test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Stuff I ❌DON'T LIKE❌ about new Trek shows

trekfangrrrl#6910 trekfangrrrl Member Posts: 102 Arc User
edited March 11 in Ten Forward
STOP.

Did you read the title of this thread?

This is an experiment to give people of both "sides" (who like or don't like new trek shows) a place to share their thoughts without the typical arguments.

Is there stuff you ❌DON'T LIKE❌ stuff about the new Trek shows? If so, post about it here.

If you want to talk about stuff you LIKE in new Trek shows, do it in the other thread, because it is OFF TOPIC in this thread and will be reported as such.

Ok, let's see how this goes!
«1

Comments

  • trekfangrrrl#6910 trekfangrrrl Member Posts: 102 Arc User
    Discovery: the main character, so much crying, and crew acting like college students instead of on-duty officers.
  • orangenee#2931 orangenee Member Posts: 832 Arc User
    Star Trek Discovery - Klingons, they are now goblins and the ship designs are designed by somebody who needs to drink less alcohol (forum friendly version). Michael (le sigh) Burnham is just generally unlikable. More careful direction is needed on the space battles if they insist on doing a lot of them.

    Picard - haven't watched that much of it, so no comment there.

    Lower Decks - Men are dumb, women are great is my takeaway after watching a couple of episodes. Skiparoo for eternity. I already suffered 2016 Ghostbusters.

    SUPPLEMENTAL: You'll likely have an argument start whether you try to compartmentalize the opinions or not. Internet and all that.



  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,468 Arc User
    edited March 11
    Severely changing the TOS era esthetics. Making more dark and gritty feelings and stories. Unlikable characters (Primarily Burnham). Discovery Spock. Feeling so much is Trek in only name. Folks

    @Orangenee You must have not seen all of it, as you said from just seeing a few stories.. Boimler really came out in some stories, same for Rutherford. I say give it a chance. Apart from "Beyond", it's been the ONLY post 2005 Trek on screen that I actually ENJOYED. It's NOT like discovery or picard.....in fact, Kurtzman has little to do with Lower Decks....hell, I think they even took a rib at Kurtzman in season 2, Pike chair and all. :D And trust me, I am VERY critical of Trek for the past 5 years. :)
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,910 Arc User
    The serialized format of DSC and PIC doesn'tgive us as much world building as the episodic shows, since we are mostly focussing on one event. It also leads to some very annoying filler episodes that lead nowhere just to pad things out or keep tension.

    The recycling of assets in the live action shows really grinds my gears. They cover multiple centuries, yet it doesn't feel like it at all. There were DSC era ships in PIC, all eras use the same style of ground weapons, certain costumes get re-used. Now, recycling of assets has been prevalent in Trek forever, however I notice it much more this time around and I don't really get a nice, well rounded feeling of the era the stories take place in.
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,468 Arc User
    angrytarg wrote: »
    The serialized format of DSC and PIC doesn'tgive us as much world building as the episodic shows, since we are mostly focussing on one event. It also leads to some very annoying filler episodes that lead nowhere just to pad things out or keep tension.

    The recycling of assets in the live action shows really grinds my gears. They cover multiple centuries, yet it doesn't feel like it at all. There were DSC era ships in PIC, all eras use the same style of ground weapons, certain costumes get re-used. Now, recycling of assets has been prevalent in Trek forever, however I notice it much more this time around and I don't really get a nice, well rounded feeling of the era the stories take place in.

    Lower Decks is the first Trek, since 2005, to show TOS stuff as they supposed to be, TOS stuff. Romulan Bird of Prey, the freighters, the shuttles, the Gorn, we saw....all tos....no 'visual reboot', no 25% difference, no indications of Kurtzman and company putting their grubby mits on it, showing McMann seems to have all the say so.

    And that is good.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • keepcalmchiveonkeepcalmchiveon Member Posts: 4,215 Arc User
    dislike: pathetic characters. crybabies. no decent story lines. main person cant figure out if she wants to be the hero or the stupid cpt who gets very lucky all the time. a few spots were she should have died, but oh no, she makes it. not placing the other cpt in the role as he is better. overall dark atmosphere and stories. (this is all a disco dislike for me)

    i dont have any major grips for PIC or LD or the new one with Janeway...yet. lol
    meh

  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,550 Arc User
    angrytarg wrote: »
    The serialized format of DSC and PIC doesn'tgive us as much world building as the episodic shows, since we are mostly focussing on one event. It also leads to some very annoying filler episodes that lead nowhere just to pad things out or keep tension.

