> @thegrandnagus1 said: > (Quote) > > Unfortunately we have not all been so lucky as to not see it. > (Quote) > > My post was not a reply to "this thread" in general, it was a direct reply to the post I quoted. And that post was asking why they have been called "nasty names" for not liking this show. While this thread has not yet experienced that (that I have seen), that is sadly not the case on every forum and platform. > (Quote) > > Again, unfortunately we have not all been as lucky as you. I too read reddit quite a bit and when discovery first aired you could not make a valid criticism against the character of Burnham without someone suggesting it had to do without her race or gender or both. > > To be clear, I never said that type of comment represented the majority of the fandom. But that group of people IS growing like a cancer.
Well it’s unfortunate that you had to experience that. Sorry.
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.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,596Community Moderator
Those particular attacks haven't really come over into these forums, however there's a reason the Mods crack down on Gatekeeping behavior.
And if you look at the arguments used against Discovery, then compare them to Enterprise and the Kelvin Timeline, they're copy/paste for the most part. For example...
Enterprise: TOO ADVANCED compared to TOS!
Kelvin Timeline: TOO ADVANCED compared to TOS!
Discovery: TOO ADVANCED compared to TOS!
People were practically saying it had to look more primitive in ALL aspects to something filmed in the 1960s. What to they want? Something that looks like it came from the 1950s to be satisfied? Do you WANT cardboard, plywood, and models on wires?
Back when Discovery s1 started, someone here actually had a "bingo" sheet of "arguments" against Discovery as a sig. And the funny thing is, even they recognized that they were the EXACT SAME arguments against the previous two new things Trek.
Those particular attacks haven't really come over into these forums, however there's a reason the Mods crack down on Gatekeeping behavior.
And if you look at the arguments used against Discovery, then compare them to Enterprise and the Kelvin Timeline, they're copy/paste for the most part. For example...
Enterprise: TOO ADVANCED compared to TOS!
Kelvin Timeline: TOO ADVANCED compared to TOS!
Discovery: TOO ADVANCED compared to TOS!
People were practically saying it had to look more primitive in ALL aspects to something filmed in the 1960s. What to they want? Something that looks like it came from the 1950s to be satisfied? Do you WANT cardboard, plywood, and models on wires?
Back when Discovery s1 started, someone here actually had a "bingo" sheet of "arguments" against Discovery as a sig. And the funny thing is, even they recognized that they were the EXACT SAME arguments against the previous two new things Trek.
People have already given examples of how you could keep the style of TOS. No one is asking for them to make a paper mache set for Discovery and have everything look like that. Literally no one. THe thing is however, you could keep the TOS Aesthetic and modernize it with new production techniques and technology, which other people have state.
I have only heard a handful of times that Enterprise was too advanced compared to TOS, and I never really understood it, it didn't seem like that big of a gap between the two in terms of tech, sure here and there there were instances of things that didn't quite make sense, but overall it did decently well in trying to not surpass TOS.
Kelvin Timeline, like Enterprise I have rarely seen the complaint that it was too advanced, though I have seen it more often than the previous show, it atleast has an excuse for the sudden rapid evolution of tech(The battle with the Nerada).
Now for Discovery, there are dozens of things in discovery that are too advanced and don't make sense. Holographic communications, and the displays for instance. You can preserve a TOS look without it "Looking like it was filmed in the 1960s". They could have done more to try and balance out the futuristic look, making it more like what Gene and the people behind TOS probably would have wanted to do had their production not been so primitive due to the times but they seemed more keen on making designs more closely resemble the kelvin timeline(Which is probably because Kelvin movies were the most recent tech so it could help milk that new audience) and there's no explanation for it. Not to mention that a certain show runner hates round nacelles. (We're lucky the Enterprise wasn't given boxy nacelles like the others but CBS probably stopped him though that's an assumption)
Those particular attacks haven't really come over into these forums, however there's a reason the Mods crack down on Gatekeeping behavior.
And if you look at the arguments used against Discovery, then compare them to Enterprise and the Kelvin Timeline, they're copy/paste for the most part. For example...
Enterprise: TOO ADVANCED compared to TOS!
Kelvin Timeline: TOO ADVANCED compared to TOS!
Discovery: TOO ADVANCED compared to TOS!
People were practically saying it had to look more primitive in ALL aspects to something filmed in the 1960s. What to they want? Something that looks like it came from the 1950s to be satisfied? Do you WANT cardboard, plywood, and models on wires?
Back when Discovery s1 started, someone here actually had a "bingo" sheet of "arguments" against Discovery as a sig. And the funny thing is, even they recognized that they were the EXACT SAME arguments against the previous two new things Trek.
That actually illustrates my point quite well. Here is what I mean...
Person A, 10 years ago: the SW prequels or Enterprise sucked because bad writing/acting/etc!
Person B, 10 years ago: I disagree! I enjoyed the writing/acting/etc!
Flashforword 10 years...
Person A, now: the SW sequels or Discovery suck because of bad writing/acting/etc!
Person B, now: I disagree! I enjoyed the writing/acting/etc!
Person C: Uh-huh. We know your REAL reasons are just you don't like a (black) female lead
So you are right; people really have the same "basic" TYPE of complaints as they did in the past. The difference is back then you didn't have "Person C".
My personal head canon is that Discovery is a visual reboot and that if we get a Pike series the tech won’t devolve to what it was in TOS
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.
My personal head canon is that Discovery is a visual reboot and that if we get a Pike series the tech won’t devolve to what it was in TOS
Yeah, the tech visuals due to when the shows are made don't bother me. That said, if they actually DID want to explain it they had a perfect way to do so: Control. In BSG, they have to revert back to an older form of technology that the Cylons couldn't take control of. They could have had a similar explanation involving Control, and explaining why the tech of TOS was less advanced than Disco. Obviously they choose not to address it, but they had a perfect "in universe" explanation set up and ready to go.
