There is a documentary on Netflix called “Chaos on the Bridge”. It’s hosted by Shatner and talks about the first two seasons of TNG. In the documentary they talk about the fan backlash and how they received tons of hate mail.
Again I’ll point you to “Chaos on the Bridge”. The producers on the show talk about getting bags and bags of hate mail.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Fact is Trek fans have hated on every single series or film to some degree and ST:D is getting the same reaction. That doesn’t mean anything is different but the internet has a wonderful ability to drop people into an echo chamber where they always here opinions they agree with and they can actively seek out opinions to agree with.
I was here since TNG appeared so I’m aware of the hatred it suffered, literally tonnes of hate mail because it was different and not what people were used to. Then when DS9 came out everyone lost their minds because it was set on a space station and “didn’t move around the galaxy”. And then with Voyager people again lost their minds because “zomg it’s not set in Federation space and we’ll not get Klingons/Romulans/cardasians etc”. And with Enterprise people once more lost their minds because it was a prequel. And the films....yeah they got plenty of hate too and still do.
It happened literally every single time there’s a new iteration of the content. And you know what....Trek is still going strong regardless of all that nonsense. Haters are gonna hate it and if they really want to boycott the IP and throw toys out of their pram they are welcome to do that. But the show will continue and those of us enjoying it will be here to soak it up.
I am not a fan of JJ Abrams, Kurtzman, and Ori's Trek. I saw the free first showing of Discovery and like the 3 "Trek" films, it is just another entry from a group of people who don't get Star Trek at all. This is all about exploiting an established IP. I guess we all have to deal with it, but I'd rather Discovery along with Abrams Trek never made into the game.
Wow that's a lot of hate on Discovery.. I mean I will never understand why they NEEDED to use Klingons vs just using that design and calling them something else IN the Klingon Empire, BUT my main gripe with it coming to STO and being the next expansion is that.. it's Fed Centric just like AOY was. I won't lie and say I didn't enjoy AOY but it had a great nostalgic vibe that Discovery isn't going to have and well.. I'd like to be able to make new Romulans as part of a recruitment event not more Federation toons..
i voted nope not a fan of JJ's "Star Trek" I've watched the show in one form or another since 1965 I don't fault anyone if they like discovery, but its not for me. I'm just glad that I won't have to play the discovery stuff if I don't want to.
Are you kidding? Have you not seen what many Trekkies all over the net (from Youtube, to IMBD, to TrekBBS, etc.) have been saying about TRIBBLE? They hate this show....period.
Just as legions of Trek fans hated TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise.... Honest questions - do you know anything of Trek history? Were you even born when TNG first premiered?
Try watching or reading some of the myriad of documentaries / behind-the-scenes content about Star Trek. The reaction to Discovery is nothing new at all. Those of us old enough to have been around since TOS first aired on television have seen this all before.
There only appears to be more whining about Discovery because we (sadly) live in the age of the entitlement generation whose pasttime is whining on the internet.
Oh look you ASSummed. Please do not do that, because as we all know when one assumes one makes one self into an A....S.....S.
I have watched the documentaries on Star Trek, and I've been alive since the early 70s, watched ST:TOS in syndication on UHF TV (WHDH channel 56, which also played Starblazers, Robotech, Galaxy Rangers, Johnny Quest, Voltron, Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors, Space Pirate Captain Harlock & the Queen of 1000-years, Ulysses 31, and other neat SF shows). Saw all the movies from ST:TMP on in the theater as they came out (also saw SW:ANH in 1977 in the theater).
Owned and played the old FASA Star Trek RPG.
Just because my experiences at the various GenCons, StarFests, and other fan conventions was different than yours, does not make my experiences wrong nor yours right.
People picked on ST:TMP for being a rehash of the ST:TOS "Nomad" episode, many said the same thing about ST:WOK being a rehash of "Space Seed", but they didn't hate it.
They picked on the new uniforms for being pajamas, they picked on the Genesis device, they picked on the new Klingon "Bone Heads" beck them. However, many loved the new Enterprise, the Reliant, and the Klingon K'Tinga. They picked on ST:TNG for being too soft, and too "warm and fuzzy". Hell even Mad Magazine got in on picking on ST:TNG:
Many of us disliked the Galaxy class design (still my least favorite Enterprise design).
