For anyone that wonders why these threads get locked, look no further then this example.
Simply put, it's posts like this that remove any hint of civil discussion and plummet threads like this into ruin. Now, this is an obvious attempt to bait someone into an angry reply to get this thread closed, and I am not going to fall for it, just simply pointing it out as an example. This is a common tactic used by those that dislike something but either don't have enough logical reasons to support their argument or are simply incapable of properly representing those ideas on a cohesive manner. When that happens, the easiest way is to just spew vitriol hoping to flare reactions and get the thread shut down.
This tactic usually works.
As much as I can grant it might be intended as inflammatory, its not hard to just say "I disagree." If that post crosses a line the only portion that does would be the line about the audience.
Still, its someone saying they don't like ST:D in the most general, if strong, terms possible, and as evidenced by the comments on Hollywood its clear they are grossly dissatisfied with the industry as a whole. That is a very, very widespread sentiment, between the endless poorly done reboots and remakes and the ignorant personalities that spout nonsense about topics they know literally nothing about.
But what about ST:D don't they like? Pry it out of them to understand their point of view. Maybe they are just trolling for the flames, and maybe they can clearly explain their dislikes of the show.
But what about ST:D don't they like? Pry it out of them to understand their point of view. Maybe they are just trolling for the flames, and maybe they can clearly explain their dislikes of the show.
It's not on me to try and drag something out of someone. Posts like the ones I quoted are not an attempt at dialog they are an attempt to inflame and incite. I see nothing in that exchange that warrants the effort that would be required in helping the poster expand on their points. It's further compounded by the fact that I simply don't care.
For anyone that wonders why these threads get locked, look no further then this example.
Simply put, it's posts like this that remove any hint of civil discussion and plummet threads like this into ruin. Now, this is an obvious attempt to bait someone into an angry reply to get this thread closed, and I am not going to fall for it, just simply pointing it out as an example. This is a common tactic used by those that dislike something but either don't have enough logical reasons to support their argument or are simply incapable of properly representing those ideas on a cohesive manner. When that happens, the easiest way is to just spew vitriol hoping to flare reactions and get the thread shut down.
This tactic usually works.
you know what they say, misery loves miserable company. hateful people want others to be hateful with them, otherwise they would just make posts that say "I don't like this thing" thats it and move on. But the fact that they go into WHY they hate it, is an attempt to bring others into their hatred because they know that they are in the minority and they don't like that. and when people don't join them, its just devolves into a scorched earth scenario.
But the point on CBS, while they do get to dictate what canon is or isn't as the IP holder, its also the responsibility of the fans to express their like or dislike if it seems like a really bad decision. CBS can make Star Trek into My Little Pony. That doesn't mean its good for the brand to have magic ponies running the starships.
Probably not, but who knows if there's a planet out there with them, and what if Q goes there on vacation, harassing pastel ponies instead of Starship Captains?
(John de Lancie voiced Discord, and since the character is a bit of a zanier version of Q... Discord is Q memes. lol)
Honestly integrating My Little Pony, while viable due ot the sheer number of worlds out there in the galaxy, is the realm of fanfiction. Can be done, and done well, but... still the realm of fanfiction. A realm I know well as a writer.
But what is Joe trying to say, really? Is he actually trying to be the arbiter of canon or is he expressing a more general disdain for the show, a view that it doesn't feel remotely like Star Trek and has only a surface level connection to the rest of the brand? Not everyone is great at distilling their thoughts down to the core and formulating a cogent argument. I went to public school too, and I'm quite sure they've gotten worse since then.
Obviously its also silly to pretend we can read someone's mind, but trying to separate the wheat from the chaff is worthwhile to understand what someone is tryin to say when their first attempt doesn't come out well.
I respect that people wish to express their opinions. But as stated earlier its HOW its expressed. And I'd have to agree, a lot of people tend to take the "You're either with me or against me", and even take it to the point of "Agree with me or else". Not only that some have taken it to "I don't care what ANYONE says, I'm right and you're wrong", which just escalates the situation even more. And we tend to see these sort of things when the subject of Discovery comes up, which can lead to the opinion of some sort of bias when... there really isn't. Its just a disproportionate number of those kinds of threads tend to focus on that subject.
Its a slippery slope and VERY easy to descend into a flame war. Discovery right now is one of those hot button topics that trigger people. Odds are eventually Discovery will be viewed like Enterprise and Voyager. Has its flaws, but is alright. Just need something new for people to rage against because its new and "not like what came before".
That division and volatility is more due to Moonves deliberately stirring things up and fanning the flames to get free advertising for CBSAA than it would have been with just the fans alone. Trek fans have always been a bit contentious and critical when it comes to realistic historical progression, plausibility of technology and plot, and continuity glitches, but despite the strife over various earlier series it was never as bad as it was with DSC, even though with the earlier shows only the loudest and angriest of the fanbase was ever heard because of the difficulty of getting word out then compared to today.
The odds are actually against DSC, VOY, and ENT being lumped together in people's minds no matter how much time passes for a number of reasons. Not only is there the paywall problem which is probably not going to go away anytime soon (if ever) so the majority of Trek fans will not have a chance to get used to DSC. And seriously, the plots are horrible when you just read them since they are written for the rule of cool more than plot (and the often cheesy dialog does not help).
Perhaps most important is the fact that traditional Trek and "NuTrek" (as many call it, and it is rather convenient as opposed to listing off most of the stuff produced after ENT) are two entirely different subgenres. That makes a big difference even with the often fuzzy borders and overlap of subgenres. And of course it is very rare that any story is absolutely pure when it comes to subgenres and even genres to some extent (and it does not help that the subgenres themselves are not standardized so there are several schools of thought on them).
TOS and the traditional Treks are "soft sci-fi" which mainly deals with the soft sciences like sociology, psychology, economics/socioeconomics, history, politics/political science, etc, hence the name (as opposed to the hard sciences which gives hard sci-fi its name). It's conflict is in the form of drama and discourse though it may or may not contain action as well (TOS contained more action than TNG for the most part for example, something Roddenberry had arguments with Berman about a lot) and is often very much allegory for the issues of today, projected into the future to decouple them from the prejudices and strictures the subject has in today's world.
Technology itself is only a secondary consideration though care must be taken to keep it as consistent as possible because readers/viewers tend to be fascinated by shiny gadgets and being too arbitrary with it tends to focus attention on it rather than the story itself. Also, since technology and aesthetics are important elements in defining historical eras those have to carefully but deftly managed for that reason as well.
On the other hand, the so-called NuTrek is firmly rooted in space opera, which touches on either hard or (more often) soft sciences but does not go deep on into them the way that soft (and hard) sci-fi does. It is more of an unfocused romp (romps are usually thought of as "light" but they can be quite dark as well as long as it does not cross the line into depressing and get in the way of "lively and enjoyable") similar to the old swashbuckling stories for the most part (DSC is no exception to this).
They tend to be a bit over the top, typically don't delve very far into allegory (if at all), and the conflict is most often frenetic action with melodrama in between rather than drama. In its purest form it is a thrill ride where everything takes a back seat to the action and eyecandy, so consistency and most of the other considerations for soft science fiction are glossed over or sometimes ignored completely.
Traditional Trek fans who had been waiting over a decade for another soft sci-fi Trek series were understandably not too happy with yet another space opera (which the Trek movies tended towards, finally going full-throttle space opera with the Abrams movies), especially since space operas are far more common than soft sci-fi on TV. And while Star Trek can be legitimately be both it would have been smarter to go with more of a balance between the two for the flagship series of CBS's foray into Star Trek to draw in fans of both of the subgenres Trek has branched into.
Why shouldn't there be a bias toward Discovery? It's an ongoing Star Trek series.
I don't like ALL of Discovery, but I enjoy enough of it to be satisfied. Having said that, Spock's Brain, Threshold, Profit and Lace, TNG season one, Night in Sickbay (or whatever the TRIBBLY that episode was called), there's more than enough trash in all the other Star Trek that exists. I won't damn Disco because I don't like a few plot beats or episodes.