> @thegrandnagus1 said: > (Quote) > > Yeah, the tech visuals due to when the shows are made don't bother me. That said, if they actually DID want to explain it they had a perfect way to do so: Control. In BSG, they have to revert back to an older form of technology that the Cylons couldn't take control of. They could have had a similar explanation involving Control, and explaining why the tech of TOS was less advanced than Disco. Obviously they choose not to address it, but they had a perfect "in universe" explanation set up and ready to go.
They explained this in the Romulan war novels too and it was the same concept. They decided to regress tech to more analog states in order to prevent the current romulan super weapon from hacking them.
> @thegrandnagus1 said: > (Quote) > > Yeah, the tech visuals due to when the shows are made don't bother me. That said, if they actually DID want to explain it they had a perfect way to do so: Control. In BSG, they have to revert back to an older form of technology that the Cylons couldn't take control of. They could have had a similar explanation involving Control, and explaining why the tech of TOS was less advanced than Disco. Obviously they choose not to address it, but they had a perfect "in universe" explanation set up and ready to go.
I hadn’t thought about that. That could work
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.
> thegrandnagus1 said:
> (Quote)
>
> Yeah, the tech visuals due to when the shows are made don't bother me. That said, if they actually DID want to explain it they had a perfect way to do so: Control. In BSG, they have to revert back to an older form of technology that the Cylons couldn't take control of. They could have had a similar explanation involving Control, and explaining why the tech of TOS was less advanced than Disco. Obviously they choose not to address it, but they had a perfect "in universe" explanation set up and ready to go.
I hadn’t thought about that. That could work
Or it could be explained by it always looked that way, but the 1960s didn't have the technology to accurately show how it looked. Technology is much harder to explain like why did Discovery have Replicators, but the Enterprise only had Food Synthesizers.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,596Community Moderator
Well... when they actually use the Viewscreen for communications, it does look like TOS, and they still have toggle switches and stuff on the consoles alongside the touchscreens.
Also I think they started phasing out the holocomm tech because of not only what happened to Enterprise according to Pike, but Control using it to impersonate an Admiral.
People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
same applies to TNG vs TOS. same applies to DS9.
Explain that Seth Macfarlane's The Orville. Even though it's a parody with humour it has a lot more in common with Trek values and you can clearly recognise it as such even with the different names, uniforms, ships etc than Picard. Picard has more in common with dystopia sci-fi series, except it's more duller and slower. Its entire premise has more in common with Blade Runner than the Star Trek universe.
I suspect it's "humor" is about as funny as the rest of McFarlaine's garbage hard pass for me.
My point though is TNG had a lot of marked changes from TOS, DS9 well.. had many of the elements (hell the cardassian space station meant the architechture wasn't even the same) we understood that we where viewing trek through a differant lens. Picard's the same way. yes we're not seeing a picture perfect look at the federation. instead we're seeing the dark under belly. It's worth noting that some of this came as a suprise to Picard who ,like us, really only mostly saw a sanatized view of the galaxy. But as I said, if you actually paid ATTENTION it's pretty clear dating all the way back to TOS, those living on the fringe. Let's take a look at some of this shall we?
1st up.. Star Trek TOS: the episode The Conscience of the King deals with a planetary governer whom ordered half the population of his world murdered, according to his own views on eugenitics to survive a famine. no, "better society" here. just brutality. this was a federation coloney with a federation population, provable by the fact that Kirk was present for the events.
There as no starship conveniantly rolling up to solve the problems people died, the Federation... failed.
But that's just TOS! Surely by TNG with replicators etc it's all better right?!
WRONG!
In TNG our first clue the UFP is fasaar from perfect appers within the back story of Tasha Yar. Tasha grew up on Turkana IV, a failed colony, in the 2330s the planetary government began to break down, we're not told why but generally that type of chaos isn't going to happen in a "perfect society". This saw civil war and societal break down throughout the 2340s... and the federation did JACK ALL. then in the early 2350s the government was removed in a military coup by two factions they had given police powers to. who then removed the world from the federation. All contact with the UFP had been cut by 2350. And when in 2361 a federation ship came they where basicly told anyone beaming down would be killed.
Meanwhile the average life for the people are dodging TRIBBLE gangs and other such things.
The federation failed this world several times OVER. in the 2330s when the government was collapsing, where were starfleet mediators to try and right the ship? where were federation experts providing help.
in the 2340s apparently things got so bad the government had to deputize basicly armed milita gangs in a last ditch effort to restore the peace.. what the hell was starfleet doing? how come they didn't send peace keepers? I mean, no wonder when the coup happened the first thing the powers on planet did was tell starfleet to Go the hell away. they failed that world.. UTTERLY.
And this isn't a one time failure, this is a symptomatic long time failure, I mean at least the situation in Picard has an EXCUSE. The Turkana IV failure is completely and utterly INEXCUSABLE.
but ok, one time TRIBBLE up right? nah the federation continues to TRIBBLE up. let's move onwards.
then there was the Maquis situation. we all know what that was about. forcing colonists to move due to politics. It's pretty clear the colonies wheren't even consulted during the negotiations.
And finally we have the Baku in Star Trek Insurrection. A case where a federation admiral was willing to wholesale move a population, ohh and possiably doom their civilization (as they'd no longer have the metaphasic particles) all to win some health benifits that likely wouldn't supply the entire federation anyway.
So yeah let's not pretend that before Picard the federation was perfect. even if you dismiss the Baku and Maquis, the situation at Turkana IV was an inexcuseable long term TRIBBLE up.
