I bet it's fair and balanced and not reactionary in the slightest.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
They go through most of the season and point out many plotholes, how the science mumbo jumbo is done super poorly and seems more self gratifying for the writers instead of actually serving as a good way for watchers to need out, how it appears that the story is just ham fisted together because some parts of the plot make no sense or serve no purpose, that the one character sacrificing herself behind a bulkhead makes no sense, having so many drones in the final battle makes no sense, disco going to the future makes no sense since they won and a few others. I recommend actually watching it because they go much more into detail.
disco going to the future makes no sense since they won and a few others. I recommend actually watching it because they go much more into detail.
Going into the future makes sense since they no longer want to be a prequel. Prequels restrict creativity while sequels set in a new time and/or region allow writers to create whatever story they want. It is part of the reason why I wanted Discovery to be Star Trek: Sliders. The other being Sliders made for some interesting What If scenarios and it would be interesting to see What If scenarios for Star Trek in full detail rather than the limited exposure from episodes like Parallels.
The whole point of going into the future was to protect the Sphere Data from being accessed by Control. There was no way for Discovery to know if Control was still hiding and waiting for the right moment to steal the Sphere Data. Of course, there is the problem about why a bunch of Discovery's crew had to travel to the future and not just use a skeleton crew.
I bet it's fair and balanced and not reactionary in the slightest.
Oh, yes, Red Letter Media is well-known for their even-handed and calm reviews of SF products. That's how they get the YouTube clicks, right? After all, nobody wants to watch a bunch of one-sided bashing of a show (or occasionally a movie) that they don't seem to have even seen...
....disco going to the future makes no sense since they won...
They "won" in the sense that they managed to hold Control's forces off long enough for Discovery to make that jump. Control's fleet still outnumbered the combined Starfleet/Klingon/Kelpian forces, though, and were grinding them down. If the database Control was fighting for had not departed from that point in the timestream, the computer's victory would have been inevitable.
Again, it seems like most of the people who want to bash this show don't actually watch it, they just read summaries from others and make their assumptions from that.
....disco going to the future makes no sense since they won...
They "won" in the sense that they managed to hold Control's forces off long enough for Discovery to make that jump. Control's fleet still outnumbered the combined Starfleet/Klingon/Kelpian forces, though, and were grinding them down. If the database Control was fighting for had not departed from that point in the timestream, the computer's victory would have been inevitable.
Again, it seems like most of the people who want to bash this show don't actually watch it, they just read summaries from others and make their assumptions from that.
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? "Captain they are all (enemy ships) dead in the water." *They proceed to shoot them down effortlessly* "Lealand is dead. Control is neutralised." These are literal quotes from the season finale before Discovery jumps to the future. The battle ended, they (the protagonists) won.
So.... basically like every other season of every other Trek show then?
No. So far just Discovery.
Meaning you've only seen DSC or you're lying.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
So.... basically like every other season of every other Trek show then?
No. So far just Discovery.
Meaning you've only seen DSC or you're lying.
Well then we hit a bit of a conundrum there, since I saw every ST series ever and I'm pretty sure I'm not lying either, but thanks for the asumption. It is always possible that I'm mistaken in something, but that is an entirely different word.
I don't want to derail the thread however, it is supposed to be about the review. I still thik it is worth watching.
So.... basically like every other season of every other Trek show then?
No. So far just Discovery.
Meaning you've only seen DSC or you're lying.
Well then we hit a bit of a conundrum there, since I saw every ST series ever and I'm pretty sure I'm not lying either, but thanks for the asumption. It is always possible that I'm mistaken in something, but that is an entirely different word.
I don't want to derail the thread however, it is supposed to be about the review. I still thik it is worth watching.
They go through most of the season and point out many plotholes,
Not exclusive to DSC.
how the science mumbo jumbo is done super poorly and seems more self gratifying for the writers instead of actually serving as a good way for watchers to need out,
Not exclusive to DSC.
how it appears that the story is just ham fisted together because some parts of the plot make no sense or serve no purpose,
Not exclusive to DSC.
that the one character sacrificing herself behind a bulkhead makes no sense, having so many drones in the final battle makes no sense, disco going to the future makes no sense since they won and a few others.
Not exclusive to DSC in general, but also not things that don't make sense unless you've not watched the episode in question.
I recommend actually watching it because they go much more into detail.
Again, I bet it's fair and balanced and not reactionary in the slightest.