But it wasn't HATRED like there is for TRIBBLE because it was never an attempt to rewrite what had come before. The fans of ST:TNG also took the ribbing in stride and didn't whine like children about people who picked on it, that's another major difference. TRIBBLE fans are not doing themselves any favors by showing they are annoyed and/or upset about other fans displeasure with TRIBBLE. I've learned over the years that the extreme haters will eventually be ignored by everybody as will the extreme defenders of any fiction/fantasy show/franchise. They are the "Brandons" from Galaxy Quest or the more commonly known "fanboys". It is the fandom in the middle that is usually the largest group and that is normally a mix of people who like and or dislike a given show, but do not love or hate it (the extremes).
The problem with TRIBBLE is that the middle seems really tiny (I'm in there, so I feel it) while the two extremes comprise most of the Star Trek fanbase opinion (or at least it seems that way online and at the conventions).
That's the difference and that's my point.
Why do people hate TRIBBLE?
Two reasons.
It's mostly the rewrite of the existing time period of ST:TOS. It just does not look like Star Trek of that time period for many fans and they are having none of it.
However, it is also the TRIBBLE-Fanbase. They are too ridiculous about defending this show so all that does is prompt even more people to attack them and TRIBBLE for fun and giggles (you guys and gals do get pretty silly in your defense of TRIBBLE sometimes). It's what humans do, especially online. That's why I keep telling you TRIBBLE fans to just brush it off and laugh at it, let them pick on it (not hate on it) and draw the line only when it gets ridiculous (like the people who say it has destroyed Star Trek forever, etc.)
Be stoic and show that TRIBBLE can take being picked on, ridiculed, and still weather through it and maybe you can gain some respect for the detractors.
I already respect the art of the show (just wish it was in a post-Voyager setting, but.....). Others feel the same way. Heck, I'm working for a client on a 25th Century version of the Carnedas class right now (taking me a long time to finish because it is complex).
Hey, be fair here: mad magazine ALSO picked on The Original Series (multiple times), every movie made in the franchise, DS9, Voyager, etc. etc.
to be satirized by MAD your product had to be wildly successful and/or popular, but not necessarily niche Star Trek. They hit everybody.
There's satire and there's satire, Patrick, and that one reads to me like the cartoonist seriously hated the show.
"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"
Unfortunately I didn't hang onto all those old Starlogs, so I can't just reproduce the letters column. And apparently you won't just trust me in what I read at the time. But yes, TNG was hated. It didn't help, of course, that the first season had some "Spock's Brain"-quality episodes ("Code of Honor", for instance, or "The Naked Now"), or that it was aired in first-run syndication, which was automatically taken by "fans" as a symbol that the show was so terrible that no network could possibly be interested in it. Then there were the really stupid complaints, like the fact that the security chief was a "girl", or the supposed pointlessness of Troi (who, to be fair, existed that first season primarily to be a phenomenal pair of TRIBBLE that would occasionally exposit on the situation).
And DS9? I'm certain that I'm not the only person here old enough to remember all the b*tching about "boldly going nowhere", or the complaints about its similarities to Babylon 5, or Avery Brooks' stiff style that first season (because it was not clearly understood by some "fans" that Brooks was portraying a man whose PTSD from Wolf 359 basically did leave him, as the Prophets noted, stuck in that particular moment).
Unfortunately I didn't hang onto all those old Starlogs, so I can't just reproduce the letters column. And apparently you won't just trust me in what I read at the time. But yes, TNG was hated. It didn't help, of course, that the first season had some "Spock's Brain"-quality episodes ("Code of Honor", for instance, or "The Naked Now"), or that it was aired in first-run syndication, which was automatically taken by "fans" as a symbol that the show was so terrible that no network could possibly be interested in it. Then there were the really stupid complaints, like the fact that the security chief was a "girl", or the supposed pointlessness of Troi (who, to be fair, existed that first season primarily to be a phenomenal pair of **** that would occasionally exposit on the situation).
And DS9? I'm certain that I'm not the only person here old enough to remember all the b*tching about "boldly going nowhere", or the complaints about its similarities to Babylon 5, or Avery Brooks' stiff style that first season (because it was not clearly understood by some "fans" that Brooks was portraying a man whose PTSD from Wolf 359 basically did leave him, as the Prophets noted, stuck in that particular moment).