    The recycling of assets in the live action shows really grinds my gears. They cover multiple centuries, yet it doesn't feel like it at all. There were DSC era ships in PIC, all eras use the same style of ground weapons, certain costumes get re-used. Now, recycling of assets has been prevalent in Trek forever, however I notice it much more this time around and I don't really get a nice, well rounded feeling of the era the stories take place in.

    And this is what I am hoping for with Strange New Worlds. Not one long season arc, but episodic content with the odd arc that lasts a few episodes at the most. I was hoping time-jump Discovery would show the various alien races like the Borg, Voth, Klingons, and Dominion or at least what happened to them, but Discovery would rather introduce new alien races. It is possible that the Borg are going to be permanently dealt with in Picard with the odd Liberated Borg running around that died long before the time-jump.

    Then there is the issue with FTL and the Burn. It has been centuries and yet the galaxy is still reliant on 23rd Century Warp Technology and they are somehow reliant on a 23rd Century starship with better FTL technology. It is just like we are still using internal combustion cars 500 years from now with the odd electric car.
  • leemwatsonleemwatson Member Posts: 4,668 Arc User
    starkaos wrote: »
    angrytarg wrote: »
    The serialized format of DSC and PIC doesn'tgive us as much world building as the episodic shows, since we are mostly focussing on one event. It also leads to some very annoying filler episodes that lead nowhere just to pad things out or keep tension.

    The recycling of assets in the live action shows really grinds my gears. They cover multiple centuries, yet it doesn't feel like it at all. There were DSC era ships in PIC, all eras use the same style of ground weapons, certain costumes get re-used. Now, recycling of assets has been prevalent in Trek forever, however I notice it much more this time around and I don't really get a nice, well rounded feeling of the era the stories take place in.

    And this is what I am hoping for with Strange New Worlds. Not one long season arc, but episodic content with the odd arc that lasts a few episodes at the most. I was hoping time-jump Discovery would show the various alien races like the Borg, Voth, Klingons, and Dominion or at least what happened to them, but Discovery would rather introduce new alien races. It is possible that the Borg are going to be permanently dealt with in Picard with the odd Liberated Borg running around that died long before the time-jump.

    Then there is the issue with FTL and the Burn. It has been centuries and yet the galaxy is still reliant on 23rd Century Warp Technology and they are somehow reliant on a 23rd Century starship with better FTL technology. It is just like we are still using internal combustion cars 500 years from now with the odd electric car.

    IIRC, Warp was preferable due to Transwarp being so hazardous at the time, as shown in early S3 with Booker travelling through a transwarp route littered with wreckage.

    As for the main post, the ONLY thing I hate about DSC is the Spore Drive, would've been better to have just done it as a BSG-style Jump Drive without magic mushrooms involved. I can get past the aesthetics differences, because to be honest, TOS was literally 3 years in the grand scheme of all things, and it would've looked cheap AF trying to replicate the 60's look. Modern technologies make pre-TOS, and it IS pre-TOS, look fantastic now, and I'm saying that as someone who's watched it since the late 70's. As long as CBS doesn't 'reboot' TOS, I'm happy with that too.
    "You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,468 Arc User
    leemwatson wrote: »
    starkaos wrote: »
    angrytarg wrote: »
    The serialized format of DSC and PIC doesn'tgive us as much world building as the episodic shows, since we are mostly focussing on one event. It also leads to some very annoying filler episodes that lead nowhere just to pad things out or keep tension.

    The recycling of assets in the live action shows really grinds my gears. They cover multiple centuries, yet it doesn't feel like it at all. There were DSC era ships in PIC, all eras use the same style of ground weapons, certain costumes get re-used. Now, recycling of assets has been prevalent in Trek forever, however I notice it much more this time around and I don't really get a nice, well rounded feeling of the era the stories take place in.