Will I splash out on Disco content? Probably not. I would have snapped up the Inquiry (Picard, I know) if it had been a C-store ship, and having bought the 10th anniversary legendary bundle, I got a few Disco ships. The Walker levelling ship arrived from somewhere too and I have no idea why I have the Gagarin. I haven't bought a singular Disco ship on purpose and I doubt I will.
not a huge fan of disco...but its the current run of shows along with pic and LD. each has its own edge to it.
as far as a bias...sure. why not. take advantage of it while they can, and while i dont agree with continual LBs, bundles, promo boxes, lobi etc...its how they choose to do it, no matter what show is represented.
i think i liked maybe 20% of disco episodes, and maybe like 50% of the effects and such to include certain ships, uniforms, etc. LD is a nice fun break from the death toll disco showered us with. Pic? im still mixed on this one. i like it, but maybe like 50% at this time. hopefully the next season brings something into it to up that score.
DISCLAIMER: I'm talking in a general sense here. not specifically at you @keepcalmchiveon
I really enjoy when people try to fall back on the violence argument in regard to Discovery. It was literally a war. People die in war. That's kind of the point of war. Also it was a war with the Klingons. A race that loves war and death. War happens. Yes, even to the Federation. I mean hell, Earth had a war with the Romulans even before the one in Discovery, and that one was said to have almost destroyed the Starfleet. Conflict is literally a part of being human. Humans are not perfects, if they were, they would be Borg. The fact that humans can't escape conflict is literally a foundation stone in Star Trek. Always striving for utopia, but never actually achieving it because of the very nature of humanity. War is bloody, and violent. Not sugar and rainbows and alien love making.
Yes, Discovery dared to show us that side of humanity during their quest for unattainable utopia. And it was a brilliant breath of fresh air tbh, compared to the constant philosophy. Star Trek up until Discovery has quite honest been the same formula in different setting. Discovery broke the mold, and showed that even a benevolent, peace loving organization, there is still darkness. because darkness is an inherent part of being human. Why do you think the Q Continuum is so interested in them?
And actually pitting the Federation against these conflicts is an excellent narrative way to put its ideal to the test. Because there is no greater test of humanity than in a scenario like Discovery went for. IMO, having star Trek always be going around doing the same thing again and again is actually a disservice to it. And don't bring Roddenberry into this either. The man is dead. there is no way to know how he would feel about this. We have no idea how his ideals would have changed had he lived. So anything to do with his thoughts at this point are purely speculative.
Also the war was literally started by the Klingon which is like 100% on brand for them, so i fail to see how that's bad when it's literally true to their nature as warriors and conquerors.
Also people can say oh the writing, acting story is bad. However that is all subjective person to person. its not an objective argument. Also when something doesn't live up to your personal expectations, that does not actually make thing objectively bad. Something too many people here don't seem to grasp all that well. And again, fandoms are not the majority of the audience. Maybe once upon a time the ST fandom was the majority of viewers. But that is not the case anymore. and for every haters, there are a lot more people who like it.
This is literally not a fight. And even if it was, its not a fight the haters are going win. So why stew in your dislike? What's the point, other than to bring everyone else down for liking it?
I'm probably going to get zapped for saying this myself, but I can't help but notice any thread that's at all critical of Discovery gets locked or deleted. And anyone who makes a criticism of the show, even when it's a polite and intelligent reply or comment, gets banned.
I know that Cryptic is at the mercy of CBS and Discovery is CBS' pride and joy, but I do think we should be able to express an opinion, especially if they help to make changes for the better in Discovery.
Well, I had my post deleted in about 3 seconds. Well done. No, it just got eaten by the incompetent anti-spam bot. -- WingedHussar
Here's the lowdown on why this is happening. Hope this post survives. ST:D's biggest problem has been that the traditional core Star Trek fans pretty much hate it. So CBS has been dropping a relatively large amount of money on Cryptic with the instructions that Cryptic is to legitimize the show. STO is a place where there is still a large number of old-school star trek fans. If CBS can legitimize ST:D content here, then perhaps some of the ruthless criticism that the core Trek fans still unleash on ST:D will disappear and ST:D will finally get some real traction. For the most part, most real Trek fans consider ST:D to be non-cannon.
How I discovered this was interesting. I noticed, as I'm sure everyone else here has, how people who criticize ST:D on zone chat get almost instantly stepped on. It turns out that CBS has been paying interns to do just that. Generally there are two or three who will tag-team anyone who criticizes ST:D or ST:D content on STO. I first noticed this when I was talking to a fleety about how someone was getting viciously flamed on zone chat for daring to comment on ST:D. When my fleety asked me the person's ID, we discovered the same user id was doing the same thing on zone chat for another zone. I was on ESD, he was on Drozanna. Over the next few weeks all my fleeties started looking out and we noticed it happening quite a bit. People who were obviously on chat systems that gave them access to multiple zone chats were systematically stepping hard on anyone levelling any criticism of ST:D. I confronted one of them once, and ended up having a nice chat with a young lady who later admitted she was a CBS intern.
Cryptic doesn't want their CBS gravy train to stop, which is why a lot of ST:D criticism gets pretty ruthlessly crushed here and in-game.
I read between the lines a (very) little bit in the conversation I had with her, as she still had a few weeks to go in her internship. But besides that, no, what I posted isn't conjecture. it's an accurate account.
By Cryptic's own admission they only had ideas for like 1-2 more story arcs for STO.
Well, this part I might buy. Everyone with good ideas seems to have been fired or left. By Cryptic's own admission, they yanked the foundry, hid some of the missions, and have been having a hard time fixing bugs because they no longer have the staff who understand the codebase. It doesn't surprise me they ran out of talent to come up with story ideas.
That is, perhaps a little harsh. The whole Future Proof/Lukari line with Kuumaarke was brilliant. Fantastic Star Trek. Forward thinking and upbeat. I particularly love how all the Lukari ships are traditional UFO shapes, leaving open the link with the Lukari and earth's past. Point is, there is no end to great and interesting story lines. Cryptic didn't need ST:D for content. Most of us could have come up with a thousand new story lines and interesting mixes. A lot of the players role play it every day. The idea that all new ideas were dried up and that is why Cryptic went "looking" for ST:D content doesn't pass the sniff test. It sounds more like a back explanation.
I have just looked at the forum community rules and see no mention of the word gatekeeping, nor is your assersion in line with what I would call a generally accepted definition of it. Nor do I see any rule against talking about who considers what to be cannon.
I have just looked at the forum community rules and see no mention of the word gatekeeping, nor is your assersion in line with what I would call a generally accepted definition of it. Nor do I see any rule against talking about who considers what to be cannon.
The subject of Gatekeeping was covered in the FCT.
-gatekeeping: the activity of controlling, and usually limiting, general access to something.
-When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity.
It is ok to dislike/hate something about Star Trek. It is ok to dislike/hate something about Star Trek Online. It is ok to express those things in the forum within the ToS and Community Rules and Policies. It is NOT ok to attack other forum users for liking/loving those same things for themselves.
Gatekeeping against other forum users will not be tolerated on the STO forum. It has been officially decided to be a form of trolling and, depending on language, flaming, and will be dealt with as such.
ADDENDUM: Use of the acronym/term S T D, and its variations and spellings in attempts to avoid the forum censor, will also fall under this ruling, as the general attitude behind its use is deemed to be an attempt to diminish and devalue that segment of the Star Trek franchise and its fan-base.
Using this criteria... yes you can get slammed for Gatekeeping as claiming that "real Trek fans" say or do something basically implies that anyone who does NOT agree is not a "real fan", thus Gatekeeping. Also using ST:D can be considered bypassing the forum censor. The official accronym is DSC. The reason any variation of ST:D is considered no go is because its indirectly used as an attack against the show because what else does that accronym stand for? You see the problem now?
I'm probably going to get zapped for saying this myself, but I can't help but notice any thread that's at all critical of Discovery gets locked or deleted. And anyone who makes a criticism of the show, even when it's a polite and intelligent reply or comment, gets banned.
I know that Cryptic is at the mercy of CBS and Discovery is CBS' pride and joy, but I do think we should be able to express an opinion, especially if they help to make changes for the better in Discovery.