I've said it before on the announcement thread but the way I see it is STO is a game for ALL kinds of Star Trek fans, not everybody likes every show but every show gets represented in game.
If you don't like a mission (or are unwilling to give a mission a try) then skip it, it's as simple as that.
Saying the game is only allowed to cater to the shows YOU like is childish at best, it's "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" not "Infinite Diversity but only the bits I like".
"As of this moment, we are all dead. We go into battle to reclaim our lives.
This we do gladly, for we are Jem'Hadar. Victory is Life!"
Unfortunately I didn't hang onto all those old Starlogs, so I can't just reproduce the letters column. And apparently you won't just trust me in what I read at the time. But yes, TNG was hated. It didn't help, of course, that the first season had some "Spock's Brain"-quality episodes ("Code of Honor", for instance, or "The Naked Now"), or that it was aired in first-run syndication, which was automatically taken by "fans" as a symbol that the show was so terrible that no network could possibly be interested in it. Then there were the really stupid complaints, like the fact that the security chief was a "girl", or the supposed pointlessness of Troi (who, to be fair, existed that first season primarily to be a phenomenal pair of **** that would occasionally exposit on the situation).
And DS9? I'm certain that I'm not the only person here old enough to remember all the b*tching about "boldly going nowhere", or the complaints about its similarities to Babylon 5, or Avery Brooks' stiff style that first season (because it was not clearly understood by some "fans" that Brooks was portraying a man whose PTSD from Wolf 359 basically did leave him, as the Prophets noted, stuck in that particular moment).
I'm sure ST:TNG received some initial flak; like I've seen ppl say they thought the Galaxy class ship looked like a spoon (for that matter, Cardies are often referred to as 'spoonheads' too). Most of the critique on ST:TNG was rather petty, indeed. The 'hatred' for ST:D runs deeper, though. Primarily, I think, because it's well deserved. They took an iconic race, the Klingons, and turned them into dimwitted, lethargic cannibals, wearing silly 'masks.' I mean, we're not talking ridges yes or no here, but a complete and utter material alteration of the species that changed the very fabric of the prime TOS enemy. And for no good reason, really.
And then there was Burnham. 'Nuf said.
And then, when the show was about to get exciting, they rushed it towards a ridiculously implausible, speedy end, where the humans decided not to destroy the Klingon homeworld, after all (after the humans had almost completely lost the war, and this was really their last chance), and where the Klink had Earth on their viewscreens already, and did an equally insane turn-about, and called the whole thing off for a guy holding a bomb.
And then there was Tilly. Too much said already.
But the most virulent source of the 'hatred' towards ST:D, I think, is the realization that folks like JJ, and the makers of Discovery, no longer care about canon at all. They don't even bother with continuation of lore, and are just in it for the money. And that, after a fashion, makes you realize the entire awesomeness of franchise is in jeopardy, like how they utterly butchered Star Wars with these childish, in-it-for-the-quick-buck prequels.
> @meimeitoo said: > jonsills wrote: » > > Unfortunately I didn't hang onto all those old Starlogs, so I can't just reproduce the letters column. And apparently you won't just trust me in what I read at the time. But yes, TNG was hated. It didn't help, of course, that the first season had some "Spock's Brain"-quality episodes ("Code of Honor", for instance, or "The Naked Now"), or that it was aired in first-run syndication, which was automatically taken by "fans" as a symbol that the show was so terrible that no network could possibly be interested in it. Then there were the really stupid complaints, like the fact that the security chief was a "girl", or the supposed pointlessness of Troi (who, to be fair, existed that first season primarily to be a phenomenal pair of **** that would occasionally exposit on the situation). > > And DS9? I'm certain that I'm not the only person here old enough to remember all the b*tching about "boldly going nowhere", or the complaints about its similarities to Babylon 5, or Avery Brooks' stiff style that first season (because it was not clearly understood by some "fans" that Brooks was portraying a man whose PTSD from Wolf 359 basically did leave him, as the Prophets noted, stuck in that particular moment). > > > > > > I'm sure ST:TNG received some initial flak; like I've seen ppl say they thought the Galaxy class ship looked like a spoon (for that matter, Cardies are often referred to as 'spoonheads' too). Most of the critique on ST:TNG was rather petty, indeed. The 'hatred' for ST:D runs deeper, though. Primarily, I think, because it's well deserved. They took an iconic race, the Klingons, and turned them into dimwitted, lethargic cannibals, wearing silly 'masks.' I mean, we're not talking ridges yes or no here, but a complete and utter material alteration of the species that changed the very fabric of the prime TOS enemy. And for no good reason, really. > > And then there was Burnham. 'Nuf said. > > And then, when the show was about to get exciting, they rushed it towards a ridiculously implausible, speedy end, where the humans decided not to destroy the Klingon homeworld, after all (after the humans had almost completely lost the war, and this was really their last chance), and where the Klink had Earth on their viewscreens already, and did an equally insane turn-about, and called the whole thing off for a guy holding a bomb. > > And then there was Tilly. Too much said already. > > But the most virulent source of the 'hatred' towards ST:D, I think, is the realization that folks like JJ, and the makers of Discovery, no longer care about canon at all. They don't even bother with continuation of lore, and are just in it for the money. And that, after a fashion, makes you realize the entire awesomeness of franchise is in jeopardy, like how they utterly butchered Star Wars with these childish, in-it-for-the-quick-buck prequels.