    And this is what I am hoping for with Strange New Worlds. Not one long season arc, but episodic content with the odd arc that lasts a few episodes at the most. I was hoping time-jump Discovery would show the various alien races like the Borg, Voth, Klingons, and Dominion or at least what happened to them, but Discovery would rather introduce new alien races. It is possible that the Borg are going to be permanently dealt with in Picard with the odd Liberated Borg running around that died long before the time-jump.

    Then there is the issue with FTL and the Burn. It has been centuries and yet the galaxy is still reliant on 23rd Century Warp Technology and they are somehow reliant on a 23rd Century starship with better FTL technology. It is just like we are still using internal combustion cars 500 years from now with the odd electric car.

    IIRC, Warp was preferable due to Transwarp being so hazardous at the time, as shown in early S3 with Booker travelling through a transwarp route littered with wreckage.

    As for the main post, the ONLY thing I hate about DSC is the Spore Drive, would've been better to have just done it as a BSG-style Jump Drive without magic mushrooms involved. I can get past the aesthetics differences, because to be honest, TOS was literally 3 years in the grand scheme of all things, and it would've looked cheap AF trying to replicate the 60's look. Modern technologies make pre-TOS, and it IS pre-TOS, look fantastic now, and I'm saying that as someone who's watched it since the late 70's. As long as CBS doesn't 'reboot' TOS, I'm happy with that too.

    Watch in a mirror darkly, the Ds9 tribble episode, Axxanar, and fan series like ST Continues, the TOS style on those looked good. And it looked good when seen in Lower Decks.
    The newer stuff looks more....primitive, feeling rather Star Wars-ish.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 3,455 Arc User
    I've only seen Picard and the first two seasons of Discovery.

    Picard: the very graphic violence (beheadings, pulling out eyes), endless and therefore unimpressive cursing, blowing up Utopia Planitia. The last thing is something I disliked because I prefer shows that build up worlds, characters and so on - instead of destroying it for easy, cheap shock value. Shocking events can take place of course, but things that were carefully crafted or built up before shouldn't be destroyed just to have an easy departure point for your own thing.

    Discovery: the first season had very little in terms of new stories. The second season's story made little sense (points very far apart shouldn't be observed at the same time from one location) and revolved too much around Burnham - as does the rest of the show.

    I also disliked how they broke the tradition where a character from a previous show features in the pilot. It's a small thing, but that small thing is also part of a bigger issue: the new show runners want to do have an all-encompassing impact on Trek - hence the constant change of settings; first the Klingon war, then Pike, then the 32nd century where the Federation has to be built up from scratch. Maybe it's a lack of patience, maybe it's a lack of talent, who knows. But they're clearly showing that they just want to take Star Trek - even established Trek - and change it to what it should be according to them so that it can fit their agenda.

    Which would be fine (or slightly more acceptable) if they did that by telling new stories or developing their own species and so on. At least then they'd use their own talents to extend the Trek universe. Instead they chose to cheaply (ab)use well known names and recognisable characters/elements of previous shows as a platform for their own thing. Basically, Spock, the Enterprise and established characters like Sarek were used as cheap marketing devices. Compare that to shows like Voyager or DS9, which created their own stories in self-created settings and didn't need to cheaply exploit other shows.

    When Discovery's creators decided they had milked pre-existing characters enough and they chose to tell their own stories (finally moving to a time post-Nemesis as many had suggested they should've done in the first place), it was again a lot of destruction from what I've heard and read. Picard is doing that same thing again: lots of people appreciate that DS9 characters are mentioned, but I saw this as just another example of what I described above: easy exploiting, destruction for shock value so that the writers can then 'transcend' those stories.

    Whether it's Romulus, Utopia Planitia or some of the most beloved and richest characters (Dukat, Martok, Sarek), the picture is always the same: a new show runner feels he must 'own' Trek and therefore blows up, destroys or piggybacks on well-established elements from the Trek universe. To me, it feels like these people have also started to believe themselves that they are not talented enough to compete with writers from previous shows.
    [4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother

    [3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
  • angrytargangrytarg Member Posts: 10,910 Arc User
    > @fleetcaptain5#1134 said:
    > Whether it's Romulus, Utopia Planitia or some of the most beloved and richest characters (Dukat, Martok, Sarek), the picture is always the same: a new show runner feels he must 'own' Trek and therefore blows up, destroys or piggybacks on well-established elements from the Trek universe. To me, it feels like these people have also started to believe themselves that they are not talented enough to compete with writers from previous shows.