Well, I had my post deleted in about 3 seconds. Well done.
Here's the lowdown on why this is happening. Hope this post survives. ST:D's biggest problem has been that the traditional core Star Trek fans pretty much hate it. So CBS has been dropping a relatively large amount of money on Cryptic with the instructions that Cryptic is to legitimize the show. STO is a place where there is still a large number of old-school star trek fans. If CBS can legitimize ST:D content here, then perhaps some of the ruthless criticism that the core Trek fans still unleash on ST:D will disappear and ST:D will finally get some real traction. For the most part, most real Trek fans consider ST:D to be non-cannon.
How I discovered this was interesting. I noticed, as I'm sure everyone else here has, how people who criticize ST:D on zone chat get almost instantly stepped on. It turns out that CBS has been paying interns to do just that. Generally there are two or three who will tag-team anyone who criticizes ST:D or ST:D content on STO. I first noticed this when I was talking to a fleety about how someone was getting viciously flamed on zone chat for daring to comment on ST:D. When my fleety asked me the person's ID, we discovered the same user id was doing the same thing on zone chat for another zone. I was on ESD, he was on Drozanna. Over the next few weeks all my fleeties started looking out and we noticed it happening quite a bit. People who were obviously on chat systems that gave them access to multiple zone chats were systematically stepping hard on anyone levelling any criticism of ST:D. I confronted one of them once, and ended up having a nice chat with a young lady who later admitted she was a CBS intern.
Cryptic doesn't want their CBS gravy train to stop, which is why a lot of ST:D criticism gets pretty ruthlessly crushed here and in-game.
This entire post is nothing but your own biased opinion that you're trying to pass off as fact.
Again, these types of posts are the reason why these threads get shut down. For anyone that's curious, this is an absolutely perfect example. This poster makes broad assumptions for large groups of fans based on nothing but his own personal opinion and then presents it as an unquestionable fact.
This could not be a more perfect example of a biased and toxic post that gets threads quickly shut down. The user pretty much directly says that if you like Discovery you're not a Star Trek Fan. Imagine the ego required to make a statement like that thinking you speak for millions of fans. The hubris is unimaginable.
This is a private forum, not the public square. We have no "right to free speech" here.
While true, never a particularly strong argument, as ppl may not have rights, in the absolute, I'm sure moderators generally prefer to let ppl speak freely, unless there be real exigent circumstances to intervene.
Being skeptical is fine, though it is fact that CBS is the sole arbiter of what it canon. You can argue that you wish something was or was not canon or that you think it ought not to be canon but that doesn't change reality. They own the church and CBS is the Space Pope.
Gatekeeping has always struck me as rather silly (If for nothing else, because I know way too little to weigh in on stuff like whether a frigate is supposed to be smaller than a shuttle, or vice versa.)
There's an internationallly accepted saying that goes, "Only the Dutch can determine whether a painting is a real Rembrandt." Probably true, as we have the best experts. But CBS pulling authority on canon is largely meaningless, content-wise, as there are no authenticy checks, no probing for inconsistencies or anomalies across the series, etc. Canon is simply canon because, well, CBS said so -- an argument that boils down to 'Everything we do is meant to make us money, therefore we call everything we do canon.' That is not bad per se, btw, especially in absentia of other good criteria. But it also therefore makes gatekeeping pretty silly, as you're trying to keep a gate that's inherently full of holes to begin with.
And to paraphrase a classy lady of lore, "Your enjoyment isn't wrong."
Oh where to start here. First up, some folks in here need to dial it way back and you know who you are. Folks are allowed to like what they like and dislike what they don't like. Someone liking something else than you or vice versa doesn't make them automatically wrong or you automatically right. You not liking something has no bearing on it being canon or not. I'm no fan of Discovery either as I personally find the writing to be atrocious and not up to usual Trek standards, and believe they could have done far better than they did. However if someone else likes the show then more power to them. Different strokes for different folks. Folks are free to voice their opinions in the positive or negative about something, provided it's done in a civil matter. The problem too many have is that don't voice said opinions in a civil manor.
Too many seem to think their opinion counts as established fact of what is/isn't Trek and that's not how it works. Folks are entitled to their opinions, but that's all they are, opinions. As long as folks voice their opinions in a civil manor they're free to talk all day long. Whether we like it or not, right now Discovery is part of Trek, regardless of whether we think it should be or not.
"Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations
Too many seem to think their opinion counts as established fact of what is/isn't Trek and that's not how it works. Folks are entitled to their opinions, but that's all they are, opinions. As long as folks voice their opinions in a civil manor they're free to talk all day long. Whether we like it or not, right now Discovery is part of Trek, regardless of whether we think it should be or not.
I was using "ST:D" with the : well before the forum censor was in place, I used the : because I didn't want to upset people who thought it was a bad acronym just because it's the same as a less desirable term and : is in the full title Star Trek: Discovery, now the idea has been misconstrued and instead looked at as a censor bypass instead,there's no : in sexual transmitted disease, also DSC is an abbreviation not an acronym.
For anyone that wonders why these threads get locked, look no further then this example.
Simply put, it's posts like this that remove any hint of civil discussion and plummet threads like this into ruin. Now, this is an obvious attempt to bait someone into an angry reply to get this thread closed, and I am not going to fall for it, just simply pointing it out as an example. This is a common tactic used by those that dislike something but either don't have enough logical reasons to support their argument or are simply incapable of properly representing those ideas on a cohesive manner. When that happens, the easiest way is to just spew vitriol hoping to flare reactions and get the thread shut down.
This tactic usually works.
you know what they say, misery loves miserable company. hateful people want others to be hateful with them, otherwise they would just make posts that say "I don't like this thing" thats it and move on. But the fact that they go into WHY they hate it, is an attempt to bring others into their hatred because they know that they are in the minority and they don't like that. and when people don't join them, its just devolves into a scorched earth scenario.
The psychoanalysis around here is always absurd. Pretending to know what goes on in someone else's mind is definitely a worse sin than claiming something isn't canon.
Further, it is pretty ridiculous to suggest that knowing what someone dislikes about a show somehow affects someone else's feelings on the show. Someone disliking the writing doesn't magically make me dislike it too, nor is that even close to hatred.
Instead, knowing what they dislike opens up a path to also finding out what they liked. It is a way to find common ground, something to build on. Letting someone voice their dislikes to an open ear lets them have their voice heard, and they can feel good about that.
By most accounts, ST:D's captain Pike was well liked, and people wanted to see more of him, more of what they felt was the Trek they knew and loved. That is why he is supposedly getting a spin off show.
For anyone that wonders why these threads get locked, look no further then this example.
Simply put, it's posts like this that remove any hint of civil discussion and plummet threads like this into ruin. Now, this is an obvious attempt to bait someone into an angry reply to get this thread closed, and I am not going to fall for it, just simply pointing it out as an example. This is a common tactic used by those that dislike something but either don't have enough logical reasons to support their argument or are simply incapable of properly representing those ideas on a cohesive manner. When that happens, the easiest way is to just spew vitriol hoping to flare reactions and get the thread shut down.
This tactic usually works.
you know what they say, misery loves miserable company. hateful people want others to be hateful with them, otherwise they would just make posts that say "I don't like this thing" thats it and move on. But the fact that they go into WHY they hate it, is an attempt to bring others into their hatred because they know that they are in the minority and they don't like that. and when people don't join them, its just devolves into a scorched earth scenario.
The psychoanalysis around here is always absurd. Pretending to know what goes on in someone else's mind is definitely a worse sin than claiming something isn't canon.
Further, it is pretty ridiculous to suggest that knowing what someone dislikes about a show somehow affects someone else's feelings on the show. Someone disliking the writing doesn't magically make me dislike it too, nor is that even close to hatred.
Instead, knowing what they dislike opens up a path to also finding out what they liked. It is a way to find common ground, something to build on. Letting someone voice their dislikes to an open ear lets them have their voice heard, and they can feel good about that.
By most accounts, ST:D's captain Pike was well liked, and people wanted to see more of him, more of what they felt was the Trek they knew and loved. That is why he is supposedly getting a spin off show.