So as not a single one of the above points you responded to were related to DSC alone you've either not seen other Trek and assumed they only apply to DSC or you're lying about them not being factors in all other Trek. There's no other way to come up with your statement of 'No. So far just Discovery.' unless you're ignorant or lying.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Ok. So the review is about the whole of season 2. Obviously every series have moments when the writing is not quite that good, or when the plot holes are a bit too big, etc. What they are saying (and which I agree with) is that these problems are constantly present throughout the whole of season 2. And what I meant when I wrote that this is true so far just for Discovery, is that I've never seen a ST season where these problems were present in its entirety.
You have to also consider that Disco is basically the first series where every season has its own overarching storyline (and I mean every season, ENT experimented with the concept, but not in every season). And this overarching storyline is which makes no sense. So this is also specific for Discovery.
The technobabble is subpar at best in the whole season. I don't think the other ST series had this problem (again, considering not individual instances, but whole seasons).
But they present all this much better in the video.
P.S.: I could be mistaken, maybe I remember staff wrong, my taste can be bad in scifi, or maybe I'm unable to comprehend the genius of Discovery. But I am not a liar. So I would apriciate Artan, if you could stop calling me one.
Ok. So the review is about the whole of season 2. Obviously every series have moments when the writing is not quite that good, or when the plot holes are a bit too big, etc. What they are saying (and which I agree with) is that these problems are constantly present throughout the whole of season 2. And what I meant when I wrote that this is true so far just for Discovery, is that I've never seen a ST season where these problems were present in its entirety.
You have to also consider that Disco is basically the first series where every season has its own overarching storyline (and I mean every season, ENT experimented with the concept, but not in every season). And this overarching storyline is which makes no sense. So this is also specific for Discovery.
The technobabble is subpar at best in the whole season. I don't think the other ST series had this problem (again, considering not individual instances, but whole seasons).
But they present all this much better in the video.
P.S.: I could be mistaken, maybe I remember staff wrong, my taste can be bad in scifi, or maybe I'm unable to comprehend the genius of Discovery. But I am not a liar. So I would apriciate Artan, if you could stop calling me one.
You're deliberately misrepresenting older Trek works to make a point about how bad you perceive DSC. You want a series of another show that's as bad or worse as you consider DSCS2 and under the same criteria?
TOS series 3. TNG series 1, ENT series 1, VGR, like most of VGR, all of TAS, series 1 and 2 of DS9. Those are a lot of examples, so either you've watched them so long ago that you've forgotten about them (in which case all you had to do was say you don't remember any other Trek) or you're pretending they had no issues so you could artificially inflate all of DSCS2s issues (which is lying).
As for DSCS2 being the first ongoing story arc, it's not. DS9 did so throughout most of series 5-7, ENT did with series 3 and 4, and, obviously DSC did with series 1.
DSC has no massive plot holes and certainly dosn't have any in terms of the structure of the arc and its technobabble is internally consistent.
There is a massive issue with people misrepresenting pre-2017 Trek as being absent of flaws and presenting a near perfect level of continuity with science written by professors and characters written by Joss Whedon and a glowing reception from everybody and post 2017 Trek as being written by people who hate the franchise and have a grasp of continuity that an amnesiac goldfish would be jealous of.
DSC is not different from any other Trek show, it does nothing different or new and it has been received in ways that is not different or new, because where I wrote 'pre-2017 Trek' up there, two years ago I would have written 'pre-2009 Trek', then before that 'pre-2002 Trek' and so on.
Next year, when people are b|tching about Picard, dSC will be forgotten and just become part of the background just like the KT did after 2017.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I bet it's fair and balanced and not reactionary in the slightest.
This is a weird position to take. Both liking and disliking a show are reactions to the show and, therefore, reactionary. By this logic the only valid review of Star Trek: Discovery would be the following:
"Now for our review of Star Trek: Discovery.
This is Star Trek: Discovery.
This has been our review of Star Trek: Discovery."
See? It's weird, man.
Of course, such positions are seldom applied evenly.
TOS series 3. TNG series 1, ENT series 1, VGR, like most of VGR, all of TAS, series 1 and 2 of DS9. Those are a lot of examples, so either you've watched them so long ago that you've forgotten about them (in which case all you had to do was say you don't remember any other Trek) or you're pretending they had no issues so you could artificially inflate all of DSCS2s issues (which is lying).
