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.
yeah thats something that never struck me as all that odd, I mean Picard and her where BOTH admirals. this wasn't a subordinate conversing with his superior in a public enviroment etc. this is two peers arguing in private.
Discovery: I've grown to... tolerate them up to a point, but the design of the Klingons and their ships is my main issue. (Although the Sarcophagus was kinda cool-looking, I won't lie - and the D7 isn't bad.) I'll grant that it was the 60s and they didn't have them fleshed out as much as they did from TNG onward, but come on. There is an in-universe explanation for smooth foreheads, and there was not a one to be seen. And seriously, what IS with the ship design?
Burnham... eh. I don't feel like she's really grown any. Mutiny, crossovers, the Red Angel, time travel, so on... the hubris is still there. Mainly because it's like she has become the messianic figure of two centuries, and she knows it. "Burnham saves the day" has become a little tedious. It's actually nice to see the rest of the crew get some development, y'know (Tilly particularly has had some good moments of late).
I confess when it comes to the LGBT+ representation, I'm rather vocal in my support, mainly because I have a number of friends in that community (from a Star Trek fan series, of all places); Gray in fact reminded me of a good friend of mine. People will pull the "oh, you're shoving it down our throats, woke BS" nonsense, but honestly, if you're whining about Star Trek being "woke", I'm wondering what you've been watching.
Honorable mention: The original Gabriel Lorca. Way to leave us hanging, folks.
...oh, and I like the Disco Connie. Fight me.
Picard: As a person who swears like a stevedore in real life, the cursing in season 1 is really cringy (an issue I have occasionally also had with Discovery). Because it's not talking like everyday people. It's played off as shock value. "Ooh, they said a naughty word in STAR TREK! Oh NO!" (Granted, I've been in roleplaying groups where we've dropped the bombs in interaction, but again, that kinda flowed naturally from player to character. Less so with this. It feels forced. Especially when you've got the horny sister-spy doing it...)
Wasn't a fan of the entire season plot of season 1. At all. Burning Utopia Planitia, secret Romulan plot... and the whole idea of android slaves. Did these people not watch TNG? Picard in fact spoke out against this very idea in the episode "The Measure of a Man", in which he is defending Data from being labeled property rather than an individual, and yet... we've got branded slaves working the mines so humans don't have to? The entire premise seems to just spit in the face of Federation ideals.
Hugh looking more like his "old self" and Seven of Nine being kind of relaxed and groovy (thank you, Eddie Izzard) were highlights, and of the new characters, I like Rios quite a bit (the constant interaction with his holograms is kinda funny too). The rest of them... there are some people who will look at any criticism of Musiker as being "oh, you're using the 'women are too emotional' card", but Musiker is not "emotional". Musiker is, period, end, bat-droppings NUTS. The way season 2 is going, she is likely to be a liability.
Wasn't a fan of the entire season plot of season 1. At all. Burning Utopia Planitia, secret Romulan plot... and the whole idea of android slaves. Did these people not watch TNG? Picard in fact spoke out against this very idea in the episode "The Measure of a Man", in which he is defending Data from being labeled property rather than an individual, and yet... we've got branded slaves working the mines so humans don't have to? The entire premise seems to just spit in the face of Federation ideals.
.
I don't think they did. A lot of them said they are not Trek fans, both Kurtzman and Abrams both admitting that Trek was 'too smart' for them, and that many of the staff don't like TOS, in fact, they loathe TOS, and only liked ST6, due to it being a bit dark.....and I doubt they care for positive, optimistic stuff. Hence why I love Lower Decks. Apart from Beyond, Lower Decks is the only post 2005 Trek I actually like, since it's McMan, not Kurtzman or Abrams doing it.
Just saying, the Android slaves have a precedent in Voyager, where EMHs are used as slaves in dilithium mines. The idea was stupid back then as well, but it's not something 'evil Kurtzmann' came up with.
^ 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
midevilchaos
Oh, you're absolutely right. It's not like I haven't dropped my share of F bombs just trying to learn how to play this game So perhaps I'm being nitpicky. But one of the things I loved about old Trek was the slightly elevated language, a speech from Picard or Bashir that could be eloquent. It's in the same category as the grim violence - I might have given it a pass in another series, even quite enjoyed it; but somehow, for me it makes Trek lose its identity. But if you're quite enjoying the show, that's awesome. Please don't let me ruin it for you. I'm sure plenty of people thought DS9 broke too far away from Trek and I think it's the one that most stands the test of time. For all I know, I gave up on DSC and PIC too soon. Like I said, I'd probably enjoy them more if they were their own standalone sci-fi franchise.
annemarie30
Exactly what I was saying. I enjoy plenty of dystopian and dark fiction; but what I loved about Trek - and what gave the franchise its unique identity - was the optimism, the thoughtfulness, and the aspiration. Feels like the new shows are trying to be trendy: Star Wars mixed with Grey's Anatomy. Consequently, they lose the Trek identity.