Tilly wasn't too horrible, not as bad as say Rose Tico. Then I saw the season 2 trailer. "Power of Math". I cringed so bad.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool.
-Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
But the most virulent source of the 'hatred' towards ST:D, I think, is the realization that folks like JJ, and the makers of Discovery, no longer care about canon at all. They don't even bother with continuation of lore, and are just in it for the money. And that, after a fashion, makes you realize the entire awesomeness of franchise is in jeopardy, like how they utterly butchered Star Wars with these childish, in-it-for-the-quick-buck prequels.
I honestly can't take this hatred seriously. It's not based in a cogent examination of the series but instead a gut reaction from IT LOOKS DIFFERENT with any detailed examination forgone in favor of diving to the keyboard (the propagation phase in the lifecycle of a virulent meme...) and letting attention-seeking (and thoroughly disingenuous) rage take the place of analysis. Here's somtaawkhkar's excellent breakdown from the main AoD thread of the common points invoked by those complaining about "violating canon." They've gone through this in better detail than I ever could.
I just wish the producers would stop trying to pretend TRIBBLE is congruous / consistent with Prime Timeline canon
Well it is, as has been shown numerous times.
You can whine, kick, and scream, that it isn't, but it very demonstrably is.
As I said before
>BUT KLINGONS LOOK TOTALLY DIFFERENT!
Actually, they are just bald. If you put hair on them they look like higher quality versions of the TNG/DS98/VOY era Klingons, and we have seen bald, or nearly bald, Klingons before, so we know some of them are.
>BUT KLINGONS DON'T TAKE PRISONERS!
Actually they do, we have known since Star Trek 6 that Klingons take criminals, and people they capture in their space, to a slave mine called Rura Penthe to mine out dilthium, and we know from ENT that this place was established over 100 years before Discovery began.
>BUT KLINGON HONOR!
As Worf mentions in TNG, the greatest honor a Klingon can have in battle is victory. Klingons don't care how they win, only that they do, which is why they are perfectly fine with using things like cloaking devices, and triggering solar flares to destroy ships and enemy installations like we see them do in TNG and DS9.
>BUT THEY GOT THE KLINGON DEATH RITUAL WRONG!
Actually they didn't. While some Klingons don't care about the deceased's body, Worf tells us in DS9 that there is an ancient Klingon death ritual involving warriors guarding the body of a fallen comrade from predators so their soul can pass on to Sto-v-kor. We also know from Star Tek 4 that Klingon mummification glyphs exist, showing that some Klingons do care. Whats more, T'Kuvma's concept of keeping the dead bodies as armor around his ship to create a "black fleet" is linking to a Klingon afterlife belief created in the 1984 novel "The Final Reflection", a concept that was also referenced, by name, by Kor in DS9, shwoign that it does exist alongside modern Klingon belief even in the DS9 era.
>BUT THE FEDERATION ACTS TOTALLY DIFFERENT, AND DOES ALL THESE BAD THINGS!