I obviously remember DSC more vividly than all of those examples, but that doesn't mean I forgotten about them. But even if I did, why would that mean that I don't remember any other Trek than DSC? But more importantly, I still don't understand why would you call me a liar if I say that I find DSCS2 worse than DS9S2 for example? I really think it's worse. That's not a lie.
As for DSCS2 being the first ongoing story arc, it's not. DS9 did so throughout most of series 5-7, ENT did with series 3 and 4, and, obviously DSC did with series 1.
You have to also consider that Disco is basically the first series where every season has its own overarching storyline (and I mean every season, ENT experimented with the concept, but not in every season).
I bet it's fair and balanced and not reactionary in the slightest.
This is a weird position to take. Both liking and disliking a show are reactions to the show and, therefore, reactionary. By this logic the only valid review of Star Trek: Discovery would be the following:
"Now for our review of Star Trek: Discovery.
This is Star Trek: Discovery.
This has been our review of Star Trek: Discovery."
See? It's weird, man.
Of course, such positions are seldom applied evenly.
Reactionary doesn't mean 'having a reaction', that would be 'reactive'.
I obviously remember DSC more vividly than all of those examples, but that doesn't mean I forgotten about them. But even if I did, why would that mean that I don't remember any other Trek than DSC? But more importantly, I still don't understand why would you call me a liar if I say that I find DSCS2 worse than DS9S2 for example? I really think it's worse. That's not a lie.
I didn't say you were lying, I said you're either lying or haven't seen the other shows. The point was never which show you liked more, it was whether the issues you believe exist in DSCS2 existed in other shows as you directly said they're exclusive to DSCS2.
You have to also consider that Disco is basically the first series where every season has its own overarching storyline (and I mean every season, ENT experimented with the concept, but not in every season).
DSC has no massive plot holes and certainly dosn't have any in terms of the structure of the arc and its technobabble is internally consistent.
They mention some examples in the video.[/quote]
And they'll remain unanswered unless somebody feels like writing them out as I'm certainly not giving ad revenue to RLM.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Why is the ultimate argument always that other shows were bad or had bad episodes as well? Why does this automatically cancel out any criticism one could have?
I haven't seen the video. I wanted to but forgot 😂
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I don't know if the video does that. If it does, it's of course stupid. But generalky speaking, if one talks about discovery it's quite normal to not mention other shows because currently the topic is Discovery. And the reaction to "this is a plothole in Discovery" can't be "Voyager had tons of plotholes" - while maybe true, the point with Discovery stands, the point in question still presumably has the issues presented.
That is what I don't get.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
They go through most of the season and point out many plotholes, how the science mumbo jumbo is done super poorly and seems more self gratifying for the writers instead of actually serving as a good way for watchers to need out, how it appears that the story is just ham fisted together because some parts of the plot make no sense or serve no purpose, that the one character sacrificing herself behind a bulkhead makes no sense, having so many drones in the final battle makes no sense, disco going to the future makes no sense since they won and a few others. I recommend actually watching it because they go much more into detail.
^^^
Wait, I thought this was a review of ST: Discovery season 2 - not every single season of Berman and Braga era Star Trek?
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
A big part of why DSC has so many plot holes compared to the other Treks is that it is the only series done in action movie style.
That style is gag-driven (I do not mean comedy here, "gag" is what they call stunts in the industry), it is all about the special effects and stunts, the plot is very much secondary though the more clever writers can conceal that better than others. Regardless, the style pays the least attention to plot and character detail for much the same reason that '40s musicals did, it mainly serves as a bridge between gags (or songs in the case of the musicals).
It is not the first time Trek has changed styles and it always causes a division in the fanbase to some degree. TOS was what they call a "control room drama" which is heavily character driven and often tense and active. TNG was a "space procedural" which is more plot driven and has more threads of mystery in it (sort of like CSI in space tone wise).
The rest were pretty much a mix of the two though not always in the best proportions. DS9 was the most balanced and part of the effectiveness of the show was how they would shift the balance back and forth over a season to build tension for key episodes. ENT pretty much returned to the classic TOS control room drama style though they were not as centered on the actual bridge as TOS often was.
Voyager's main problem is that it was designed to be a tense survival type drama but as the show went through run-up and various executives insisted on pet ideas and nixed their personal peeves the show morphed into a very procedural-heavy mix similar to TNG which made a lot of the original key concepts (like the Starfleet/Maquis interaction and the torpedo scarcity problem) mostly irrelevant by the time they actually started filming it. It took them a few seasons to get anywhere near a reasonable balance for the situation.