Not supposedly, IS. They are in the process of filming Strange New Worlds now.
For anyone that wonders why these threads get locked, look no further then this example.
Simply put, it's posts like this that remove any hint of civil discussion and plummet threads like this into ruin. Now, this is an obvious attempt to bait someone into an angry reply to get this thread closed, and I am not going to fall for it, just simply pointing it out as an example. This is a common tactic used by those that dislike something but either don't have enough logical reasons to support their argument or are simply incapable of properly representing those ideas on a cohesive manner. When that happens, the easiest way is to just spew vitriol hoping to flare reactions and get the thread shut down.
This tactic usually works.
you know what they say, misery loves miserable company. hateful people want others to be hateful with them, otherwise they would just make posts that say "I don't like this thing" thats it and move on. But the fact that they go into WHY they hate it, is an attempt to bring others into their hatred because they know that they are in the minority and they don't like that. and when people don't join them, its just devolves into a scorched earth scenario.
The psychoanalysis around here is always absurd. Pretending to know what goes on in someone else's mind is definitely a worse sin than claiming something isn't canon.
Further, it is pretty ridiculous to suggest that knowing what someone dislikes about a show somehow affects someone else's feelings on the show. Someone disliking the writing doesn't magically make me dislike it too, nor is that even close to hatred.
Instead, knowing what they dislike opens up a path to also finding out what they liked. It is a way to find common ground, something to build on. Letting someone voice their dislikes to an open ear lets them have their voice heard, and they can feel good about that.
By most accounts, ST:D's captain Pike was well liked, and people wanted to see more of him, more of what they felt was the Trek they knew and loved. That is why he is supposedly getting a spin off show.
Not supposedly, IS. They are in the process of filming Strange New Worlds now.
I was using "ST:D" with the : well before the forum censor was in place, I used the : because I didn't want to upset people who thought it was a bad acronym just because it's the same as a less desirable term and : is in the full title Star Trek: Discovery, now the idea has been misconstrued and instead looked at as a censor bypass instead,there's no : in sexual transmitted disease, also DSC is an abbreviation not an acronym.
It's used by people that want to disparage the show. None of the Trek shows use Acronym's, they are all abbreviations.
The Original Series - TOS
The Next Generation - TNG
Deep Space Nine - DS9
Voyager - VOY
Enterprise - ENT
Discovery - DISCO
Just adding the : doesn't change the meaning, we all know what people are implying when they use it that way.
I was using "ST:D" with the : well before the forum censor was in place, I used the : because I didn't want to upset people who thought it was a bad acronym just because it's the same as a less desirable term and : is in the full title Star Trek: Discovery, now the idea has been misconstrued and instead looked at as a censor bypass instead,there's no : in sexual transmitted disease, also DSC is an abbreviation not an acronym.
It's used by people that want to disparage the show. None of the Trek shows use Acronym's, they are all abbreviations.
The Original Series - TOS
The Next Generation - TNG
Deep Space Nine - DS9
Voyager - VOY
Enterprise - ENT
Discovery - DISCO
Just adding the : doesn't change the meaning, we all know what people are implying when they use it that way.
You're not a Betazoid, so if you think you can read someone's mind you're wrong. Period. It is disturbing how commonly that claiming to know what someone really means is used against critics of the new shows, and in this case, people merely referring to a show. Further, it is utterly irrational.
The formal names of the shows are all in the form "Star Trek: [name]" It is never wrong to abbreviate to them as such.
I was using "ST:D" with the : well before the forum censor was in place, I used the : because I didn't want to upset people who thought it was a bad acronym just because it's the same as a less desirable term and : is in the full title Star Trek: Discovery, now the idea has been misconstrued and instead looked at as a censor bypass instead,there's no : in sexual transmitted disease, also DSC is an abbreviation not an acronym.
It's used by people that want to disparage the show. None of the Trek shows use Acronym's, they are all abbreviations.
The Original Series - TOS
The Next Generation - TNG
Deep Space Nine - DS9
Voyager - VOY
Enterprise - ENT
Discovery - DISCO
Just adding the : doesn't change the meaning, we all know what people are implying when they use it that way.
You're not a Betazoid, so if you think you can read someone's mind you're wrong. Period. It is disturbing how commonly that claiming to know what someone really means is used against critics of the new shows, and in this case, people merely referring to a show. Further, it is utterly irrational.
The formal names of the shows are all in the form "Star Trek: [name]" It is never wrong to abbreviate to them as such.
Never did I say I knew what the poster was thinking, I was obviously speaking in generality. I specifically used wording to specify that it's a general use of that abbreviation that was used by many in a disparaging fashion. This is further enforced by the fact that the forum censors the acronym for that very reason.
You can claim I am trying to 'read peoples minds' or whatever silly claims you want.. we all know how that term is generally used and when someone uses it, they might encounter a reaction based on that perception. I didn't start the trend, I don't perpetuate it, I am simply acknowledging it. If you find that irrational, so be it.
ST:D's biggest problem has been that the traditional core Star Trek fans pretty much hate it.
Your biggest problem in this discussion is that this statement is a load of targ dung.
Now..now..he's probably one of those who became a fan during the TNG era - so he doesn't know how HATED TNG was by 'core' Star Trek fans when it premiered in 1987 <--- He thinks Berman Trek IS Star Trek (which makes a fan like me who's been watching first run since 1969 at age 6 gag)...
So yeah, give him a break in that he really doesn't get that EVERY new incarnation of Star Trek since TOS (and hell, sometimes including the majority of TOS Season 3) has been decried as "NOT TREK!!!1111!!!" by Star Trek fans of a previous version. Hell, ST: D and the rest of the current crop have overall been accepted a lot quicker than either TNG and especially DS9 were when they first hit the airwaves.
For me 'Star Trek' will always be TOS and the 23rd century era. I really enjoyed ST: D when it hit because it got Trek out of the pompous 24th century 'utopia' where somehow Humans would allow the entire race to die to uphold 'Federation principles', which Picard stuffily pontificated on over and over (yet when push came to shove, he had no problems rationalizing any situation where he had to break them to save himself, the ship, or The Federation.)
For me at least James T. Kirk was practice and not as hypocritical as he often outright stated he disagreed with certain principles and in the end always chose his crew/the Federation over it's high minded principles on more than one occasion. The difference between Kirk and Picard was that Kirk was written as an actual relatable human being and not some high-minded utopian idealistic/unrealistic person (like oh the character of Jean-Luc Picard). Hell even by the end of the first season of PICARD - Jean-Luc Picard was shown as being 'right all along' again; which is still why I never cared for the character myself.
Back in the Berman Trek era, yes, I continued to watch and occasionally enjoy TNG (mostly when the writers went against GR's edict of a 'perfect' humanity - like in "Best Of Both Worlds" <--- Which we'd have never seen if GR hadn't been hospitalized - he shot it down when it was pitched; and it would never have been made).
About the only good things that can really be called 'Star Trek' that came from the Berman era was S3 on of DS9; and S3 and S4 of ENT (which got remarkable better and 'more Trek-like' once B&B handed the reigns to Manny Coto.
TNG hasn't aged well for me at all and generally, I can't rewatch much of it anymore because I find more enjoyment from the first two (and especially the second) season of ST: D. I didn't care much for ST: D S3 as they've moved back to the 'pompous' era of Trek and I'm sure we'll see the 24th+ century attitude of 'The Federation' re-emerge as the series goes forward.
I've digressed - but in the end, the current batch of Star Trek shows overall are are much 'real Star Trek' as TOS or the 24th century Trek shows were. The error is thinking there's 'one way'/'one kind' of Star Trek. Hell GR's influence is also overblown past TOS as given the 31 or so Seasons of Star Trek produced SINCE TOS (33 if you include TAS) - GR had real input into about 4 of those seasons (Hell, he bailed on TOS after S2 as well - leaving the reigns to Fred Freiberger to the series detriment, IMO.)