Fleetcaptain5
What????????? They killed off DS9 characters???? Tell me that's hyperbole. If they killed off DS9... that's so wrong. Pretty much your summary of the shows were my similar impressions and why I bailed on them.
Fleetcaptain5
What????????? They killed off DS9 characters???? Tell me that's hyperbole. If they killed off DS9... that's so wrong. Pretty much your summary of the shows were my similar impressions and why I bailed on them.
they didn't kill off DS9 characters but they did. alternate timeline remember? in episode 2 we see Picard walking around his house in this alternate timeline and finds a "hall of skulls" as it's revealed that Picard took the skulls of prominant aliens he killed (a line in episode 3 makes me suspect this is a Terran tradtion in this timeline) they name drop that Gul Dukat and Martok's skulls are there. (as well as Surek I should note)
It seems clear to me they name dropped alien leaders we where attached to, partiuclarly to provoke an emotional reaction
> @pavel#9263 said: > Fleetcaptain5 > What????????? They killed off DS9 characters???? Tell me that's hyperbole. If they killed off DS9... that's so wrong. Pretty much your summary of the shows were my similar impressions and why I bailed on them.
It is a bit hyperbole
Mild spoilers ahead (although you get this info from the very first episode of S2): The second season takes place in a alternate, dark timeline not unlike the mirror universe. The prime timeline protagonists are pulled there by Q and take the places of their dark counterparts. To establish how 'wrong' this tineline is, Q explains in dialogue some of the horrid deeds the dark/evil Picard in that timeline did. Which was killing a few well known characters from DS9 and TNG. But that's not much different from seeing mirror-Odo die in DS9
^ 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
Okay, I know I've said this before: but I have a real beef with DSC Season 3. The treatment of Burnham's character.
Now, I've gone on record before as saying I don't hate Burnham - certainly not as much as some others. I hated how, in Season 1 and Season 2, she seemed to get the spotlight at the expense of all the other characters (except Stamets, Culber, Saru, and Tilly), to the extent that when they finally did develop another character in Season 2, it was solely so the audience would care when they killed her off two episodes later. Yeah, that rubbed me the wrong way too: it was cheap; insulting to the other supporting characters; and insulting to the audience.
But what I hate even more than that is the growth they gave Burnham in Season 3, having her prove to be a competent heroic character when operating outside the normal Starfleet Chain of Command and chafing - by even her own admission - under that chain of command, as if the writers were trying to drive home that she is not suited for captaincy and that's okay - only to put her in the centre chair at the end of the season anyway.
Remember how people complained how Kelvin Kirk was completely unsuited for command and had no business commanding a starship? At least the writers of ST:09 didn't go out of their way to agree with us! It just screams that the writing team were doing one thing, and the showrunners themselves were planning something completely different.
I'll tolerate a lot in my Trek: I rewatch Season Two of TNG for crying out loud: but I at least expect the creators to have a modicum of respect for their own work.
On a lighter note, I also really am not a fan of the constant 'we are Starfleet'ing DSC does. Yes, you're the good guys, we know. Even Picard didn't have to remind the audience every five seconds that the Federation are the 'good guys'. Please stop. It's camp. It's campier than the campy '60s show which, ironically, had Kirk make the whole 'Risk is our Business' speech once and that was it. You're camping harder than the show made in the age of camp Discovery - stop it!
Unless Anson Mount's the one doing it. He can make it work.
midevilchaos
Oh, you're absolutely right. It's not like I haven't dropped my share of F bombs just trying to learn how to play this game So perhaps I'm being nitpicky. But one of the things I loved about old Trek was the slightly elevated language, a speech from Picard or Bashir that could be eloquent. It's in the same category as the grim violence - I might have given it a pass in another series, even quite enjoyed it; but somehow, for me it makes Trek lose its identity. But if you're quite enjoying the show, that's awesome. Please don't let me ruin it for you. I'm sure plenty of people thought DS9 broke too far away from Trek and I think it's the one that most stands the test of time. For all I know, I gave up on DSC and PIC too soon. Like I said, I'd probably enjoy them more if they were their own standalone sci-fi franchise.
annemarie30
Exactly what I was saying. I enjoy plenty of dystopian and dark fiction; but what I loved about Trek - and what gave the franchise its unique identity - was the optimism, the thoughtfulness, and the aspiration. Feels like the new shows are trying to be trendy: Star Wars mixed with Grey's Anatomy. Consequently, they lose the Trek identity.
Fleetcaptain5
What????????? They killed off DS9 characters???? Tell me that's hyperbole. If they killed off DS9... that's so wrong. Pretty much your summary of the shows were my similar impressions and why I bailed on them.