Nobody saying it was perfect (unless you're Gene Roddenberry). There is nothing wrong with conflict or dark moments in a story. Like you said we get examples of bad people or corrupt/misguided admirals. You're missing the point that every episode that had those things still had optimism in the end or throughout the episode. Picard is missing that one ingredient. Having every follow up episode grim and dark all the time with no cheer isn't at all like Trek.
Yep. The only optimism in the past 11 years of Trek was Beyond. Starbase Yorktown, to me was pretty much that sorta world Gene envisioned, people, both human and non human, of all shapes, sizes, colors, genders and so on, living together, working together, helping each other, loving each other. I've seen NONE in the Kurtzman era of Trek thus far.....just gloom, doom and not so likeable characters.
If I was a starfleet crew member on the Discovery, I'd find a shuttlecraft and get the smeg out of there.
so far i have watched picard and 2 seasons of discovery. Picard i would say i am more of a fan then discovery.
One problem i have is with the look of it and the use of some tech. Why its possible to update the look and functions to an extent its a bit to far. For instance Rand from the tos yes i know tos but hold with me a min. She on a few episode would bring Kirk a report hand a clipboard over read/sign it and then take it back. Where i'm going with this is they could have used a larger item like a ipad size not a holograph 3d display.
And why i can see some "new" things on discovery compared to enterprise as its sent on a 5 year mission i can see things needing to be simple and robust aka data tapes, hard configured displays and the like so more utilitarian than that may be used on a ship in federation space and with in reach of hard to make parts if needed.
But holograph displays and touch screens seam to me a bit over the top. So dial it back a hair i think would be a good ideal. let them discover this tech in the future and let them refit the ship in a progress a little at a time would have been better i think. or even just the sphere data providing tech to advance something besides this instant leap to tech.
The 2nd thing is may be dial it back on discovery for the action overload. they are already in a battle with 20+ other ships. that alone was plenty for me. But then we add in a augmented/controled enemy beaming over and mid fight we need to have a hand to hand combat in a hall way. and it felt like it was a few 15 year old's trying to top the next why passing herbs around. cause then we add in the hall spinning mid fight as well. and the drones, and fighters, and the red angel, and the time travel. At some point the director should say sounds good what 3 are we doing?
Last on discovery i would say it needs better interaction with the bridge crew at the least. Part of what made trek in general was the actors ability and carisma they bring to the table. I see that lacking in discovery for the most part and feels like several interactions are forced for the sake of inclusion and not a natural ebb and flow.
As to picard so far i am enjoying it in general.
I do think the crew or group so far coming together is a good one as they are each flawed in there own way and some what damaged goods yet complement each other thus far.
But i do worry with the fight with the android at the start and blowing up. and the shoot out in the latest episode i worry they are heading down the action path and not the firefly/andromeda vibe i have been having thus far.
> @smokebailey said: > (Quote) > > Yep. The only optimism in the past 11 years of Trek was Beyond. Starbase Yorktown, to me was pretty much that sorta world Gene envisioned, people, both human and non human, of all shapes, sizes, colors, genders and so on, living together, working together, helping each other, loving each other. I've seen NONE in the Kurtzman era of Trek thus far.....just gloom, doom and not so likeable characters. > > If I was a starfleet crew member on the Discovery, I'd find a shuttlecraft and get the smeg out of there.
Um....season finale of Discovery season 2 had Starfleet, the Klingons and Saru’s people working together to stop Control.
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.
BTW episode 6 of Picard was fantastic. and IMHO actually addressed something that TNG mostly failed to address (Picard's lingering issues with his assimalation)
> @thegrandnagus1 said:
> (Quote)
>
> It's not that (some) people think you can't criticize it. It's that (some) people think any criticism of the show is wrong, and that their mission in life is to defend the show at all costs.
>
> Of course, most of this is purely subjective and there is no "right" or "wrong" than can actually be proven. But still, the folks I referenced above want to try to prove your OPINION is wrong.
No one is saying you can’t criticize Discovery and Picard. This thread was supposed to be about fans of those shows talking about valid criticisms and some valid criticisms popped up. The problem is when some fans are using those criticisms to invalidate the shows as Trek.
That is irrational. It is not Trek just because the title says so. An IP relies on using the universe it has built up to be recognizable for what is, demanding consistency, logical, visual, and thematical to actually be believed as some relative of previous incarnations.
If Picard took the Enterprise through a canyon where he needed to line up a photon torpedo on a target ~2m wide, and the ghost of Kirk tells him to "Use the horse, Jean Luc!" whereupon he remembers his time in the Nexus and suddenly gets the idea to beam a horse into the target with the torpedo strapped onto its back, is that Star Trek?
Is it Star Trek if he fights a battle with the [Romulan] Empire who fly new ships that look suspiciously like Star Destroyers, but painted Romulan green? If the Borg queen tells him to witness the power of her fully operational dodecahedron battlestation, previously mistaken for a moon, and then tries to fight him in a photonic saber duel? If a Benzite admiral warns his fleet its a trap as they come into range of said battlestation's main weapon?
Is it Star Trek if temporal investigations uses a Delorean and/or flux capacitor to manage their time travel needs?
Yes, the Millenium Falcon has been in Star Trek for a brief moment, and some of those absurd examples wouldn't be terrible on their own, but put enough of those foreign things into a Star Trek show, and at some point, it adds up to be far too much to actually be Star Trek, but instead is way outside the IP.
People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
Change is not bad. Change is not bad. Change is not bad. TNG made significant changes to Star Trek. TMP made significant changes to Star Trek.