TLDR: There is no 'one true' version of Star Trek no matter how some of the online Gatekeepers try to claim there is; or that they know what 'Gene's Vision™' actually is. (Oh, and Star Trek was centered around ONE character 'Kirk' and in S2 and S3 Kirk, Spock, McCoy) - and the rest were interchangeable no matter what George Takei, Nichelle Nichols, Walter Keonig or James Doohan would like to believe. Want Proof? "The Doomsday Machine" is still usually in someone's TOS top 10 list yet Nichelle Nichols is 100% absent (Lt. Palmer is the Comm. officer the entire episode) - and never have I heard anyone say: "The episode SUCKS/IS UNWATCHABLE because Uhura is AWOL.
Hell, if you want the truly accurate form of 'Gene's Vision' (if you actually knew anything about the actual person):
from 1966-69 it was (.)(.) on a casting couch
from 1966-1991: $$$ <-- He sold the Star Trek IP to Paramount in 1969 but still (and Paramount went to court over this back in the day - and yes, both sides settled in the end) ran 'Lincoln Enterprises'; which specialized in creating/selling Star Trek merchandise and memorabilia to fans over the years (and in the beginning none of it was licensed after the IP sale either, hence the court case).
But yeah - in the end, the 'hatred' of new Star Trek, by previous core fans is NOTHING NEW and has been occurring since TAS hit the airwaves on a Saturday morning in 1973.
That some hard core 24th century era Berman Trek fans are upset that 'Star Trek' doesn't continue to 'hang out' in the 24th/early 25th centuries; or that the attitudes of new characters are 'different' just makes me laugh - hard.
Why?
They finally get how the majority of TOS fans felt in 1987 when TNG hit the airwaves. And yes, back then (as now) - those fans COULDN'T BELIEVE that version would bring in new fans...but it did; much like ST: D has done over the past 3 (and going into it's 4th) seasons.
I'll also say I've enjoyed the first 42 episodes of ST: D than the first 42 of TNG when it was first run. TNG sucked HARD it's first two seasons on the writing front; and didn't really start to find itself until midway though it's third season. S: D will have to get a Season 5 to get where TNG was when it's writing started to have a real voice of it's own.
But yeah, in the end, this type of cycle has been a part of Star Trek fandom since 1973. And if you look at the TV/Film media history of Star Trek, you see there's never been more than 4 year gap between Star Trek Film or TV project since 1969. Neither the Dr. Who nor Star Wars franchises can say that.
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..."
You know, it's rather entertaining reading all of these threads, because it gives me insight to people no one specific, just people, especially when I apply my own biases. People in the 60s, around my age, saw TOS, and they were probably OMG this show is communism in disguise! (Lets face it, Roddenberry's idea of the future WAS socialism/communism without the human failing of power corrupting/yada.
TNG comes along. TOS fans are OMG! who is this bald guy who just TALKS? Where's the fistfights, torn uniforms and half naked (In 60s style) women? although the latter did make an appearance or four in the first couple of seasons. and other viewers were not fond of the sociopolitical mumbo jumbo. DS9 comes out, OMG it's A SPACE STATION, a B-5 Ripoff, where's the boldly going thing?!?!? Voyager, well, it was fun for the first few episodes to count how many of the limited photon torpedoes were used.. and then it was fun to watch Robert Beltran's hatred of the show leak through in his performance, and they saved the show with Jeri Ryan in a outfit so tight she LITERALLY was passing out on set... Enterprise comes along ripping "canon" to shred with T'Pol, because SPOCK WAS THE FIRST VULCAN TOS SAID SO!!! and now Disc... what is there to fault Disc? only one thing.. JJ Abrams. Even though the man has NOTHING to do with Disc, the hatred of what he did with ST has leaked over to Disc. after all the Klingons all look like Worf... except then didn't. by my count there are 4 disitnct verions of Klingons.. The Kang Kor Koloth guys... the Mark Lenard Klingons only seen in TMP, and the third gen, Starting with ST III.. call them the Berman Klingons, because he was helming the content while those guys were around.. then JJ came along and "effed" them all up. And Disc followed suit. adn the stigma follows. my point is, the people screaming about JJ, the Klingons, and the politically correctness of the current batch of Star Trek is just like the Hippie loving/commie Trekkies of the 60s.. except the people whining ARE the hippie/commies from the 60s... except wea re now running full tilt into ou late 50s- early 60s, and true to being human, WE are now the old folks crying how terrible the Original was...
I guess to wrap up the wall of text, is to quote Sgt Hulka.. to all the ranters and ravers of Picard and Disc..
LIGHTEN UP, Francis... because bad star Trek (if that is your opinion) is better than NO Star Trek. and for those of you born after 1979, yes it was pretty bleak from 1969-1973 and again from 1974 until The Motion Picture, because IF we were lucky we had 5 TV channels, and IF we were lucky, one of they re-ran Star Trek sometime in the afternoon, and if you were fsat enough you could get home from school just in time to catch the opening credits, assuming Mom wasn't watching The Edge of Night.
and to sound more and more like my Dad, You youngsters don't know how good you got it.
It is funny that people are talking about hate so much and assuming that it is all directed at DSC. There is just as much hate directed at traditional Trek, especially TOS (in fact, the weird phenomenon of contempt for TOS among fans of shows spun off from TOS was talked about in academic papers since the 1980s) from fans of the newer Treks. It is especially ironic when DSC was reshaped into the form it was released in by hate and contempt for TOS by Moonves and some of the key people he put on the DSC project.
That hatred, shown by things like the signs they had up in the design rooms with big block letters screaming "NO ROUND ENGINES!!!" and (as the lead set designer talks about in the behind the scenes stuff) a complete bypassing of TOS in favor of the movie that Roddenberry fought the hardest against, The Undiscovered Country, even though it is not right for the era they set DSC into. And before anyone points out the three TOS style hand props, those really don't count for much in the sea of discontinuity of the rest.
Fuller originally pitched an anthology, but when CBS said they wanted a more traditional series with a stable cast but with more action than usual he was ok with that but insisted on Sonequa Martin-Green as the lead since she has proven that she can handle playing deep layered characters in previous shows, and Edgar Wright as director because he has a deft hand in directing quirky fast paced and yet surprisingly complex shows, and can handle dark subjects in an fresh, oblique way that does not get mired in it.
He eventually got Martin-Green but CBS insisted on David Semel as the "safe bet" as director and Semel's relatively plain and simple style clashed with the writing terribly and made a lot of the lines come off seeming stilted and hokey instead of clever, which set the tone for the rest of the series. Eventually the gulf between the ideas of Fuller (a TOS fan btw) and the demands of Moonves (who hated TOS) got too wide and deep and Fuller left.
While what CBS eventually came up with is watchable it fell far short of what they could have done by actually giving a little thought to it and weaving elements of Cage/TOS with the new ones instead of just running roughshod over them.
> @keepcalmchiveon said: > vette... > > i am and will always be an OS fan, and yes, im showing my age as well. so no, the OS was not terrible. think about what they created given the state of the times. as such, there is no way one can compare OS to anything in todays market. > > i enjoy the OS stuff in game so much that i make and run a new AoY toon every so often just to traverse and be in that time frame again.
I agree with this totally and feel the same way. The whole reason why I play STO is the TOS content in the game. If there was no TOS content in STO, I would not be playing it. I am happy for the ships, equipment, uniforms, AoY, and K-13. Whenever possible, I try to immerse myself in the TOS background as much as I can.
I think it is good that STO has material from all the shows. It gives a chance for all Star Trek fans to find something that draws them. Overall, I think this diversity of content makes is a positive thing for STO.
Discovery and Picard are the newest shows and I can see why it may get the priority in new STO content. While I dislike both of these shows, I find I can ignore them easy enough and have no obligation to buy any content from these shows. Free stuff based on these shows that does not interest me can just be tucked away in the bank or just discarded.
Comments
As much as I can grant it might be intended as inflammatory, its not hard to just say "I disagree." If that post crosses a line the only portion that does would be the line about the audience.
Still, its someone saying they don't like ST:D in the most general, if strong, terms possible, and as evidenced by the comments on Hollywood its clear they are grossly dissatisfied with the industry as a whole. That is a very, very widespread sentiment, between the endless poorly done reboots and remakes and the ignorant personalities that spout nonsense about topics they know literally nothing about.