Compounding Discovery's problem is that it is technically a historical piece but looks and feels totally different from the historical look, feel, and to some extent events established in previous shows, and the action format is by far the worst format to try and explain those differences due to its inattention to detail (outside of the gags themselves) and generally shallower dive into characters and plot.
That style is gag-driven (I do not mean comedy here, "gag" is what they call stunts in the industry), it is all about the special effects and stunts, the plot is very much secondary though the more clever writers can conceal that better than others. Regardless, the style pays the least attention to plot and character detail for much the same reason that '40s musicals did, it mainly serves as a bridge between gags (or songs in the case of the musicals).
This is again incorrect. The visual effects are how the story is told, no different from ye olde wooden models on string and tinfoil used for laser effects. Again, you start with the assumption DSC is full of plot holes, then try justify that with some cra.p about how special effects now remove the need for story. Have you got a date for the exact switch point form visual effects you consider to enhance the story and the ones you think replace the story? Have you got some actual objective evidence for it, statements from writers saying how much easier their jobs now are? Complaints from VX artists about how lazy writers now are?
It is not the first time Trek has changed styles and it always causes a division in the fanbase to some degree. TOS was what they call a "control room drama" which is heavily character driven and often tense and active. TNG was a "space procedural" which is more plot driven and has more threads of mystery in it (sort of like CSI in space tone wise).
The rest were pretty much a mix of the two though not always in the best proportions. DS9 was the most balanced and part of the effectiveness of the show was how they would shift the balance back and forth over a season to build tension for key episodes. ENT pretty much returned to the classic TOS control room drama style though they were not as centered on the actual bridge as TOS often was.
Ad DSC is a action series in series 1 and a mystery series in series 2. Being able to spell out the styles is not a point.
Voyager's main problem is that it was designed to be a tense survival type drama but as the show went through run-up and various executives insisted on pet ideas and nixed their personal peeves the show morphed into a very procedural-heavy mix similar to TNG which made a lot of the original key concepts (like the Starfleet/Maquis interaction and the torpedo scarcity problem) mostly irrelevant by the time they actually started filming it. It took them a few seasons to get anywhere near a reasonable balance for the situation.
Congratulations, you've finally said something sensible. You've pointed out what the original concept of VGR was, what the situation should lead to, and finally, what we got. So why are you unable to do that with DSC?
Compounding Discovery's problem is that it is technically a historical piece but looks and feels totally different from the historical look, feel, and to some extent events established in previous shows,
The previous show was ENT and the last film was the KT trilogy, so no, DSC does not look or feel totally different at all.
and the action format is by far the worst format to try and explain those differences due to its inattention to detail (outside of the gags themselves) and generally shallower dive into characters and plot.
DSC does not need to, nor will explain these 'differences' as you seem to think exist. Even if it was a 'sit around and wait for interesting things to happen' series like TNG. TMP was the point the series fully committed to ignore TOS wholesale, they explained buggerall about why things were so different from TOS and the franchise never looked back (aside from Trials and Tribble Ations and In a Mirror Darkly which both plyed on how unlike all of Star Trek TOS looks).
DSC does have massive issues with underdeveloped characters because it is trying to be too much like TOS or ENT. We know all about Burnham, Saru, and Ash and sweet sod all about the rest of the crew. TOS barely made its characters distinct from the wallpaper and DSC should learn from that bad storytelling and pick up a DS9 style approach.
None of DSCs writing issues with characters are related to the fact the entire franchise pretends TOS dosn't exist so stop trying to link entirely unrelated concepts.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
TMP's explanation for differences? Well, the Enterprise had just undergone a two-year-long refit process. As for the Klingons, Word of God from Roddenberry was, "They always looked like that. We just didn't have the budget to show it."
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Comments
My character Tsin'xing
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
> Summary plz?
They go through most of the season and point out many plotholes, how the science mumbo jumbo is done super poorly and seems more self gratifying for the writers instead of actually serving as a good way for watchers to need out, how it appears that the story is just ham fisted together because some parts of the plot make no sense or serve no purpose, that the one character sacrificing herself behind a bulkhead makes no sense, having so many drones in the final battle makes no sense, disco going to the future makes no sense since they won and a few others. I recommend actually watching it because they go much more into detail.