Let’s do a though experiment: Let’s say there’s a very popular Live action show on TV based on Batman. Bruce Wayne in a Bat suit punching criminals. Its so popular that the network wants spinoffs. So here comes a Robin show, a Batgirl show, a Nightwing show, a Batwoman show...all variations on so-and-so putting on a suit and punching criminals. The network says give us another show but do something different. So Commissioner Gordon The Series is created and instead of someone putting on a suit and punching bad guys is a procedural show set in Gotham....does this break the Batman IP?
Okay, so you don't see the orders of magnitude difference between Picard and the rest of Trek, the much bigger inconsistencies, the theme, and so on. Then there really isn't anyway we can ever see each other's point because we disagree on the most fundamental issue to this discussion.
I did think of something that can seriously contribute to this problem. One issue with Picard is that it isn't episodic like the rest of Trek has always been. What we have is one pointlessly drawn out episode/movie that, if it were only one episode of Picard next to others we could judge as their own thing compared to previous Trek, might collectively be more Trek, whereas this "episode" is a standout where they do something wildly different, though less different compared to the rest of the hypothetical Picard show. It would be like judging Voyager based on say "Threshold" vs the rest of Trek.
However, they hit the established, core ideas and established characters too hard for me to really entertain that idea seriously. And they haven't developed the history needed for us to buy into those changes.
BTW episode 6 of Picard was fantastic. and IMHO actually addressed something that TNG mostly failed to address (Picard's lingering issues with his assimalation)
Except he didn't have any lingering issues, and we were told this and shown this. STP is just making this up.
> @foxrockssocks said:
> Except he didn't have any lingering issues, and we were told this and shown this. STP is just making this up.
He was still having nightmares in First Contact. And almost turned into captain Ahab until Lily helped him get a grip.
But its true that the TNG series virtually ignored what happened to him as far as any side effects were concerned.
Yes First Contact was inconsistent on this for the sake of the movie drama, but I really have to go with the series as First Contact was one instance vs the rest of TNG post Locutus, thus is the outlier that probably shouldn't be taken as the standard.
> @foxrockssocks said:
> Except he didn't have any lingering issues, and we were told this and shown this. STP is just making this up.
He was still having nightmares in First Contact. And almost turned into captain Ahab until Lily helped him get a grip.
But its true that the TNG series virtually ignored what happened to him as far as any side effects were concerned.
I am pretty sure TNG did address what happened to him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuzoxcErOc8
He did recover somewhat but the bad memories will always be apart of him.
"Great men are not peacemakers, Great men are conquerors!" - Captain Archer" "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway #Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
> @foxrockssocks said:
> Except he didn't have any lingering issues, and we were told this and shown this. STP is just making this up.
He was still having nightmares in First Contact. And almost turned into captain Ahab until Lily helped him get a grip.
But its true that the TNG series virtually ignored what happened to him as far as any side effects were concerned.
I am pretty sure TNG did address what happened to him.
He did recover somewhat but the bad memories will always be apart of him.
You are right that they did do one episode (the one immediately after Best of Both Worlds p2) where he is still recovering. But the point is, for the entire rest of the series (4 more seasons) I don't recall any other episodes where he is haunted by this situation. Can you?
IMO, I think there are 2 explanations for this: one is bad writing, because it is NOT realistic that he would not be haunted by this experience. The other is that he simply 'suppressed' it and almost pretended like it didn't happen, as many victims of trauma do.
As a veteran I know many people that have PTSD. They’ll seem fine but anything could trigger them...a smell or a sound that reminds them of their trauma. In TNG we’ve seen him deal with his trauma in that one episode. We’ve seen him deal with the Borg afterwards. I believe that in the last episode of Picard that was the first time he set foot on a Borg cube since BOBW. I could see that triggering him.
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.
People were practically saying it had to look more primitive in ALL aspects to something filmed in the 1960s. What to they want? Something that looks like it came from the 1950s to be satisfied? Do you WANT cardboard, plywood, and models on wires?
No, but at the same time, they could have at least tried to make the modern filmmaking technology fit better with what was previously established. Not everything has to be a bloody touch-screen, because they didn't have LCARS (and that's basically what the systems on Discovery are) in 2257! I consider the typical response of "it's what TOS would have looked like with modern technology" to be pure piffle. I've been told "if you want cheap and kitschy, go watch a fan film". My response to both has been "up thine".
> @foxrockssocks said:
> Except he didn't have any lingering issues, and we were told this and shown this. STP is just making this up.
He was still having nightmares in First Contact. And almost turned into captain Ahab until Lily helped him get a grip.
But its true that the TNG series virtually ignored what happened to him as far as any side effects were concerned.
I am pretty sure TNG did address what happened to him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuzoxcErOc8
He did recover somewhat but the bad memories will always be apart of him.
First Contact suggested that he's kinda sorta still part of the Collective. He was able to hear the Borg talking.
As a veteran I know many people that have PTSD. They’ll seem fine but anything could trigger them...a smell or a sound that reminds them of their trauma. In TNG we’ve seen him deal with his trauma in that one episode. We’ve seen him deal with the Borg afterwards. I believe that in the last episode of Picard that was the first time he set foot on a Borg cube since BOBW. I could see that triggering him.
yeah and this isn't exactly something out of no where, first contact had some suggestions of this. and common sense says it would impact him. TNG was just classic 90s TV where everything goes back to where it was at the end of the episode. which yeah I understand why but these days that's not terriably sastifying. to see Picard confront those old demons, to realize that the borg aren't monsters but that they're ALL victiems (something he should have known but blind spots are natural) it was really great proably my fav part of the series
Those particular attacks haven't really come over into these forums, however there's a reason the Mods crack down on Gatekeeping behavior.
And if you look at the arguments used against Discovery, then compare them to Enterprise and the Kelvin Timeline, they're copy/paste for the most part. For example...