But what about ST:D don't they like? Pry it out of them to understand their point of view. Maybe they are just trolling for the flames, and maybe they can clearly explain their dislikes of the show.
It's not on me to try and drag something out of someone. Posts like the ones I quoted are not an attempt at dialog they are an attempt to inflame and incite. I see nothing in that exchange that warrants the effort that would be required in helping the poster expand on their points. It's further compounded by the fact that I simply don't care.
(redacted material quote removed) - darkbladejk
you know what they say, misery loves miserable company. hateful people want others to be hateful with them, otherwise they would just make posts that say "I don't like this thing" thats it and move on. But the fact that they go into WHY they hate it, is an attempt to bring others into their hatred because they know that they are in the minority and they don't like that. and when people don't join them, its just devolves into a scorched earth scenario.
That division and volatility is more due to Moonves deliberately stirring things up and fanning the flames to get free advertising for CBSAA than it would have been with just the fans alone. Trek fans have always been a bit contentious and critical when it comes to realistic historical progression, plausibility of technology and plot, and continuity glitches, but despite the strife over various earlier series it was never as bad as it was with DSC, even though with the earlier shows only the loudest and angriest of the fanbase was ever heard because of the difficulty of getting word out then compared to today.
The odds are actually against DSC, VOY, and ENT being lumped together in people's minds no matter how much time passes for a number of reasons. Not only is there the paywall problem which is probably not going to go away anytime soon (if ever) so the majority of Trek fans will not have a chance to get used to DSC. And seriously, the plots are horrible when you just read them since they are written for the rule of cool more than plot (and the often cheesy dialog does not help).
Perhaps most important is the fact that traditional Trek and "NuTrek" (as many call it, and it is rather convenient as opposed to listing off most of the stuff produced after ENT) are two entirely different subgenres. That makes a big difference even with the often fuzzy borders and overlap of subgenres. And of course it is very rare that any story is absolutely pure when it comes to subgenres and even genres to some extent (and it does not help that the subgenres themselves are not standardized so there are several schools of thought on them).
TOS and the traditional Treks are "soft sci-fi" which mainly deals with the soft sciences like sociology, psychology, economics/socioeconomics, history, politics/political science, etc, hence the name (as opposed to the hard sciences which gives hard sci-fi its name). It's conflict is in the form of drama and discourse though it may or may not contain action as well (TOS contained more action than TNG for the most part for example, something Roddenberry had arguments with Berman about a lot) and is often very much allegory for the issues of today, projected into the future to decouple them from the prejudices and strictures the subject has in today's world.
Technology itself is only a secondary consideration though care must be taken to keep it as consistent as possible because readers/viewers tend to be fascinated by shiny gadgets and being too arbitrary with it tends to focus attention on it rather than the story itself. Also, since technology and aesthetics are important elements in defining historical eras those have to carefully but deftly managed for that reason as well.
On the other hand, the so-called NuTrek is firmly rooted in space opera, which touches on either hard or (more often) soft sciences but does not go deep on into them the way that soft (and hard) sci-fi does. It is more of an unfocused romp (romps are usually thought of as "light" but they can be quite dark as well as long as it does not cross the line into depressing and get in the way of "lively and enjoyable") similar to the old swashbuckling stories for the most part (DSC is no exception to this).
They tend to be a bit over the top, typically don't delve very far into allegory (if at all), and the conflict is most often frenetic action with melodrama in between rather than drama. In its purest form it is a thrill ride where everything takes a back seat to the action and eyecandy, so consistency and most of the other considerations for soft science fiction are glossed over or sometimes ignored completely.
Traditional Trek fans who had been waiting over a decade for another soft sci-fi Trek series were understandably not too happy with yet another space opera (which the Trek movies tended towards, finally going full-throttle space opera with the Abrams movies), especially since space operas are far more common than soft sci-fi on TV. And while Star Trek can be legitimately be both it would have been smarter to go with more of a balance between the two for the flagship series of CBS's foray into Star Trek to draw in fans of both of the subgenres Trek has branched into.
I don't like ALL of Discovery, but I enjoy enough of it to be satisfied. Having said that, Spock's Brain, Threshold, Profit and Lace, TNG season one, Night in Sickbay (or whatever the TRIBBLY that episode was called), there's more than enough trash in all the other Star Trek that exists. I won't damn Disco because I don't like a few plot beats or episodes.
Will I splash out on Disco content? Probably not. I would have snapped up the Inquiry (Picard, I know) if it had been a C-store ship, and having bought the 10th anniversary legendary bundle, I got a few Disco ships. The Walker levelling ship arrived from somewhere too and I have no idea why I have the Gagarin. I haven't bought a singular Disco ship on purpose and I doubt I will.
I confess, I love the Flight Deck Donnie though.
DISCLAIMER: I'm talking in a general sense here. not specifically at you @keepcalmchiveon
I really enjoy when people try to fall back on the violence argument in regard to Discovery. It was literally a war. People die in war. That's kind of the point of war. Also it was a war with the Klingons. A race that loves war and death. War happens. Yes, even to the Federation. I mean hell, Earth had a war with the Romulans even before the one in Discovery, and that one was said to have almost destroyed the Starfleet. Conflict is literally a part of being human. Humans are not perfects, if they were, they would be Borg. The fact that humans can't escape conflict is literally a foundation stone in Star Trek. Always striving for utopia, but never actually achieving it because of the very nature of humanity. War is bloody, and violent. Not sugar and rainbows and alien love making.
Yes, Discovery dared to show us that side of humanity during their quest for unattainable utopia. And it was a brilliant breath of fresh air tbh, compared to the constant philosophy. Star Trek up until Discovery has quite honest been the same formula in different setting. Discovery broke the mold, and showed that even a benevolent, peace loving organization, there is still darkness. because darkness is an inherent part of being human. Why do you think the Q Continuum is so interested in them?
And actually pitting the Federation against these conflicts is an excellent narrative way to put its ideal to the test. Because there is no greater test of humanity than in a scenario like Discovery went for. IMO, having star Trek always be going around doing the same thing again and again is actually a disservice to it. And don't bring Roddenberry into this either. The man is dead. there is no way to know how he would feel about this. We have no idea how his ideals would have changed had he lived. So anything to do with his thoughts at this point are purely speculative.
Also the war was literally started by the Klingon which is like 100% on brand for them, so i fail to see how that's bad when it's literally true to their nature as warriors and conquerors.
Also people can say oh the writing, acting story is bad. However that is all subjective person to person. its not an objective argument. Also when something doesn't live up to your personal expectations, that does not actually make thing objectively bad. Something too many people here don't seem to grasp all that well. And again, fandoms are not the majority of the audience. Maybe once upon a time the ST fandom was the majority of viewers. But that is not the case anymore. and for every haters, there are a lot more people who like it.
This is literally not a fight. And even if it was, its not a fight the haters are going win. So why stew in your dislike? What's the point, other than to bring everyone else down for liking it?
Well, I had my post deleted in about 3 seconds. Well done. No, it just got eaten by the incompetent anti-spam bot. -- WingedHussar
Here's the lowdown on why this is happening. Hope this post survives. ST:D's biggest problem has been that the traditional core Star Trek fans pretty much hate it. So CBS has been dropping a relatively large amount of money on Cryptic with the instructions that Cryptic is to legitimize the show. STO is a place where there is still a large number of old-school star trek fans. If CBS can legitimize ST:D content here, then perhaps some of the ruthless criticism that the core Trek fans still unleash on ST:D will disappear and ST:D will finally get some real traction. For the most part, most real Trek fans consider ST:D to be non-cannon.
How I discovered this was interesting. I noticed, as I'm sure everyone else here has, how people who criticize ST:D on zone chat get almost instantly stepped on. It turns out that CBS has been paying interns to do just that. Generally there are two or three who will tag-team anyone who criticizes ST:D or ST:D content on STO. I first noticed this when I was talking to a fleety about how someone was getting viciously flamed on zone chat for daring to comment on ST:D. When my fleety asked me the person's ID, we discovered the same user id was doing the same thing on zone chat for another zone. I was on ESD, he was on Drozanna. Over the next few weeks all my fleeties started looking out and we noticed it happening quite a bit. People who were obviously on chat systems that gave them access to multiple zone chats were systematically stepping hard on anyone levelling any criticism of ST:D. I confronted one of them once, and ended up having a nice chat with a young lady who later admitted she was a CBS intern.