Going into the future makes sense since they no longer want to be a prequel. Prequels restrict creativity while sequels set in a new time and/or region allow writers to create whatever story they want. It is part of the reason why I wanted Discovery to be Star Trek: Sliders. The other being Sliders made for some interesting What If scenarios and it would be interesting to see What If scenarios for Star Trek in full detail rather than the limited exposure from episodes like Parallels.
The whole point of going into the future was to protect the Sphere Data from being accessed by Control. There was no way for Discovery to know if Control was still hiding and waiting for the right moment to steal the Sphere Data. Of course, there is the problem about why a bunch of Discovery's crew had to travel to the future and not just use a skeleton crew.
You summarized it quite well.
Again, it seems like most of the people who want to bash this show don't actually watch it, they just read summaries from others and make their assumptions from that.
No. So far just Discovery.
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? "Captain they are all (enemy ships) dead in the water." *They proceed to shoot them down effortlessly* "Lealand is dead. Control is neutralised." These are literal quotes from the season finale before Discovery jumps to the future. The battle ended, they (the protagonists) won.
Meaning you've only seen DSC or you're lying.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Well then we hit a bit of a conundrum there, since I saw every ST series ever and I'm pretty sure I'm not lying either, but thanks for the asumption. It is always possible that I'm mistaken in something, but that is an entirely different word.
I don't want to derail the thread however, it is supposed to be about the review. I still thik it is worth watching.
Not exclusive to DSC.
Not exclusive to DSC.
Not exclusive to DSC.
Not exclusive to DSC in general, but also not things that don't make sense unless you've not watched the episode in question.
Again, I bet it's fair and balanced and not reactionary in the slightest.
So as not a single one of the above points you responded to were related to DSC alone you've either not seen other Trek and assumed they only apply to DSC or you're lying about them not being factors in all other Trek. There's no other way to come up with your statement of 'No. So far just Discovery.' unless you're ignorant or lying.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
You have to also consider that Disco is basically the first series where every season has its own overarching storyline (and I mean every season, ENT experimented with the concept, but not in every season). And this overarching storyline is which makes no sense. So this is also specific for Discovery.
The technobabble is subpar at best in the whole season. I don't think the other ST series had this problem (again, considering not individual instances, but whole seasons).
But they present all this much better in the video.
P.S.: I could be mistaken, maybe I remember staff wrong, my taste can be bad in scifi, or maybe I'm unable to comprehend the genius of Discovery. But I am not a liar. So I would apriciate Artan, if you could stop calling me one.
You're deliberately misrepresenting older Trek works to make a point about how bad you perceive DSC. You want a series of another show that's as bad or worse as you consider DSCS2 and under the same criteria?
TOS series 3. TNG series 1, ENT series 1, VGR, like most of VGR, all of TAS, series 1 and 2 of DS9. Those are a lot of examples, so either you've watched them so long ago that you've forgotten about them (in which case all you had to do was say you don't remember any other Trek) or you're pretending they had no issues so you could artificially inflate all of DSCS2s issues (which is lying).
As for DSCS2 being the first ongoing story arc, it's not. DS9 did so throughout most of series 5-7, ENT did with series 3 and 4, and, obviously DSC did with series 1.
DSC has no massive plot holes and certainly dosn't have any in terms of the structure of the arc and its technobabble is internally consistent.
There is a massive issue with people misrepresenting pre-2017 Trek as being absent of flaws and presenting a near perfect level of continuity with science written by professors and characters written by Joss Whedon and a glowing reception from everybody and post 2017 Trek as being written by people who hate the franchise and have a grasp of continuity that an amnesiac goldfish would be jealous of.
DSC is not different from any other Trek show, it does nothing different or new and it has been received in ways that is not different or new, because where I wrote 'pre-2017 Trek' up there, two years ago I would have written 'pre-2009 Trek', then before that 'pre-2002 Trek' and so on.
Next year, when people are b|tching about Picard, dSC will be forgotten and just become part of the background just like the KT did after 2017.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This is a weird position to take. Both liking and disliking a show are reactions to the show and, therefore, reactionary. By this logic the only valid review of Star Trek: Discovery would be the following:
"Now for our review of Star Trek: Discovery.
This is Star Trek: Discovery.
This has been our review of Star Trek: Discovery."
See? It's weird, man.
Of course, such positions are seldom applied evenly.
I didn't misrepresent anything. The only other Trek I mentioned was ENT, but in a completely different context.