    I am with you, especially in regards to the use of Spock in DSC, however in the above mentioned mentioned example I would give them a pass, if you mean the 'name/skull drop' in PIC S2; their mention establishes how f'ed up Q's nightmare timeline is. Using non-established characters for this scene wouldn't have the same effect :)

    However I also agree on the violence. There are way too much unnecessary and graphic throat slittings in PIC :/
    lFC4bt2.gif
    ^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
    "No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
    "A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
    "That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
  • qultuqqultuq Member Posts: 798 Arc User
    edited March 20
    > @fleetcaptain5#1134 said:
    >
    > Discovery: the first season had very little in terms of new stories. The second season's story made little sense (points very far apart shouldn't be observed at the same time from one location) and revolved too much around Burnham - as does the rest of the show.
    >
    Thanks for saying that! I often feel like I am the only person in the universe who thinks Discovery season 1 was better than season 2. The Mudd episode with the time device was the most Star-Treky episode of the series to date. The back half of season 1 in the mirror universe was also pretty tight.

    Season 2 had some highlights for sure, and the Pike character was good. But many of the episodes and especially the mycelium episode, the shuttle bottle episode, and the episode where we finally get to meet the cyborg for her to become a TRIBBLE murder, were really hard to watch. I couldn’t convince myself to finish season 2 until after I played Measure of Morality. In retrospect, I think all of season 2 was ok. But I doubt I enjoyed it enough to ever watch it again.

    Season 3 had been even worse. I liked the Terra Firma episodes ok. But even they were less interesting than the first Mirror episodes. I don’t know if I will ever finish season 3 and have little interest in even watching season 4.

    One thing that continues to bother me is that in the end of season 2 Spock, waiting for Burnham’s signal finally seems to see it. But that was years ago. Is Discovery going to get home? And by the time it does will there be anyone left who cares to see it?
    Post edited by qultuq on
  • jcswwjcsww Member Posts: 6,580 Arc User
    Discovery: the main character, so much crying, and crew acting like college students instead of on-duty officers.

    That's it for me. In my opinion, her actions at the beginning of the series are unredeemable as a character.
  • orangenee#2931 orangenee Member Posts: 832 Arc User
    edited March 15
    jcsww wrote: »
    Discovery: the main character, so much crying, and crew acting like college students instead of on-duty officers.

    That's it for me. In my opinion, her actions at the beginning of the series are unredeemable as a character.

    EDITED: Maybe was a little spoilery initially.

    She was lucky to get away with what she did. Good job Feddy Bears don't do death penalties.
  • fleetcaptain5#1134 fleetcaptain5 Member Posts: 3,455 Arc User
    angrytarg wrote: »
    > @fleetcaptain5#1134 said:
    > Whether it's Romulus, Utopia Planitia or some of the most beloved and richest characters (Dukat, Martok, Sarek), the picture is always the same: a new show runner feels he must 'own' Trek and therefore blows up, destroys or piggybacks on well-established elements from the Trek universe. To me, it feels like these people have also started to believe themselves that they are not talented enough to compete with writers from previous shows.

    I am with you, especially in regards to the use of Spock in DSC, however in the above mentioned mentioned example I would give them a pass, if you mean the 'name/skull drop' in PIC S2; their mention establishes how f'ed up Q's nightmare timeline is. Using non-established characters for this scene wouldn't have the same effect :)

    However I also agree on the violence. There are way too much unnecessary and graphic throat slittings in PIC :/

    Maybe. I mean, what you say makes sense.

    Still, I can't help but feel that this was just the Picard showrunners raising their middle fingers to their colleagues from DS9.

    'So you wrote the first serialised Trek series and created some of the richest characters of the franchise? Well, too bad for you, we killed them off. Muahaha!'

    Of course, this is my interpretation, but after 'janitor Gene' it's not entirely implausible, is it?
    [4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother

    [3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,468 Arc User
    angrytarg wrote: »
    > @fleetcaptain5#1134 said:
    > Whether it's Romulus, Utopia Planitia or some of the most beloved and richest characters (Dukat, Martok, Sarek), the picture is always the same: a new show runner feels he must 'own' Trek and therefore blows up, destroys or piggybacks on well-established elements from the Trek universe. To me, it feels like these people have also started to believe themselves that they are not talented enough to compete with writers from previous shows.