But that is how the Federation has always acted, even ignoring rogue admirals, alien parasites, and Section 31, back in the TOS era the Federation conspired with an alien government to have Kirk seemingly kidnapped, so he could infect the populace with a disease, and kill many of them, to end their overpopulation problem. Think about it, the Federation's first means of ending overpopulation was to use biological warfare to commit planetary genocide. This isn't even getting into the war crimes committed by Sisko, like when he used trilithium to render a planet uninhabitable to human life for 50 years, and suffered no consequences for it because the Federation was a-ok with it. Even discounting the actions of Section 31, the attempted use a bomb to destroy the Klingon homeworld is the exact same kind of thing the Federation has always done.
>BUT THE UNIFORMS ARE DIFFERENT!
They already explained that the new uniforms were only given out of the Constitution class ships at the same since they were just beginning the changeover
>BUT THE CREW'S CONFLICTS AND FIGHTING BREAK GENE'S RULES!
So did DS9, VOY, and ENT. Discovery wasn't the first, and, by the time Discovery aired, there had been more Trek episodes and movies that broke Gene's rules then there had been Trek that follow them.
>BUT THE TECHNOLOGY IS TOO ADVANCED!
Actually, in the official Motion Picture Novel adaptation, written by Gene Roddenbery himself, they mention things like the holographic communications used by Discovery. These things just never showed up in TOS itself because it was too expensive to do budget wise. Same reason why TAS did a lot more crazy stuff, and showed more advanced technology, compared to TOS.
"Discovery doesn't care about lore!" is TRIBBLE. The show has done an excellent job, in large part, establishing the world of this era and connecting it to other points in Trek time. They've also done so in ways that don't immediately play to the simplest possible expectations, which is what we should be asking of a worthwhile revive of the franchise. There's detail and depth here. So, stop spreading "NOT STAR TREK" (phrased on way or the other) without the will to back it up in an honest debate as then you're only serving the purpose of a virulent meme, preying on those worried losing social power over a franchise for propagation (at their expense.) The show has issues (ex. its narrative arc and use of character, both of which seems too reactionary to me) but none of that is even particularly exceptional in the realm of trek criticism (see. Wesley, ENT crew dynamics, and Voyager's route home). It can be handled in a normal conversation about writing, tone, and structure without needing to default to intra-franchise power games.
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
They took an iconic race, the Klingons, and turned them into dimwitted, lethargic cannibals, wearing silly 'masks.'
A. The Klingons in Discovery aren't cannibals, as cannibalism is eating your own species, and the Klingons only ever ate a human, and even then, it was out of extreme hunger, something humans have done in similar siutations
B. Actually, it was DS9 who made Klingons into cannibals, and had Kor mention that he, Klang, and Koloth, defeated some warrior, and then feasted on his heart together.
Why people feel the need to lie about such things i will never understand.
Why people feel the need to troll over literal meanings of a word I will never understand (although the moment I said 'cannibals', I knew some smart-*ss would point out they ate a human). Cannibalism is as good a term as any, of course, much like a human eating a Klingon would be eating a humanoid species: it's simply too close to home.
the line in DS9 was figurative and did not necessarily reflect an actual action, som, Klingons have poetry and opera, they're not literalist.
In an oral story telling tradition (which is at the heart of Klingon literature) the events, while not necessarily accurate, are strongly influenced by the cultural outlook of its participants (ie. both the speaker and the audience.) If you hold that cannibalism did not, in fact, take place in Klingon history (on the slightest technicality of "not necessarily," extrapolated out as the greatest generality that one bunk reference covers the entire span of Klingon society) then you are still left with having to explain why the Klingon speaker/audience nexus still believes that it could take place (in which case you're investigating other incidents which were combined into the myth or self-serving reinterpretations at some point in the history of the story. The chances of all that finding that NO Klingon cannibalism took place is multiplicative probability problem [without further information], covering the span of an entire civilization [for context, see. incidents of cannibalism in human history and yet where the FED ethos landed] and thus rare by base estimate. You can't assume "no, not at all" [and hold that Discovery is doing something wrong here] without violating a scientific approach to investigation [even within the context of pop-media and Star Trek lore.])
Also, Klingon culture tends to be very literal with its interpretation of mythology. See. Boreth.
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Comments
My character Tsin'xing
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I was here since TNG appeared so I’m aware of the hatred it suffered, literally tonnes of hate mail because it was different and not what people were used to.