Enterprise: TOO ADVANCED compared to TOS!
Kelvin Timeline: TOO ADVANCED compared to TOS!
Discovery: TOO ADVANCED compared to TOS!
People were practically saying it had to look more primitive in ALL aspects to something filmed in the 1960s. What to they want? Something that looks like it came from the 1950s to be satisfied? Do you WANT cardboard, plywood, and models on wires?
Back when Discovery s1 started, someone here actually had a "bingo" sheet of "arguments" against Discovery as a sig. And the funny thing is, even they recognized that they were the EXACT SAME arguments against the previous two new things Trek.
In a Mirror Darkly, as well as ST Continues, Phase 2, and Axxanar looked VERY good...and did NOT look like 'plywood and strings' as some folks keep spouting.
It is likely that Picard's PTSD is due to the Borg Collective and not the Borg. I don't remember Picard having PTSD during Descent or I, Borg, but both of those instances had Borg that were cut off from the Collective.
It is likely that Picard's PTSD is due to the Borg Collective and not the Borg. I don't remember Picard having PTSD during Descent or I, Borg, but both of those instances had Borg that were cut off from the Collective.
Or could be this is the first time he’s been on a cube since BOBW
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.
It is likely that Picard's PTSD is due to the Borg Collective and not the Borg. I don't remember Picard having PTSD during Descent or I, Borg, but both of those instances had Borg that were cut off from the Collective.
Or could be this is the first time he’s been on a cube since BOBW
It is likely that Picard's PTSD is due to the Borg Collective and not the Borg. I don't remember Picard having PTSD during Descent or I, Borg, but both of those instances had Borg that were cut off from the Collective.
Also in both those cases despite the borg being present he was utterly in control of the situation. when he was made Locutus he was absolutely helpless, and thus that's proably, more thern just the sight of borg, what triggers him. hence why his triggering in Picard was so bad, he's beaming into the heart of a borg cube, where he was at his most helpless and his most violated, is alone, etc.
Actually, '90s TV didn't just reset at the end of every episode. The idea that episodic shows always reset to zero is a myth for the most part, even back in the 1960s that kind of reset usually only happened in a few comedies (The Monkees did that for instance) and quasi-anthology shows (like 12 O' Clock High), though references to past episodes were usually subtle rather than the everything-has-to-be-in-your-face style so often used nowadays. Most show developed the characters and situations over time instead of resetting everything completely.
On the other hand, full out arcs were very rare and full serials very passé and were relegated to low-budget kid shows and afternoon soaps.
Things that happened in an episode happened in the past of other episodes, writers just had to watch out for the tendency of networks to arbitrarily show episodes out of order so references had to be both non-essential to the current episode's story and also had to be to things far enough back to insure that the referred-to episode was not first shown after the episode that made the reference. In fact, almost every single series that lasted more than one season eventually had a "coma episode" where one of the characters (usually the main) gets whacked hard enough to end up unconscious in the first few minutes and the rest of it is flashbacks to earlier episodes (either from people trying to get a response out of the unconscious one, stuff replaying in the person's head, or other similar schticks).
And by the 1990s story arcs were really starting to come into their own (the best example of it doing it right is Babylon5 which ran from '94 to '99). Star Trek was no exception to that either, they only used a few short arcs in TNG but DS9 made extensive use of the technique for the Dominion war and in VOY the "Year of Hell" was supposed to be an entire season long arc (though they backed off on that one which is no surprise for the rather formulaic and stodgy Berman era).
As for the "modern" thing, aesthetics of a show have nothing to do with the production values, yet it is the production values that most of the TOS haters point to ridicule the show and say it looks like a fan film or whatever. In fact, one of the favorite cutdowns seems to be calling the TOS ship "the carboard Enterprise" (which it wasn't, it was wood and drywall for the most part). There is no reason whatsoever that a bridge (or other areas) built to the original aesthetics using modern setbuilding techniques would have to look bad or dated to current viewers. The designers would just have to make the effort, which according to the interviews they did not (instead going for The Undiscovered Country as the basis).
And that brings up the other side of the coin. When fans say that DSC looks too modern a lot of people take it to mean that the technology looks too advanced when in fact a lot of the time the "too modern" reference is to the fact that the aesthetics are wrong for the time period they are depicting, AND NOT the minor details like having LCARS displays and touchscreens.
In other words, to bring the problem closer to the present for illustration, if Happy Days or Grease were to be made the way Moonves had DSC made they would make constant reference to being in the 1950s but they would drive minivans, have body piercings, and dress in grunge rather than '57 Chevys, poodle skirts, bobby socks, bouffants, suede shoes and Brylcreem (or considering the ENT-esque uniforms maybe flapper skirts and zoot suits). People watching it expecting it to be recognizable as the 1950s it claimed to be set in would make the same complaints about the non-appropriate looks that core Trek fans make about DSC.
About the only thing that is "too advanced" in DSC on a technological level is the fact that the subspace communications network is way too dense for that time period. Roddenberry stressed the fact that the situation was almost like the era of sailing ships, instead of the constant over the shoulder micromanaging that happens in today's armed services Starfleet ships were usually on their own, very often with a comms delay of hours or even days between them and headquarters. Notice how most of the time they got their orders via "subspace dispatch" instead of realtime talks over the mainscreen? The realtime ones were supposed to be times when they were close to a relay (the instant communications in the DSC pilot are quite reasonable considering they were right on top of a relay, but other times it is far less so).
The holographic part of the communications are not advanced at all, in TOS references made it plain that their holograms looked just as solid as the holodeck ones seen in TNG (though they were not physically solid). The nasty Star Wars style analog holography would have been seen as either very quaint or simply garbage by TOS characters.