    I am with you, especially in regards to the use of Spock in DSC, however in the above mentioned mentioned example I would give them a pass, if you mean the 'name/skull drop' in PIC S2; their mention establishes how f'ed up Q's nightmare timeline is. Using non-established characters for this scene wouldn't have the same effect :)

    However I also agree on the violence. There are way too much unnecessary and graphic throat slittings in PIC :/

    Maybe. I mean, what you say makes sense.

    Still, I can't help but feel that this was just the Picard showrunners raising their middle fingers to their colleagues from DS9.

    'So you wrote the first serialised Trek series and created some of the richest characters of the franchise? Well, too bad for you, we killed them off. Muahaha!'

    Of course, this is my interpretation, but after 'janitor Gene' it's not entirely implausible, is it?

    1g9uUE1.jpg
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • jexsamxjexsamx Member Posts: 2,797 Arc User
    PIC S1 was grimdark edgetastic for nearly its entire run and very nearly was enough to make me not give S2 a chance. Complete waste of the cast, most of whom (much like my opinion on DSC's cast) are actually pretty good. It wasn't all bad but the more I reflect on it the angrier I get at the bad parts.

    I only got through two seasons of DSC. What a crapshow. The writers wouldn't know a satisfying conclusion if it bit them. My thoughts on the set design are complicated but as far as dislike, it doesn't even remotely look like it could be construed as TOS except for some minor nods in the weapon and communicator designs, the DSC Constitution being the exception that proves the rule - that there's no reason they couldn't have designed something in proper homage while modernizing it extensively and it look good. It's maddening.

    I'm gonna have to stretch for LD but I feel like the pilot episode feels really "studio notes"-y and gravely misrepresents the bridge crew. It paints this really misleading picture of what the dynamic is going to be between the bridge crew and the LD gang and I could forgive someone who only watched one or two episodes for thinking it was gonna be like any other modern irreverent "adult cartoon". That's unironically the worst thing I can think of to say about it.
    Lower Decks - Men are dumb, women are great is my takeaway after watching a couple of episodes. Skiparoo for eternity. I already suffered 2016 Ghostbusters.

    This says a lot about you as a person. I mean, Ghostbuster 2k16 was garbage, but "grrl power" isn't why.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,468 Arc User
    jexsamx wrote: »
    PIC S1 was grimdark edgetastic for nearly its entire run and very nearly was enough to make me not give S2 a chance. Complete waste of the cast, most of whom (much like my opinion on DSC's cast) are actually pretty good. It wasn't all bad but the more I reflect on it the angrier I get at the bad parts.

    I only got through two seasons of DSC. What a crapshow. The writers wouldn't know a satisfying conclusion if it bit them. My thoughts on the set design are complicated but as far as dislike, it doesn't even remotely look like it could be construed as TOS except for some minor nods in the weapon and communicator designs, the DSC Constitution being the exception that proves the rule - that there's no reason they couldn't have designed something in proper homage while modernizing it extensively and it look good. It's maddening.

    I'm gonna have to stretch for LD but I feel like the pilot episode feels really "studio notes"-y and gravely misrepresents the bridge crew. It paints this really misleading picture of what the dynamic is going to be between the bridge crew and the LD gang and I could forgive someone who only watched one or two episodes for thinking it was gonna be like any other modern irreverent "adult cartoon". That's unironically the worst thing I can think of to say about it.
    Lower Decks - Men are dumb, women are great is my takeaway after watching a couple of episodes. Skiparoo for eternity. I already suffered 2016 Ghostbusters.

    This says a lot about you as a person. I mean, Ghostbuster 2k16 was garbage, but "grrl power" isn't why.

    This is how it should have gone...shows the original TOS design still looks excellent. Don't like the Discovery Enterprise, if it was ANOTHER ship class, maybe, but not the Connie.