I obviously remember DSC more vividly than all of those examples, but that doesn't mean I forgotten about them. But even if I did, why would that mean that I don't remember any other Trek than DSC? But more importantly, I still don't understand why would you call me a liar if I say that I find DSCS2 worse than DS9S2 for example? I really think it's worse. That's not a lie.
I did not write that. I wrote:
They mention some examples in the video.
Reactionary doesn't mean 'having a reaction', that would be 'reactive'.
You said that those issues were exclusive to DSC, they are not, they exist in all the other shows, to say otherwise is a misrepresentation.
I didn't say you were lying, I said you're either lying or haven't seen the other shows. The point was never which show you liked more, it was whether the issues you believe exist in DSCS2 existed in other shows as you directly said they're exclusive to DSCS2.
And? That's no different to what I said.
They mention some examples in the video.[/quote]
And they'll remain unanswered unless somebody feels like writing them out as I'm certainly not giving ad revenue to RLM.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I concede the point.
I haven't seen the video. I wanted to but forgot 😂
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
That is what I don't get.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Wait, I thought this was a review of ST: Discovery season 2 - not every single season of Berman and Braga era Star Trek?
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
That style is gag-driven (I do not mean comedy here, "gag" is what they call stunts in the industry), it is all about the special effects and stunts, the plot is very much secondary though the more clever writers can conceal that better than others. Regardless, the style pays the least attention to plot and character detail for much the same reason that '40s musicals did, it mainly serves as a bridge between gags (or songs in the case of the musicals).
It is not the first time Trek has changed styles and it always causes a division in the fanbase to some degree. TOS was what they call a "control room drama" which is heavily character driven and often tense and active. TNG was a "space procedural" which is more plot driven and has more threads of mystery in it (sort of like CSI in space tone wise).
The rest were pretty much a mix of the two though not always in the best proportions. DS9 was the most balanced and part of the effectiveness of the show was how they would shift the balance back and forth over a season to build tension for key episodes. ENT pretty much returned to the classic TOS control room drama style though they were not as centered on the actual bridge as TOS often was.
Voyager's main problem is that it was designed to be a tense survival type drama but as the show went through run-up and various executives insisted on pet ideas and nixed their personal peeves the show morphed into a very procedural-heavy mix similar to TNG which made a lot of the original key concepts (like the Starfleet/Maquis interaction and the torpedo scarcity problem) mostly irrelevant by the time they actually started filming it. It took them a few seasons to get anywhere near a reasonable balance for the situation.
Compounding Discovery's problem is that it is technically a historical piece but looks and feels totally different from the historical look, feel, and to some extent events established in previous shows, and the action format is by far the worst format to try and explain those differences due to its inattention to detail (outside of the gags themselves) and generally shallower dive into characters and plot.
Leading question. It's in fact, dosn't have any more plot holes than any other Trek.
This is again incorrect. The visual effects are how the story is told, no different from ye olde wooden models on string and tinfoil used for laser effects. Again, you start with the assumption DSC is full of plot holes, then try justify that with some cra.p about how special effects now remove the need for story. Have you got a date for the exact switch point form visual effects you consider to enhance the story and the ones you think replace the story? Have you got some actual objective evidence for it, statements from writers saying how much easier their jobs now are? Complaints from VX artists about how lazy writers now are?
Ad DSC is a action series in series 1 and a mystery series in series 2. Being able to spell out the styles is not a point.
Congratulations, you've finally said something sensible. You've pointed out what the original concept of VGR was, what the situation should lead to, and finally, what we got. So why are you unable to do that with DSC?
The previous show was ENT and the last film was the KT trilogy, so no, DSC does not look or feel totally different at all.
DSC does not need to, nor will explain these 'differences' as you seem to think exist. Even if it was a 'sit around and wait for interesting things to happen' series like TNG. TMP was the point the series fully committed to ignore TOS wholesale, they explained buggerall about why things were so different from TOS and the franchise never looked back (aside from Trials and Tribble Ations and In a Mirror Darkly which both plyed on how unlike all of Star Trek TOS looks).
DSC does have massive issues with underdeveloped characters because it is trying to be too much like TOS or ENT. We know all about Burnham, Saru, and Ash and sweet sod all about the rest of the crew. TOS barely made its characters distinct from the wallpaper and DSC should learn from that bad storytelling and pick up a DS9 style approach.
None of DSCs writing issues with characters are related to the fact the entire franchise pretends TOS dosn't exist so stop trying to link entirely unrelated concepts.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"