The TOS bridge was designed for efficiency and a minimalist organic curve/angle aesthetic. It was set up so that everyone was close enough to communicate and work together effectively but big enough to avoid crowding each other, and also it was set up so all the main bridge crew were in the frame at the same time in medium shots (which is also why the turbolift was shifted off-center). The room itself was originally an oblate spheroid with flat platforms but the construction limitation of having to use strait lumber forced them to build it as a sort of octagon.
The DSC bridge while impressive and reallly nice looking was designed with a totally different aesthetic. The primary consideration was apperently eye candy and keeping the cameraman from tripping or bumping into things so it is very much oversized and inefficient from an operations point of view. Also, it is composed of cylinders and other regular geometry shapes instead of spiral curves and golden ratio proportions, and has a very busy art-deco look to it which gives it a weird 1930s vibe under all the glowy stuff and scads of keypad buttons.
The ceiling of the bridge reinforces that art deco look with the Kelvin style cylinder over the command chair. The TOS ceiling that was designed but never built (the "wild" movable modular construction of the set made it impractical and potentially dangerous) actually looked like the one in TMP (though with more of a curve instead of so flat) with the access bumpout from the dorsal sensor suite and that green "fishbowl" (all equipment was serviceable from the inside, there would be little need for those drones seen in DSC except for maybe replacing damaged armor panels with a temporary patch or something).
Comments
We're not. And if you are in any way suggesting that we ARE pretending that, then you are strawmaning.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
> (Quote)
>
> Unfortunately we have not all been so lucky as to not see it.
> (Quote)
>
> My post was not a reply to "this thread" in general, it was a direct reply to the post I quoted. And that post was asking why they have been called "nasty names" for not liking this show. While this thread has not yet experienced that (that I have seen), that is sadly not the case on every forum and platform.
> (Quote)
>
> Again, unfortunately we have not all been as lucky as you. I too read reddit quite a bit and when discovery first aired you could not make a valid criticism against the character of Burnham without someone suggesting it had to do without her race or gender or both.
>
> To be clear, I never said that type of comment represented the majority of the fandom. But that group of people IS growing like a cancer.
Well it’s unfortunate that you had to experience that. Sorry.
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.
And if you look at the arguments used against Discovery, then compare them to Enterprise and the Kelvin Timeline, they're copy/paste for the most part. For example...
People were practically saying it had to look more primitive in ALL aspects to something filmed in the 1960s. What to they want? Something that looks like it came from the 1950s to be satisfied? Do you WANT cardboard, plywood, and models on wires?
Back when Discovery s1 started, someone here actually had a "bingo" sheet of "arguments" against Discovery as a sig. And the funny thing is, even they recognized that they were the EXACT SAME arguments against the previous two new things Trek.
People have already given examples of how you could keep the style of TOS. No one is asking for them to make a paper mache set for Discovery and have everything look like that. Literally no one. THe thing is however, you could keep the TOS Aesthetic and modernize it with new production techniques and technology, which other people have state.
I have only heard a handful of times that Enterprise was too advanced compared to TOS, and I never really understood it, it didn't seem like that big of a gap between the two in terms of tech, sure here and there there were instances of things that didn't quite make sense, but overall it did decently well in trying to not surpass TOS.
Kelvin Timeline, like Enterprise I have rarely seen the complaint that it was too advanced, though I have seen it more often than the previous show, it atleast has an excuse for the sudden rapid evolution of tech(The battle with the Nerada).
Now for Discovery, there are dozens of things in discovery that are too advanced and don't make sense. Holographic communications, and the displays for instance. You can preserve a TOS look without it "Looking like it was filmed in the 1960s". They could have done more to try and balance out the futuristic look, making it more like what Gene and the people behind TOS probably would have wanted to do had their production not been so primitive due to the times but they seemed more keen on making designs more closely resemble the kelvin timeline(Which is probably because Kelvin movies were the most recent tech so it could help milk that new audience) and there's no explanation for it. Not to mention that a certain show runner hates round nacelles. (We're lucky the Enterprise wasn't given boxy nacelles like the others but CBS probably stopped him though that's an assumption)
It wasn't even me personally, but I still saw it happening to plenty of other people. Thanks for the kind thoughts though
That actually illustrates my point quite well. Here is what I mean...
Flashforword 10 years...
So you are right; people really have the same "basic" TYPE of complaints as they did in the past. The difference is back then you didn't have "Person C".
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
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.
Yeah, the tech visuals due to when the shows are made don't bother me. That said, if they actually DID want to explain it they had a perfect way to do so: Control. In BSG, they have to revert back to an older form of technology that the Cylons couldn't take control of. They could have had a similar explanation involving Control, and explaining why the tech of TOS was less advanced than Disco. Obviously they choose not to address it, but they had a perfect "in universe" explanation set up and ready to go.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
> (Quote)
>
> Yeah, the tech visuals due to when the shows are made don't bother me. That said, if they actually DID want to explain it they had a perfect way to do so: Control. In BSG, they have to revert back to an older form of technology that the Cylons couldn't take control of. They could have had a similar explanation involving Control, and explaining why the tech of TOS was less advanced than Disco. Obviously they choose not to address it, but they had a perfect "in universe" explanation set up and ready to go.
They explained this in the Romulan war novels too and it was the same concept. They decided to regress tech to more analog states in order to prevent the current romulan super weapon from hacking them.
> (Quote)
>
> Yeah, the tech visuals due to when the shows are made don't bother me. That said, if they actually DID want to explain it they had a perfect way to do so: Control. In BSG, they have to revert back to an older form of technology that the Cylons couldn't take control of. They could have had a similar explanation involving Control, and explaining why the tech of TOS was less advanced than Disco. Obviously they choose not to address it, but they had a perfect "in universe" explanation set up and ready to go.