    This how it can be done. :)


    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • orangenee#2931 orangenee Member Posts: 832 Arc User
    jexsamx wrote: »
    PIC S1 was grimdark edgetastic for nearly its entire run and very nearly was enough to make me not give S2 a chance. Complete waste of the cast, most of whom (much like my opinion on DSC's cast) are actually pretty good. It wasn't all bad but the more I reflect on it the angrier I get at the bad parts.

    I only got through two seasons of DSC. What a crapshow. The writers wouldn't know a satisfying conclusion if it bit them. My thoughts on the set design are complicated but as far as dislike, it doesn't even remotely look like it could be construed as TOS except for some minor nods in the weapon and communicator designs, the DSC Constitution being the exception that proves the rule - that there's no reason they couldn't have designed something in proper homage while modernizing it extensively and it look good. It's maddening.

    I'm gonna have to stretch for LD but I feel like the pilot episode feels really "studio notes"-y and gravely misrepresents the bridge crew. It paints this really misleading picture of what the dynamic is going to be between the bridge crew and the LD gang and I could forgive someone who only watched one or two episodes for thinking it was gonna be like any other modern irreverent "adult cartoon". That's unironically the worst thing I can think of to say about it.
    Lower Decks - Men are dumb, women are great is my takeaway after watching a couple of episodes. Skiparoo for eternity. I already suffered 2016 Ghostbusters.

    This says a lot about you as a person. I mean, Ghostbuster 2k16 was garbage, but "grrl power" isn't why.

    Yeah, not biting.

    Ghostbusters 2016 was poorly written, unfunny trash. Lacked the nuance of the originals (yeah, I liked GB 2 as well). It was trying to be funny instead of being funny.

    That's a discussion for another topic though.



  • annemarie30annemarie30 Member Posts: 2,281 Arc User
    edited March 19
    for PIC and DSC, Star trek is about a brighter future. these shows are about a dystopian future. Hard fail there. but the thing that absolutely drives me crazy is the endless SJW agendas shoved down the audience throats.

    I was OK with a TRIBBLE couple on DSC, but pushing Seven into a TRIBBLE relationship? it was completely unnecessary, and IMO, detrimental for character development. Following Seven on a darker path of alcohol/substance abuse as we saw when we first saw her was far more interesting. In fact, the only character who I have any interest is ins Rios and his many personalities via the Holograms.

    Stewart is just phoning this in. I watched 2 episodes of prodigy, and I'll put on my fire retardant panties.. It's Star Wars Rebels in a Star trek wrapper.

    The bright spot, which completely surprised me is Lower Decks. it's genuinely funny, the characters are likeable, and you have to watch and rewatch episodes to get all the easter eggs, just like you have to do in Spaceballs and Ready Player One.
    awkward.jpg
    We Want Vic Fontaine
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,468 Arc User
    for PIC and DSC, Star trek is about a brighter future. these shows are about a dystopian future. Hard fail there. but the thing that absolutely drives me crazy is the endless SJW agendas shoved down the audience throats.

    I was OK with a TRIBBLE couple on DSC, but pushing Seven into a TRIBBLE relationship? it was completely unnecessary, and IMO, detrimental for character development. Following Seven on a darker path of alcohol/substance abuse as we saw when we first saw her was far more interesting. In fact, the only character who I have any interest is ins Rios and his many personalities via the Holograms.

    Stewart is just phoning this in. I watched 2 episodes of prodigy, and I'll put on my fire retardant panties.. It's Star Wars Rebels in a Star trek wrapper.

    The bright spot, which completely surprised me is Lower Decks. it's genuinely funny, the characters are likeable, and you have to watch and rewatch episodes to get all the easter eggs, just like you have to do in Spaceballs and Ready Player One.

    Yea, seems the writers and staff don't like positive trek....they said the ONLY TOS they liked was ST6, and that was a dark story...and an overrated story, imo.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • carolyn002#6486 carolyn002 Member Posts: 6 New User
    edited March 24
    My dad HATES discovery. I guess because it's focused on action and not science. I don't think it's that bad, but I've only seen like five episodes of S1 so I don't know a lot about it.
    Also, don't hate please, but I don't see the appeal of adult cartoons ie. lower decks. They rely too heavily on offensive/dirty humor and those bug eyes just really annoy me.
    No hate if you do like it, to each their own, it's just not my cup of tea.
    Post edited by carolyn002#6486 on
    Tenye wa chesh gut!
  • gradiigradii Member Posts: 2,817 Arc User
    edited March 24
    To be fair the redesign of the Connie is one of the VERY few good things about discovery. just fix the size. it looks objectively superior to the jank 60s design.