TBH, I think the reason DS9's darker tone works is because it constantly contrasts the darkness with the optimistic ideals the characters all fight for. That's quite heartening in a way: even when everything around them is on fire, they still fight to defend their ideals. DSC tries to do this, but...to be honest, after the third 'we are Starfleet' speech, it just felt cheap and empty. DSC showed us the dark side of the future but, beyond the characters saying they believe in Federation ideals, we don't really get any positivity to balance it out... until Season 2. My favourite part of DSC (and serious contender for all of Trek) is when Pike tears Cornwell a new one for Section 31 using mines:
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Okay, I know I've said this before: but I have a real beef with DSC Season 3. The treatment of Burnham's character.
Now, I've gone on record before as saying I don't hate Burnham - certainly not as much as some others. I hated how, in Season 1 and Season 2, she seemed to get the spotlight at the expense of all the other characters (except Stamets, Culber, Saru, and Tilly), to the extent that when they finally did develop another character in Season 2, it was solely so the audience would care when they killed her off two episodes later. Yeah, that rubbed me the wrong way too: it was cheap; insulting to the other supporting characters; and insulting to the audience.
But what I hate even more than that is the growth they gave Burnham in Season 3, having her prove to be a competent heroic character when operating outside the normal Starfleet Chain of Command and chafing - by even her own admission - under that chain of command, as if the writers were trying to drive home that she is not suited for captaincy and that's okay - only to put her in the centre chair at the end of the season anyway.
Remember how people complained how Kelvin Kirk was completely unsuited for command and had no business commanding a starship? At least the writers of ST:09 didn't go out of their way to agree with us! It just screams that the writing team were doing one thing, and the showrunners themselves were planning something completely different.
I'll tolerate a lot in my Trek: I rewatch Season Two of TNG for crying out loud: but I at least expect the creators to have a modicum of respect for their own work.
On a lighter note, I also really am not a fan of the constant 'we are Starfleet'ing DSC does. Yes, you're the good guys, we know. Even Picard didn't have to remind the audience every five seconds that the Federation are the 'good guys'. Please stop. It's camp. It's campier than the campy '60s show which, ironically, had Kirk make the whole 'Risk is our Business' speech once and that was it. You're camping harder than the show made in the age of camp Discovery - stop it!
Unless Anson Mount's the one doing it. He can make it work.
I actually liked TNG's season 2.
But yea, they really seem to like to aggravate audiences with Burnham having the luck of the devil, it seems. Wish there was a halo burnham to blast in the game, like when we had that one time blasting halo Kurland on DS9.
Agreed, I liked Season 2 of TNG as well. Every season had its ups and downs, and sure 2 had a few stinkers, but hey, it also gave us "Q Who", "Elementary, Dear Data", "Measure of a Man", all gems. Plus, I really liked Pulaski. It was nice to have a strong, admirable character who could still butt heads a bit with some of the other main characters, act as a foil to them.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Season Two of TNG contains some of my all-time favourite Trek episodes, (and Pulaski is one of my favourite characters), but the Season as a whole? Meh?
My point is more that I can tolerate the bad stuff in Season Two of TNG because there's enough good to balance it out, and it never felt like the showrunners were insulting the audience or, as with DSC S3, their own writers.
Note I picked Season 2 to pick on and not Season 1 - at the risk of offending the Church of Roddenberry, I can't stand TNG Season 1 aside from 'Encounter at Farpoint', 'Neutral Zone', 'The Battle', 'Heart of Glory', and 'We'll always have Paris'. Even then, 'Encounter', 'Neutral Zone', and 'The Battle' are the only ones I go out of my way to watch. IMO it's really obvious they gave Gene just a little too much creative control with Season 1.
Okay, I know I've said this before: but I have a real beef with DSC Season 3. The treatment of Burnham's character.
Now, I've gone on record before as saying I don't hate Burnham - certainly not as much as some others. I hated how, in Season 1 and Season 2, she seemed to get the spotlight at the expense of all the other characters (except Stamets, Culber, Saru, and Tilly), to the extent that when they finally did develop another character in Season 2, it was solely so the audience would care when they killed her off two episodes later. Yeah, that rubbed me the wrong way too: it was cheap; insulting to the other supporting characters; and insulting to the audience.
But what I hate even more than that is the growth they gave Burnham in Season 3, having her prove to be a competent heroic character when operating outside the normal Starfleet Chain of Command and chafing - by even her own admission - under that chain of command, as if the writers were trying to drive home that she is not suited for captaincy and that's okay - only to put her in the centre chair at the end of the season anyway.
Remember how people complained how Kelvin Kirk was completely unsuited for command and had no business commanding a starship? At least the writers of ST:09 didn't go out of their way to agree with us! It just screams that the writing team were doing one thing, and the showrunners themselves were planning something completely different.