Then when DS9 came out everyone lost their minds because it was set on a space station and “didn’t move around the galaxy”.
And then with Voyager people again lost their minds because “zomg it’s not set in Federation space and we’ll not get Klingons/Romulans/cardasians etc”.
And with Enterprise people once more lost their minds because it was a prequel.
And the films....yeah they got plenty of hate too and still do.
It happened literally every single time there’s a new iteration of the content.
And you know what....Trek is still going strong regardless of all that nonsense. Haters are gonna hate it and if they really want to boycott the IP and throw toys out of their pram they are welcome to do that. But the show will continue and those of us enjoying it will be here to soak it up.
I am not a fan of JJ Abrams, Kurtzman, and Ori's Trek. I saw the free first showing of Discovery and like the 3 "Trek" films, it is just another entry from a group of people who don't get Star Trek at all. This is all about exploiting an established IP. I guess we all have to deal with it, but I'd rather Discovery along with Abrams Trek never made into the game.
Since when are salt tablets juicy?
There's satire and there's satire, Patrick, and that one reads to me like the cartoonist seriously hated the show.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
And DS9? I'm certain that I'm not the only person here old enough to remember all the b*tching about "boldly going nowhere", or the complaints about its similarities to Babylon 5, or Avery Brooks' stiff style that first season (because it was not clearly understood by some "fans" that Brooks was portraying a man whose PTSD from Wolf 359 basically did leave him, as the Prophets noted, stuck in that particular moment).
My character Tsin'xing
If you don't like a mission (or are unwilling to give a mission a try) then skip it, it's as simple as that.
Saying the game is only allowed to cater to the shows YOU like is childish at best, it's "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations" not "Infinite Diversity but only the bits I like".
This we do gladly, for we are Jem'Hadar. Victory is Life!"
I'm sure ST:TNG received some initial flak; like I've seen ppl say they thought the Galaxy class ship looked like a spoon (for that matter, Cardies are often referred to as 'spoonheads' too). Most of the critique on ST:TNG was rather petty, indeed. The 'hatred' for ST:D runs deeper, though. Primarily, I think, because it's well deserved. They took an iconic race, the Klingons, and turned them into dimwitted, lethargic cannibals, wearing silly 'masks.' I mean, we're not talking ridges yes or no here, but a complete and utter material alteration of the species that changed the very fabric of the prime TOS enemy. And for no good reason, really.
And then there was Burnham. 'Nuf said.
And then, when the show was about to get exciting, they rushed it towards a ridiculously implausible, speedy end, where the humans decided not to destroy the Klingon homeworld, after all (after the humans had almost completely lost the war, and this was really their last chance), and where the Klink had Earth on their viewscreens already, and did an equally insane turn-about, and called the whole thing off for a guy holding a bomb.
And then there was Tilly. Too much said already.
But the most virulent source of the 'hatred' towards ST:D, I think, is the realization that folks like JJ, and the makers of Discovery, no longer care about canon at all. They don't even bother with continuation of lore, and are just in it for the money. And that, after a fashion, makes you realize the entire awesomeness of franchise is in jeopardy, like how they utterly butchered Star Wars with these childish, in-it-for-the-quick-buck prequels.
> jonsills wrote: »
>
> Unfortunately I didn't hang onto all those old Starlogs, so I can't just reproduce the letters column. And apparently you won't just trust me in what I read at the time. But yes, TNG was hated. It didn't help, of course, that the first season had some "Spock's Brain"-quality episodes ("Code of Honor", for instance, or "The Naked Now"), or that it was aired in first-run syndication, which was automatically taken by "fans" as a symbol that the show was so terrible that no network could possibly be interested in it. Then there were the really stupid complaints, like the fact that the security chief was a "girl", or the supposed pointlessness of Troi (who, to be fair, existed that first season primarily to be a phenomenal pair of **** that would occasionally exposit on the situation).
>
> And DS9? I'm certain that I'm not the only person here old enough to remember all the b*tching about "boldly going nowhere", or the complaints about its similarities to Babylon 5, or Avery Brooks' stiff style that first season (because it was not clearly understood by some "fans" that Brooks was portraying a man whose PTSD from Wolf 359 basically did leave him, as the Prophets noted, stuck in that particular moment).