    As far as lower decks I havent seen it, but I will point out Animated works are for EVERYONE. not just kids. this does NOT make every animated show good though.

    "He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
    Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
    he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
    In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
    He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
    He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
    He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
    He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,468 Arc User
    gradii wrote: »
    To be fair the redesign of the Connie is one of the VERY few good things about discovery. just fix the size. it looks objectively superior to the jank 60s design.

    As far as lower decks I havent seen it, but I will point out Animated works are for EVERYONE. not just kids. this does NOT make every animated show good though.

    the TOS ship is big enough.




    And I feel the 'jank 60's design' is fine as is. I personally find the Disco connie ......





    ............junk.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • pavel#9263 pavel Member Posts: 42 Arc User
    I'll echo what everyone else has said. Saw about half of the first season of Discovery and it didn't feel like Trek. Felt like someone borrowed the Trek name for brand name recognition, threw in some token Trekisms and then borrowed from whatever they thought might be trendy. Let's throw in dark and gritty from Terminator. And we'll throw in some contrived emotional drama from Grey'a Anatomy. We'll throw in some Orcs from Lord of the Rings and call them Klingons. Mix all the ingredients and we have a recipe for a new hip, cool Trek, not that dorky Trek of old.... I probably would like it more if it dared to just be an original new Sci Fi and the creators fleshed out their own lore, rather than awkwardly disassembling the lore of a richly established fictional universe.

    As for Picard... to be fair... for all I know, it's a very good show; but I saw extended previews. The only things that seemed to be marketed were the violence and that admirals drop an F bomb. Every commercial... LOOK, admirals drop F bombs now. Edgy. Not that I'm a puritan by any means. I quite enjoy edgy or dark fiction. I've been an avid follower of my share of HBO dramas. But what made Trek unique was its optimism and thoughtfulness. The old Picard overcame his enemies by inviting them for a cup of Earl Grey and a philosophical conversation. So, I just felt that by commercials alone, and from what I saw of Discovery, that the new series might be cause for bitterness if I watched it. Again, never seen it though, so I can't comment - and I'd be delighted to be told that I'm completely wrong.

    I realize, as some have argued, that DS9 was often dark compared to the other Treks of its era. Yes, it was darker, set during a war for much of the series; however the integrity of the character development and adherence to core canon, an understanding by the writers of the soul of Trek, shined through. The main characters were endearing and captured the classic esprit of Trek optimism and heroics.

    There's nothing wrong with having more emotional, character driven episodes. Many of the best episodes of TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT were the more tender ones with gripping emotional arcs for the characters. Kira had arguably the best arc of any Trek character as she grew from a traumatized resistance fighter into a confident leader. Bashir and O'Brien had some wonderful buddy moments that always left me wanting more. Heck, even Nog's coming of age story was superb. VOY had the Doctor's evolving self-actualization brilliantly and humorously delivered. ENT had Trip grieving for his lost sister.

    The point is that in those series, there were compelling stories and characters that caused the audience to have an emotional reaction, rather than an overly saccharine, contrived emotional scene that begged the audience to feel vicariously if the characters kept having strong enough feelings to emote.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,550 Arc User
    My dad HATES discovery. I guess because it's focused on action and not science. I don't think it's that bad, but I've only seen like five episodes of S1 so I don't know a lot about it.
    Also, don't hate please, but I don't see the appeal of adult cartoons ie. lower decks. They rely too heavily on offensive/dirty humor and those bug eyes just really annoy me.
    No hate if you do like it, to each their own, it's just not my cup of tea.