I hadn’t thought about that. That could work
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.
Or it could be explained by it always looked that way, but the 1960s didn't have the technology to accurately show how it looked. Technology is much harder to explain like why did Discovery have Replicators, but the Enterprise only had Food Synthesizers.
Also I think they started phasing out the holocomm tech because of not only what happened to Enterprise according to Pike, but Control using it to impersonate an Admiral.
Yep. The only optimism in the past 11 years of Trek was Beyond. Starbase Yorktown, to me was pretty much that sorta world Gene envisioned, people, both human and non human, of all shapes, sizes, colors, genders and so on, living together, working together, helping each other, loving each other. I've seen NONE in the Kurtzman era of Trek thus far.....just gloom, doom and not so likeable characters.
If I was a starfleet crew member on the Discovery, I'd find a shuttlecraft and get the smeg out of there.
One problem i have is with the look of it and the use of some tech. Why its possible to update the look and functions to an extent its a bit to far. For instance Rand from the tos yes i know tos but hold with me a min. She on a few episode would bring Kirk a report hand a clipboard over read/sign it and then take it back. Where i'm going with this is they could have used a larger item like a ipad size not a holograph 3d display.
And why i can see some "new" things on discovery compared to enterprise as its sent on a 5 year mission i can see things needing to be simple and robust aka data tapes, hard configured displays and the like so more utilitarian than that may be used on a ship in federation space and with in reach of hard to make parts if needed.
But holograph displays and touch screens seam to me a bit over the top. So dial it back a hair i think would be a good ideal. let them discover this tech in the future and let them refit the ship in a progress a little at a time would have been better i think. or even just the sphere data providing tech to advance something besides this instant leap to tech.
The 2nd thing is may be dial it back on discovery for the action overload. they are already in a battle with 20+ other ships. that alone was plenty for me. But then we add in a augmented/controled enemy beaming over and mid fight we need to have a hand to hand combat in a hall way. and it felt like it was a few 15 year old's trying to top the next why passing herbs around. cause then we add in the hall spinning mid fight as well. and the drones, and fighters, and the red angel, and the time travel. At some point the director should say sounds good what 3 are we doing?
Last on discovery i would say it needs better interaction with the bridge crew at the least. Part of what made trek in general was the actors ability and carisma they bring to the table. I see that lacking in discovery for the most part and feels like several interactions are forced for the sake of inclusion and not a natural ebb and flow.
As to picard so far i am enjoying it in general.
I do think the crew or group so far coming together is a good one as they are each flawed in there own way and some what damaged goods yet complement each other thus far.
But i do worry with the fight with the android at the start and blowing up. and the shoot out in the latest episode i worry they are heading down the action path and not the firefly/andromeda vibe i have been having thus far.
> (Quote)
>
> Yep. The only optimism in the past 11 years of Trek was Beyond. Starbase Yorktown, to me was pretty much that sorta world Gene envisioned, people, both human and non human, of all shapes, sizes, colors, genders and so on, living together, working together, helping each other, loving each other. I've seen NONE in the Kurtzman era of Trek thus far.....just gloom, doom and not so likeable characters.
>
> If I was a starfleet crew member on the Discovery, I'd find a shuttlecraft and get the smeg out of there.
Um....season finale of Discovery season 2 had Starfleet, the Klingons and Saru’s people working together to stop Control.
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.
Okay, so you don't see the orders of magnitude difference between Picard and the rest of Trek, the much bigger inconsistencies, the theme, and so on. Then there really isn't anyway we can ever see each other's point because we disagree on the most fundamental issue to this discussion.
I did think of something that can seriously contribute to this problem. One issue with Picard is that it isn't episodic like the rest of Trek has always been. What we have is one pointlessly drawn out episode/movie that, if it were only one episode of Picard next to others we could judge as their own thing compared to previous Trek, might collectively be more Trek, whereas this "episode" is a standout where they do something wildly different, though less different compared to the rest of the hypothetical Picard show. It would be like judging Voyager based on say "Threshold" vs the rest of Trek.
However, they hit the established, core ideas and established characters too hard for me to really entertain that idea seriously. And they haven't developed the history needed for us to buy into those changes.
Except he didn't have any lingering issues, and we were told this and shown this. STP is just making this up.
> Except he didn't have any lingering issues, and we were told this and shown this. STP is just making this up.
He was still having nightmares in First Contact. And almost turned into captain Ahab until Lily helped him get a grip.
But its true that the TNG series virtually ignored what happened to him as far as any side effects were concerned.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Yes First Contact was inconsistent on this for the sake of the movie drama, but I really have to go with the series as First Contact was one instance vs the rest of TNG post Locutus, thus is the outlier that probably shouldn't be taken as the standard.
I am pretty sure TNG did address what happened to him.
He did recover somewhat but the bad memories will always be apart of him.
"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway
#Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
You are right that they did do one episode (the one immediately after Best of Both Worlds p2) where he is still recovering. But the point is, for the entire rest of the series (4 more seasons) I don't recall any other episodes where he is haunted by this situation. Can you?
IMO, I think there are 2 explanations for this: one is bad writing, because it is NOT realistic that he would not be haunted by this experience. The other is that he simply 'suppressed' it and almost pretended like it didn't happen, as many victims of trauma do.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
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.
No, but at the same time, they could have at least tried to make the modern filmmaking technology fit better with what was previously established. Not everything has to be a bloody touch-screen, because they didn't have LCARS (and that's basically what the systems on Discovery are) in 2257! I consider the typical response of "it's what TOS would have looked like with modern technology" to be pure piffle. I've been told "if you want cheap and kitschy, go watch a fan film". My response to both has been "up thine".