Cryptic doesn't want their CBS gravy train to stop, which is why a lot of ST:D criticism gets pretty ruthlessly crushed here and in-game.
And this account is from who.... Cryptic? Ok.
Well, this part I might buy. Everyone with good ideas seems to have been fired or left. By Cryptic's own admission, they yanked the foundry, hid some of the missions, and have been having a hard time fixing bugs because they no longer have the staff who understand the codebase. It doesn't surprise me they ran out of talent to come up with story ideas.
That is, perhaps a little harsh. The whole Future Proof/Lukari line with Kuumaarke was brilliant. Fantastic Star Trek. Forward thinking and upbeat. I particularly love how all the Lukari ships are traditional UFO shapes, leaving open the link with the Lukari and earth's past. Point is, there is no end to great and interesting story lines. Cryptic didn't need ST:D for content. Most of us could have come up with a thousand new story lines and interesting mixes. A lot of the players role play it every day. The idea that all new ideas were dried up and that is why Cryptic went "looking" for ST:D content doesn't pass the sniff test. It sounds more like a back explanation.
I have just looked at the forum community rules and see no mention of the word gatekeeping, nor is your assersion in line with what I would call a generally accepted definition of it. Nor do I see any rule against talking about who considers what to be cannon.
The subject of Gatekeeping was covered in the FCT.
Using this criteria... yes you can get slammed for Gatekeeping as claiming that "real Trek fans" say or do something basically implies that anyone who does NOT agree is not a "real fan", thus Gatekeeping. Also using ST:D can be considered bypassing the forum censor. The official accronym is DSC. The reason any variation of ST:D is considered no go is because its indirectly used as an attack against the show because what else does that accronym stand for? You see the problem now?
I won't slam you, as I doubt that was your intention flux, but consider this a verbal warning at most on the subject of Gatekeeping.
https://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline#/discussion/1245086/the-f-c-t-frequently-created-threads-list-2-0
The FCT thread covers more than just the forum rules alone, as things come up after the fact.
This entire post is nothing but your own biased opinion that you're trying to pass off as fact.
Again, these types of posts are the reason why these threads get shut down. For anyone that's curious, this is an absolutely perfect example. This poster makes broad assumptions for large groups of fans based on nothing but his own personal opinion and then presents it as an unquestionable fact.
This could not be a more perfect example of a biased and toxic post that gets threads quickly shut down. The user pretty much directly says that if you like Discovery you're not a Star Trek Fan. Imagine the ego required to make a statement like that thinking you speak for millions of fans. The hubris is unimaginable.
While true, never a particularly strong argument, as ppl may not have rights, in the absolute, I'm sure moderators generally prefer to let ppl speak freely, unless there be real exigent circumstances to intervene.
Gatekeeping has always struck me as rather silly (If for nothing else, because I know way too little to weigh in on stuff like whether a frigate is supposed to be smaller than a shuttle, or vice versa.)
There's an internationallly accepted saying that goes, "Only the Dutch can determine whether a painting is a real Rembrandt." Probably true, as we have the best experts. But CBS pulling authority on canon is largely meaningless, content-wise, as there are no authenticy checks, no probing for inconsistencies or anomalies across the series, etc. Canon is simply canon because, well, CBS said so -- an argument that boils down to 'Everything we do is meant to make us money, therefore we call everything we do canon.' That is not bad per se, btw, especially in absentia of other good criteria. But it also therefore makes gatekeeping pretty silly, as you're trying to keep a gate that's inherently full of holes to begin with.
And to paraphrase a classy lady of lore, "Your enjoyment isn't wrong."
Too many seem to think their opinion counts as established fact of what is/isn't Trek and that's not how it works. Folks are entitled to their opinions, but that's all they are, opinions. As long as folks voice their opinions in a civil manor they're free to talk all day long. Whether we like it or not, right now Discovery is part of Trek, regardless of whether we think it should be or not.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
Sounds fair to me.
The psychoanalysis around here is always absurd. Pretending to know what goes on in someone else's mind is definitely a worse sin than claiming something isn't canon.
Further, it is pretty ridiculous to suggest that knowing what someone dislikes about a show somehow affects someone else's feelings on the show. Someone disliking the writing doesn't magically make me dislike it too, nor is that even close to hatred.
Instead, knowing what they dislike opens up a path to also finding out what they liked. It is a way to find common ground, something to build on. Letting someone voice their dislikes to an open ear lets them have their voice heard, and they can feel good about that.
By most accounts, ST:D's captain Pike was well liked, and people wanted to see more of him, more of what they felt was the Trek they knew and loved. That is why he is supposedly getting a spin off show.
Not supposedly, IS. They are in the process of filming Strange New Worlds now.
Many things have been filmed and never released.
It's used by people that want to disparage the show. None of the Trek shows use Acronym's, they are all abbreviations.
The Original Series - TOS
The Next Generation - TNG
Deep Space Nine - DS9
Voyager - VOY
Enterprise - ENT
Discovery - DISCO
Just adding the : doesn't change the meaning, we all know what people are implying when they use it that way.
You're not a Betazoid, so if you think you can read someone's mind you're wrong. Period. It is disturbing how commonly that claiming to know what someone really means is used against critics of the new shows, and in this case, people merely referring to a show. Further, it is utterly irrational.
The formal names of the shows are all in the form "Star Trek: [name]" It is never wrong to abbreviate to them as such.
Never did I say I knew what the poster was thinking, I was obviously speaking in generality. I specifically used wording to specify that it's a general use of that abbreviation that was used by many in a disparaging fashion. This is further enforced by the fact that the forum censors the acronym for that very reason.
You can claim I am trying to 'read peoples minds' or whatever silly claims you want.. we all know how that term is generally used and when someone uses it, they might encounter a reaction based on that perception. I didn't start the trend, I don't perpetuate it, I am simply acknowledging it. If you find that irrational, so be it.
Now..now..he's probably one of those who became a fan during the TNG era - so he doesn't know how HATED TNG was by 'core' Star Trek fans when it premiered in 1987 <--- He thinks Berman Trek IS Star Trek (which makes a fan like me who's been watching first run since 1969 at age 6 gag)...
So yeah, give him a break in that he really doesn't get that EVERY new incarnation of Star Trek since TOS (and hell, sometimes including the majority of TOS Season 3) has been decried as "NOT TREK!!!1111!!!" by Star Trek fans of a previous version. Hell, ST: D and the rest of the current crop have overall been accepted a lot quicker than either TNG and especially DS9 were when they first hit the airwaves.
For me 'Star Trek' will always be TOS and the 23rd century era. I really enjoyed ST: D when it hit because it got Trek out of the pompous 24th century 'utopia' where somehow Humans would allow the entire race to die to uphold 'Federation principles', which Picard stuffily pontificated on over and over (yet when push came to shove, he had no problems rationalizing any situation where he had to break them to save himself, the ship, or The Federation.)
For me at least James T. Kirk was practice and not as hypocritical as he often outright stated he disagreed with certain principles and in the end always chose his crew/the Federation over it's high minded principles on more than one occasion. The difference between Kirk and Picard was that Kirk was written as an actual relatable human being and not some high-minded utopian idealistic/unrealistic person (like oh the character of Jean-Luc Picard). Hell even by the end of the first season of PICARD - Jean-Luc Picard was shown as being 'right all along' again; which is still why I never cared for the character myself.
Back in the Berman Trek era, yes, I continued to watch and occasionally enjoy TNG (mostly when the writers went against GR's edict of a 'perfect' humanity - like in "Best Of Both Worlds" <--- Which we'd have never seen if GR hadn't been hospitalized - he shot it down when it was pitched; and it would never have been made).