    Part of the appeal of Lower Decks is that it goes back to episodic Star Trek instead of having season long galactic crisis story like Discovery and Picard. I was hoping that Season 4 of Discovery would go back to exploration episodic content, but it went right back to the usual galactic crisis. Another part of the appeal is that we see a portion of Starfleet that is rarely seen. One episode shows the Lower Decks of Vulcans, Klingons, Pakleds, and the Borg. The Borg Lower Decks has to be the best part of the episode.
  • midevilchaos#4670 midevilchaos Member Posts: 301 Arc User
    My dad HATES discovery. I guess because it's focused on action and not science. I don't think it's that bad, but I've only seen like five episodes of S1 so I don't know a lot about it.
    Also, don't hate please, but I don't see the appeal of adult cartoons ie. lower decks. They rely too heavily on offensive/dirty humor and those bug eyes just really annoy me.
    No hate if you do like it, to each their own, it's just not my cup of tea.


    That's because you haven't seen the post-apocalyptic part of the show. The original idea behind Discovery wasn't bad. There was real conflict, a true story that you could get behind. Once they get to another point in the story (you'll know when you see it), it kills off completely everything. On top of that, it feels like the entire Star Trek universe is screwed. I can't give you any specifics without ruining it. Suffice it to say that the original part before "something happens" is great compared to the post-apocalyptic part.
  • midevilchaos#4670 midevilchaos Member Posts: 301 Arc User
    pavel#9263 wrote: »
    I'll echo what everyone else has said. Saw about half of the first season of Discovery and it didn't feel like Trek. Felt like someone borrowed the Trek name for brand name recognition, threw in some token Trekisms and then borrowed from whatever they thought might be trendy. Let's throw in dark and gritty from Terminator. And we'll throw in some contrived emotional drama from Grey'a Anatomy. We'll throw in some Orcs from Lord of the Rings and call them Klingons. Mix all the ingredients and we have a recipe for a new hip, cool Trek, not that dorky Trek of old.... I probably would like it more if it dared to just be an original new Sci Fi and the creators fleshed out their own lore, rather than awkwardly disassembling the lore of a richly established fictional universe.

    As for Picard... to be fair... for all I know, it's a very good show; but I saw extended previews. The only things that seemed to be marketed were the violence and that admirals drop an F bomb. Every commercial... LOOK, admirals drop F bombs now. Edgy. Not that I'm a puritan by any means. I quite enjoy edgy or dark fiction. I've been an avid follower of my share of HBO dramas. But what made Trek unique was its optimism and thoughtfulness. The old Picard overcame his enemies by inviting them for a cup of Earl Grey and a philosophical conversation. So, I just felt that by commercials alone, and from what I saw of Discovery, that the new series might be cause for bitterness if I watched it. Again, never seen it though, so I can't comment - and I'd be delighted to be told that I'm completely wrong.

    I realize, as some have argued, that DS9 was often dark compared to the other Treks of its era. Yes, it was darker, set during a war for much of the series; however the integrity of the character development and adherence to core canon, an understanding by the writers of the soul of Trek, shined through. The main characters were endearing and captured the classic esprit of Trek optimism and heroics.

    There's nothing wrong with having more emotional, character driven episodes. Many of the best episodes of TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT were the more tender ones with gripping emotional arcs for the characters. Kira had arguably the best arc of any Trek character as she grew from a traumatized resistance fighter into a confident leader. Bashir and O'Brien had some wonderful buddy moments that always left me wanting more. Heck, even Nog's coming of age story was superb. VOY had the Doctor's evolving self-actualization brilliantly and humorously delivered. ENT had Trip grieving for his lost sister.

    The point is that in those series, there were compelling stories and characters that caused the audience to have an emotional reaction, rather than an overly saccharine, contrived emotional scene that begged the audience to feel vicariously if the characters kept having strong enough feelings to emote.


    Just to reply to a single point: Dropping the F Bomb (as you put it), is imo something that is normal. Let's face it, most pps use that word. Don't matter if your rank would be Ensign or Admiral.
  • iceman10#6817 iceman10 Member Posts: 3 New User
    > @"trekfangrrrl#6910" said:
    > STOP.
    >
    > Did you read the title of this thread?
    >
    > This is an experiment to give people of both "sides" (who like or don't like new trek shows) a place to share their thoughts without the typical arguments.
    >
    > Is there stuff you ❌DON'T LIKE❌ stuff about the new Trek shows? If so, post about it here.
    >
    > If you want to talk about stuff you LIKE in new Trek shows, do it in the other thread, because it is OFF TOPIC in this thread and will be reported as such.
    >
    > Ok, let's see how this goes!
Sign In or Register to comment.