprise outside either as DS-9 showed that the original looks damned fine using modern graphics...imagine if they had taken the original design and kept it, maybe a few lighting effects? I think it would have looked damned good.
Now - I'm not ranting or raving about it "must be da same" or whatever nonsense others might try to say...I just feel they could have kept some of the original esthetics and updated them without going quite so far overboard because "it's newer therefore must be different"'. I would have loved to have seen someone from Discovery go aboard the Enterprise and make the comment about how old tech it looks and get schooled over it...because it does make sense. Yes - there would have needed to be some updates...of course...but they could have kept some of that old school design and it would have been logical and allowed a smooth evolution into the TOS.
As to other things that didn't make sense...well the entire Klingon thing (really...I know you completely believe in all of it being totally fine, and hey that's great...but try to see where others are coming from). I feel like they made all these changes for no real reason other than "we're new, TRIBBLE you". They messed with a great and classic alien race that had the ship esthetics and race more or less all worked out (even the TOS "we don't talk about it" had been all worked out in Ent)...there really was no reason to make all those changes as it ended up being a disaster for the most part (actors who could barely speak through the mouth appliances, fingers that couldn't do much fine work with those silly extra claw/finger attachments). If they wanted to make them some sort of strange augments or something then hey, sure I could go with that...but no that wasn't what they were going to do.
There were a lot of very silly things - the beacon of Kahless was a silly idea that the writers didn't even try to make sense with. The big epic battle of season 2 was really quite silly etc. Many things that just didn't make a lot of sense but were done just because it "looks cool", hey, that's fine...but they could have written it to add some dialog to try and have it make more sense (one of the reasons I felt it wasn't well written).
As I've said...this is how I feel about it - it doesn't mean I think less of anyone who enjoys it (I only think less of those who blindly attack others for NOT enjoying it), I'm actually glad that there's a ST that you can enjoy because everyone should have something they enjoy in ST. It did have a few good moments with a couple of good actors, but what I'm really enjoying is Picard and LD - if you don't enjoy them then that's fine...I don't expect everyone to have to enjoy what I do.
It's funny - I wasn't a terribly big fan of TNG for the first few seasons (though I have to admit I didn't have cable back when it was on, it was well into it's run before I had cable and could watch it - though I did get to watch the finale at a big party at the skydome in Toronto).
I thought the first couple of seasons were fairly bad much of the time (though I liked most of the actors...some of them didn't seem to get the best scripts), though there were real gems and they had set great groundwork for the show. By the end of it I was really enjoying it, they seemed to finally start pulling it together much better.
Who knows though - this might be how Discovery ends up going...the first 2-3 seasons are meh for me but by the end I enjoy it. I AM glad they went to the future even if it's just because now they can do more or less whatever they want without it feeling silly or like they're trying to take the TRIBBLE from previous shows (that again is just purely how I felt at times, nothing against those who enjoy it!).
But then how is that any different from gate keeping?
"If you don't like Discovery then you're not a trekkie".
That's gate-keeping. If I were to say that you weren't a trekkie for liking discovery then, heck, I'd have the mods in here after me but when you say the opposite it's just fine? I think it was Rattler who pointed out that it was good that the mods stopped people from doing that...why do you think it's okay for you to do it?
It's not a fear of change (as myself and others have said before) - I'm fine with change...but "...just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing." to quote the Federation President.
Doing something new is great...but there was no need to do it in such a way that it upsets some fans...it could easily have been done without that. That you feel that it's good to split the fandom and that if you don't like the show you aren't a trekkie suggests that you are just as bad a culprit as anyone.
You're inventing why people don't like ST:D without listening to them. Now personally, I've made it clear I've never seen ST:D and don't want to. Of the visuals I have seen, though, they are pretty awful, and not necessarily because they are low quality, but because they look absurd. This problem was in Picard as well.
Just look at that picture. Its about twice as large as the TOS bridge with a ton of wasted space, and has an absurd amount of shine and glare on it. That isn't an environment people can be functional in for a long time. ST:P's holographic displays were nonsensically impractical. Other pics I've seen have shown absurdly dark poorly lit corridors, and many others have shown a nonsensical amount of wasted, empty space in the ships. ST:P's lighting in the La Sirena was ludicrously bad.
The consoles looking more current day than TOS? That's fine with me, I don't care. But does the rest of it make me not like ST:D? No, I've never seen the show, so I have no opinion of it as a whole, only of the visuals I've seen. Does it make me not like ST:P? No there are many other reasons to dislike it.
What it tells me though, is that ST being science fiction, they should be trying to make things look plausible and reasonable in universe, not absurd and ridiculous, and they don't understand what they are doing, visually. They don't have practical people on the cast and crew, apparently, to ask questions like, why is the lighting in our shows so awful, how could anyone reasonably function in this environment? They haven't put any serious thought into anything they've done with set design.
That goes doubly for their space shots, like whatever scene it was from ST:D that had two ships fighting with swarms of drones, or the copy/paste fleet from Picard, and the poor shot that started this thread, none of those looked good at all. They clearly don't understand the concept that sometimes less is more, or how to make a shot look plausible. And yes DS9s huge battle scenes were guilty of this to a degree.
((((((((HUGS))))))))... keep the mind open, never close it, see not the world through narrow eyes.
If I had the cash both would be my man caves...
I fail to see how I attacked you in any way. And your response is to attack me and accuse me of being "blatantly hostile?"
What is the one big thing people kept complaining about Discovery when it first came out?
"It didn't look like TOS".
So... how is that inventing an argument?
Honestly no I'm not. Many people have openly attacked Discovery for not looking like TOS because of when the show was set, and like to point out every episode of every show that has ever dealt with TOS era stuff as evidence. The PROBLEM however is not listening to them, its filtering out legit criticizm from all the venom and vitriol being thrown around.
You honestly think that saying
"If I had to guess... because it doesn't look anything like TOS.
"To fit into the time period, it MUST, WITHOUT QUESTION, look like TOS"."
as your response is normal? It's a silly nonsensical attempt to attack by using exaggeration. No one says "MUST, WITHOUT QUESTION". But apparently that's all you took from my request to tone down the attacks on people who don't like the show.
You carry what could have been a simple conversation to extremes for no reason...even Som had a calm and reasonable reply and (please don't take offense Som) I do consider him one of the more emotional defenders of the studio and shows...you skipped it entirely to go to exaggeration.
You see a lot of venom and vitriol when others express a different opinion from yours. Other people can have different opinions on the show - it's not an attack on you, we can have perfectly valid criticisms that you may not agree with, but it doesn't make them wrong...it just means we don't agree.
Could I have worded it better? Perhaps. But the intent was never to attack anyone like I'm being accused of. I was trying to point out one of the common arguments used against DSC.
Also as I usually used " " around them I had hoped people would recognize that I was not using it as my own opinion, but a statement of "this is what most of them boil down to". Again, probably could have worded it better.
The thing we can probably both agree on is that those arguments are rediculus.