About the only good things that can really be called 'Star Trek' that came from the Berman era was S3 on of DS9; and S3 and S4 of ENT (which got remarkable better and 'more Trek-like' once B&B handed the reigns to Manny Coto.
TNG hasn't aged well for me at all and generally, I can't rewatch much of it anymore because I find more enjoyment from the first two (and especially the second) season of ST: D. I didn't care much for ST: D S3 as they've moved back to the 'pompous' era of Trek and I'm sure we'll see the 24th+ century attitude of 'The Federation' re-emerge as the series goes forward.
I've digressed - but in the end, the current batch of Star Trek shows overall are are much 'real Star Trek' as TOS or the 24th century Trek shows were. The error is thinking there's 'one way'/'one kind' of Star Trek. Hell GR's influence is also overblown past TOS as given the 31 or so Seasons of Star Trek produced SINCE TOS (33 if you include TAS) - GR had real input into about 4 of those seasons (Hell, he bailed on TOS after S2 as well - leaving the reigns to Fred Freiberger to the series detriment, IMO.)
TLDR: There is no 'one true' version of Star Trek no matter how some of the online Gatekeepers try to claim there is; or that they know what 'Gene's Vision™' actually is. (Oh, and Star Trek was centered around ONE character 'Kirk' and in S2 and S3 Kirk, Spock, McCoy) - and the rest were interchangeable no matter what George Takei, Nichelle Nichols, Walter Keonig or James Doohan would like to believe. Want Proof? "The Doomsday Machine" is still usually in someone's TOS top 10 list yet Nichelle Nichols is 100% absent (Lt. Palmer is the Comm. officer the entire episode) - and never have I heard anyone say: "The episode SUCKS/IS UNWATCHABLE because Uhura is AWOL.
Hell, if you want the truly accurate form of 'Gene's Vision' (if you actually knew anything about the actual person):
from 1966-69 it was (.)(.) on a casting couch
from 1966-1991: $$$ <-- He sold the Star Trek IP to Paramount in 1969 but still (and Paramount went to court over this back in the day - and yes, both sides settled in the end) ran 'Lincoln Enterprises'; which specialized in creating/selling Star Trek merchandise and memorabilia to fans over the years (and in the beginning none of it was licensed after the IP sale either, hence the court case).
But yeah - in the end, the 'hatred' of new Star Trek, by previous core fans is NOTHING NEW and has been occurring since TAS hit the airwaves on a Saturday morning in 1973.
That some hard core 24th century era Berman Trek fans are upset that 'Star Trek' doesn't continue to 'hang out' in the 24th/early 25th centuries; or that the attitudes of new characters are 'different' just makes me laugh - hard.
Why?
They finally get how the majority of TOS fans felt in 1987 when TNG hit the airwaves. And yes, back then (as now) - those fans COULDN'T BELIEVE that version would bring in new fans...but it did; much like ST: D has done over the past 3 (and going into it's 4th) seasons.
I'll also say I've enjoyed the first 42 episodes of ST: D than the first 42 of TNG when it was first run. TNG sucked HARD it's first two seasons on the writing front; and didn't really start to find itself until midway though it's third season. S: D will have to get a Season 5 to get where TNG was when it's writing started to have a real voice of it's own.
But yeah, in the end, this type of cycle has been a part of Star Trek fandom since 1973. And if you look at the TV/Film media history of Star Trek, you see there's never been more than 4 year gap between Star Trek Film or TV project since 1969. Neither the Dr. Who nor Star Wars franchises can say that.
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..."
TNG comes along. TOS fans are OMG! who is this bald guy who just TALKS? Where's the fistfights, torn uniforms and half naked (In 60s style) women? although the latter did make an appearance or four in the first couple of seasons. and other viewers were not fond of the sociopolitical mumbo jumbo. DS9 comes out, OMG it's A SPACE STATION, a B-5 Ripoff, where's the boldly going thing?!?!? Voyager, well, it was fun for the first few episodes to count how many of the limited photon torpedoes were used.. and then it was fun to watch Robert Beltran's hatred of the show leak through in his performance, and they saved the show with Jeri Ryan in a outfit so tight she LITERALLY was passing out on set... Enterprise comes along ripping "canon" to shred with T'Pol, because SPOCK WAS THE FIRST VULCAN TOS SAID SO!!! and now Disc... what is there to fault Disc? only one thing.. JJ Abrams. Even though the man has NOTHING to do with Disc, the hatred of what he did with ST has leaked over to Disc. after all the Klingons all look like Worf... except then didn't. by my count there are 4 disitnct verions of Klingons.. The Kang Kor Koloth guys... the Mark Lenard Klingons only seen in TMP, and the third gen, Starting with ST III.. call them the Berman Klingons, because he was helming the content while those guys were around.. then JJ came along and "effed" them all up. And Disc followed suit. adn the stigma follows. my point is, the people screaming about JJ, the Klingons, and the politically correctness of the current batch of Star Trek is just like the Hippie loving/commie Trekkies of the 60s.. except the people whining ARE the hippie/commies from the 60s... except wea re now running full tilt into ou late 50s- early 60s, and true to being human, WE are now the old folks crying how terrible the Original was...
I guess to wrap up the wall of text, is to quote Sgt Hulka.. to all the ranters and ravers of Picard and Disc..
LIGHTEN UP, Francis... because bad star Trek (if that is your opinion) is better than NO Star Trek. and for those of you born after 1979, yes it was pretty bleak from 1969-1973 and again from 1974 until The Motion Picture, because IF we were lucky we had 5 TV channels, and IF we were lucky, one of they re-ran Star Trek sometime in the afternoon, and if you were fsat enough you could get home from school just in time to catch the opening credits, assuming Mom wasn't watching The Edge of Night.
and to sound more and more like my Dad, You youngsters don't know how good you got it.
That hatred, shown by things like the signs they had up in the design rooms with big block letters screaming "NO ROUND ENGINES!!!" and (as the lead set designer talks about in the behind the scenes stuff) a complete bypassing of TOS in favor of the movie that Roddenberry fought the hardest against, The Undiscovered Country, even though it is not right for the era they set DSC into. And before anyone points out the three TOS style hand props, those really don't count for much in the sea of discontinuity of the rest.
Fuller originally pitched an anthology, but when CBS said they wanted a more traditional series with a stable cast but with more action than usual he was ok with that but insisted on Sonequa Martin-Green as the lead since she has proven that she can handle playing deep layered characters in previous shows, and Edgar Wright as director because he has a deft hand in directing quirky fast paced and yet surprisingly complex shows, and can handle dark subjects in an fresh, oblique way that does not get mired in it.
He eventually got Martin-Green but CBS insisted on David Semel as the "safe bet" as director and Semel's relatively plain and simple style clashed with the writing terribly and made a lot of the lines come off seeming stilted and hokey instead of clever, which set the tone for the rest of the series. Eventually the gulf between the ideas of Fuller (a TOS fan btw) and the demands of Moonves (who hated TOS) got too wide and deep and Fuller left.
While what CBS eventually came up with is watchable it fell far short of what they could have done by actually giving a little thought to it and weaving elements of Cage/TOS with the new ones instead of just running roughshod over them.
> vette...
>
> i am and will always be an OS fan, and yes, im showing my age as well. so no, the OS was not terrible. think about what they created given the state of the times. as such, there is no way one can compare OS to anything in todays market.
>
> i enjoy the OS stuff in game so much that i make and run a new AoY toon every so often just to traverse and be in that time frame again.
I agree with this totally and feel the same way. The whole reason why I play STO is the TOS content in the game. If there was no TOS content in STO, I would not be playing it. I am happy for the ships, equipment, uniforms, AoY, and K-13. Whenever possible, I try to immerse myself in the TOS background as much as I can.
I think it is good that STO has material from all the shows. It gives a chance for all Star Trek fans to find something that draws them. Overall, I think this diversity of content makes is a positive thing for STO.
Discovery and Picard are the newest shows and I can see why it may get the priority in new STO content. While I dislike both of these shows, I find I can ignore them easy enough and have no obligation to buy any content from these shows. Free stuff based on these shows that does not interest me can just be tucked away in the bank or just discarded.