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm sure ST:TNG received some initial flak; like I've seen ppl say they thought the Galaxy class ship looked like a spoon (for that matter, Cardies are often referred to as 'spoonheads' too). Most of the critique on ST:TNG was rather petty, indeed. The 'hatred' for ST:D runs deeper, though. Primarily, I think, because it's well deserved. They took an iconic race, the Klingons, and turned them into dimwitted, lethargic cannibals, wearing silly 'masks.' I mean, we're not talking ridges yes or no here, but a complete and utter material alteration of the species that changed the very fabric of the prime TOS enemy. And for no good reason, really.
>
> And then there was Burnham. 'Nuf said.
>
> And then, when the show was about to get exciting, they rushed it towards a ridiculously implausible, speedy end, where the humans decided not to destroy the Klingon homeworld, after all (after the humans had almost completely lost the war, and this was really their last chance), and where the Klink had Earth on their viewscreens already, and did an equally insane turn-about, and called the whole thing off for a guy holding a bomb.
>
> And then there was Tilly. Too much said already.
>
> But the most virulent source of the 'hatred' towards ST:D, I think, is the realization that folks like JJ, and the makers of Discovery, no longer care about canon at all. They don't even bother with continuation of lore, and are just in it for the money. And that, after a fashion, makes you realize the entire awesomeness of franchise is in jeopardy, like how they utterly butchered Star Wars with these childish, in-it-for-the-quick-buck prequels.
Tilly wasn't too horrible, not as bad as say Rose Tico. Then I saw the season 2 trailer. "Power of Math". I cringed so bad.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
>
Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool.
-Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
I honestly can't take this hatred seriously. It's not based in a cogent examination of the series but instead a gut reaction from IT LOOKS DIFFERENT with any detailed examination forgone in favor of diving to the keyboard (the propagation phase in the lifecycle of a virulent meme...) and letting attention-seeking (and thoroughly disingenuous) rage take the place of analysis. Here's somtaawkhkar's excellent breakdown from the main AoD thread of the common points invoked by those complaining about "violating canon." They've gone through this in better detail than I ever could.
"Discovery doesn't care about lore!" is TRIBBLE. The show has done an excellent job, in large part, establishing the world of this era and connecting it to other points in Trek time. They've also done so in ways that don't immediately play to the simplest possible expectations, which is what we should be asking of a worthwhile revive of the franchise. There's detail and depth here. So, stop spreading "NOT STAR TREK" (phrased on way or the other) without the will to back it up in an honest debate as then you're only serving the purpose of a virulent meme, preying on those worried losing social power over a franchise for propagation (at their expense.) The show has issues (ex. its narrative arc and use of character, both of which seems too reactionary to me) but none of that is even particularly exceptional in the realm of trek criticism (see. Wesley, ENT crew dynamics, and Voyager's route home). It can be handled in a normal conversation about writing, tone, and structure without needing to default to intra-franchise power games.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Why people feel the need to troll over literal meanings of a word I will never understand (although the moment I said 'cannibals', I knew some smart-*ss would point out they ate a human). Cannibalism is as good a term as any, of course, much like a human eating a Klingon would be eating a humanoid species: it's simply too close to home.
In an oral story telling tradition (which is at the heart of Klingon literature) the events, while not necessarily accurate, are strongly influenced by the cultural outlook of its participants (ie. both the speaker and the audience.) If you hold that cannibalism did not, in fact, take place in Klingon history (on the slightest technicality of "not necessarily," extrapolated out as the greatest generality that one bunk reference covers the entire span of Klingon society) then you are still left with having to explain why the Klingon speaker/audience nexus still believes that it could take place (in which case you're investigating other incidents which were combined into the myth or self-serving reinterpretations at some point in the history of the story. The chances of all that finding that NO Klingon cannibalism took place is multiplicative probability problem [without further information], covering the span of an entire civilization [for context, see. incidents of cannibalism in human history and yet where the FED ethos landed] and thus rare by base estimate. You can't assume "no, not at all" [and hold that Discovery is doing something wrong here] without violating a scientific approach to investigation [even within the context of pop-media and Star Trek lore.])
Also, Klingon culture tends to be very literal with its interpretation of mythology. See. Boreth.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!