"There's No Way Like Poway!"
Real Join Date: October 2010
My character Tsin'xing
yeah and this isn't exactly something out of no where, first contact had some suggestions of this. and common sense says it would impact him. TNG was just classic 90s TV where everything goes back to where it was at the end of the episode. which yeah I understand why but these days that's not terriably sastifying. to see Picard confront those old demons, to realize that the borg aren't monsters but that they're ALL victiems (something he should have known but blind spots are natural) it was really great proably my fav part of the series
In a Mirror Darkly, as well as ST Continues, Phase 2, and Axxanar looked VERY good...and did NOT look like 'plywood and strings' as some folks keep spouting.
Or could be this is the first time he’s been on a cube since BOBW
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.
There is his PTSD moment in First Contact.
Also in both those cases despite the borg being present he was utterly in control of the situation. when he was made Locutus he was absolutely helpless, and thus that's proably, more thern just the sight of borg, what triggers him. hence why his triggering in Picard was so bad, he's beaming into the heart of a borg cube, where he was at his most helpless and his most violated, is alone, etc.
On the other hand, full out arcs were very rare and full serials very passé and were relegated to low-budget kid shows and afternoon soaps.
Things that happened in an episode happened in the past of other episodes, writers just had to watch out for the tendency of networks to arbitrarily show episodes out of order so references had to be both non-essential to the current episode's story and also had to be to things far enough back to insure that the referred-to episode was not first shown after the episode that made the reference. In fact, almost every single series that lasted more than one season eventually had a "coma episode" where one of the characters (usually the main) gets whacked hard enough to end up unconscious in the first few minutes and the rest of it is flashbacks to earlier episodes (either from people trying to get a response out of the unconscious one, stuff replaying in the person's head, or other similar schticks).
And by the 1990s story arcs were really starting to come into their own (the best example of it doing it right is Babylon5 which ran from '94 to '99). Star Trek was no exception to that either, they only used a few short arcs in TNG but DS9 made extensive use of the technique for the Dominion war and in VOY the "Year of Hell" was supposed to be an entire season long arc (though they backed off on that one which is no surprise for the rather formulaic and stodgy Berman era).
As for the "modern" thing, aesthetics of a show have nothing to do with the production values, yet it is the production values that most of the TOS haters point to ridicule the show and say it looks like a fan film or whatever. In fact, one of the favorite cutdowns seems to be calling the TOS ship "the carboard Enterprise" (which it wasn't, it was wood and drywall for the most part). There is no reason whatsoever that a bridge (or other areas) built to the original aesthetics using modern setbuilding techniques would have to look bad or dated to current viewers. The designers would just have to make the effort, which according to the interviews they did not (instead going for The Undiscovered Country as the basis).
And that brings up the other side of the coin. When fans say that DSC looks too modern a lot of people take it to mean that the technology looks too advanced when in fact a lot of the time the "too modern" reference is to the fact that the aesthetics are wrong for the time period they are depicting, AND NOT the minor details like having LCARS displays and touchscreens.
In other words, to bring the problem closer to the present for illustration, if Happy Days or Grease were to be made the way Moonves had DSC made they would make constant reference to being in the 1950s but they would drive minivans, have body piercings, and dress in grunge rather than '57 Chevys, poodle skirts, bobby socks, bouffants, suede shoes and Brylcreem (or considering the ENT-esque uniforms maybe flapper skirts and zoot suits). People watching it expecting it to be recognizable as the 1950s it claimed to be set in would make the same complaints about the non-appropriate looks that core Trek fans make about DSC.
About the only thing that is "too advanced" in DSC on a technological level is the fact that the subspace communications network is way too dense for that time period. Roddenberry stressed the fact that the situation was almost like the era of sailing ships, instead of the constant over the shoulder micromanaging that happens in today's armed services Starfleet ships were usually on their own, very often with a comms delay of hours or even days between them and headquarters. Notice how most of the time they got their orders via "subspace dispatch" instead of realtime talks over the mainscreen? The realtime ones were supposed to be times when they were close to a relay (the instant communications in the DSC pilot are quite reasonable considering they were right on top of a relay, but other times it is far less so).
The holographic part of the communications are not advanced at all, in TOS references made it plain that their holograms looked just as solid as the holodeck ones seen in TNG (though they were not physically solid). The nasty Star Wars style analog holography would have been seen as either very quaint or simply garbage by TOS characters.
The TOS bridge was designed for efficiency and a minimalist organic curve/angle aesthetic. It was set up so that everyone was close enough to communicate and work together effectively but big enough to avoid crowding each other, and also it was set up so all the main bridge crew were in the frame at the same time in medium shots (which is also why the turbolift was shifted off-center). The room itself was originally an oblate spheroid with flat platforms but the construction limitation of having to use strait lumber forced them to build it as a sort of octagon.
The DSC bridge while impressive and reallly nice looking was designed with a totally different aesthetic. The primary consideration was apperently eye candy and keeping the cameraman from tripping or bumping into things so it is very much oversized and inefficient from an operations point of view. Also, it is composed of cylinders and other regular geometry shapes instead of spiral curves and golden ratio proportions, and has a very busy art-deco look to it which gives it a weird 1930s vibe under all the glowy stuff and scads of keypad buttons.
The ceiling of the bridge reinforces that art deco look with the Kelvin style cylinder over the command chair. The TOS ceiling that was designed but never built (the "wild" movable modular construction of the set made it impractical and potentially dangerous) actually looked like the one in TMP (though with more of a curve instead of so flat) with the access bumpout from the dorsal sensor suite and that green "fishbowl" (all equipment was serviceable from the inside, there would be little need for those drones seen in DSC except for maybe replacing damaged armor panels with a temporary patch or something).