I'll tolerate a lot in my Trek: I rewatch Season Two of TNG for crying out loud: but I at least expect the creators to have a modicum of respect for their own work.
On a lighter note, I also really am not a fan of the constant 'we are Starfleet'ing DSC does. Yes, you're the good guys, we know. Even Picard didn't have to remind the audience every five seconds that the Federation are the 'good guys'. Please stop. It's camp. It's campier than the campy '60s show which, ironically, had Kirk make the whole 'Risk is our Business' speech once and that was it. You're camping harder than the show made in the age of camp Discovery - stop it!
Unless Anson Mount's the one doing it. He can make it work.
I actually liked TNG's season 2.
But yea, they really seem to like to aggravate audiences with Burnham having the luck of the devil, it seems. Wish there was a halo burnham to blast in the game, like when we had that one time blasting halo Kurland on DS9.
Again, my issue is more with how little respect the showrunners seemed to show Burnham's character. The writers gave her almost an entire season of development showing her thrive specifically away from the Captain's chair and then the showrunners glued her straight into it at the end of the season. What was the point?! They had the potential to do something genuinely different with Burnham in DSC S3: move the protagonist away from the Bridge. They could have told the show from two perspectives moving forward: Burnham fighting for the Federation's ideals from outside Starfleet and the Discovery doing the same but from within. Instead, they threw all that potential away for the sake of being 'conventional' - when the desire to do something different was, I thought, DSC's entire point!
That's my biggest issue with it. I hate wasted potential.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Season Two of TNG contains some of my all-time favourite Trek episodes, (and Pulaski is one of my favourite characters), but the Season as a whole? Meh?
My point is more that I can tolerate the bad stuff in Season Two of TNG because there's enough good to balance it out, and it never felt like the showrunners were insulting the audience or, as with DSC S3, their own writers.
Note I picked Season 2 to pick on and not Season 1 - at the risk of offending the Church of Roddenberry, I can't stand TNG Season 1 aside from 'Encounter at Farpoint', 'Neutral Zone', 'The Battle', 'Heart of Glory', and 'We'll always have Paris'. Even then, 'Encounter', 'Neutral Zone', and 'The Battle' are the only ones I go out of my way to watch. IMO it's really obvious they gave Gene just a little too much creative control with Season 1.
I hear you. It was definitely a season of ups and downs. And as for Season 1 of TNG... lol. Yeah, I guess if I'm going to be one of those old curmudgeons complaining that the new stuff isn't of the quality of stuff in my day... well, I better willing to concede a lot of criticisms that DISC and PIC fans might hurl at TNG Season 1. Hard to defend, shall we say.
In a way, I sympathize with the people who run creative projects for these long running franchises. It's like a music band's fourth album. If the band stays completely true to its consistently established style, people accuse the band of growing stale. Stray too far from its original sound and the members are accused of betraying their roots. Same thing with TV / movie franchises. If the new shows were a virtual photocopy of the 90s shows, they'd likely be accused of being derivative, lacking growth. It's a hard needle to thread.
On the other hand, I don't know why Hollywood has become obsessed with resurrecting old franchises when they seem to have little regard for the source material, other than for the brand name recognition of the franchise.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Season Two of TNG contains some of my all-time favourite Trek episodes, (and Pulaski is one of my favourite characters), but the Season as a whole? Meh?
My point is more that I can tolerate the bad stuff in Season Two of TNG because there's enough good to balance it out, and it never felt like the showrunners were insulting the audience or, as with DSC S3, their own writers.
Note I picked Season 2 to pick on and not Season 1 - at the risk of offending the Church of Roddenberry, I can't stand TNG Season 1 aside from 'Encounter at Farpoint', 'Neutral Zone', 'The Battle', 'Heart of Glory', and 'We'll always have Paris'. Even then, 'Encounter', 'Neutral Zone', and 'The Battle' are the only ones I go out of my way to watch. IMO it's really obvious they gave Gene just a little too much creative control with Season 1.
there's a bunch of season 1 i like as well. Home Soil, Where No One Has Gone Before, the halodeck one, Datalore, etc.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Season Two of TNG contains some of my all-time favourite Trek episodes, (and Pulaski is one of my favourite characters), but the Season as a whole? Meh?
My point is more that I can tolerate the bad stuff in Season Two of TNG because there's enough good to balance it out, and it never felt like the showrunners were insulting the audience or, as with DSC S3, their own writers.
Note I picked Season 2 to pick on and not Season 1 - at the risk of offending the Church of Roddenberry, I can't stand TNG Season 1 aside from 'Encounter at Farpoint', 'Neutral Zone', 'The Battle', 'Heart of Glory', and 'We'll always have Paris'. Even then, 'Encounter', 'Neutral Zone', and 'The Battle' are the only ones I go out of my way to watch. IMO it's really obvious they gave Gene just a little too much creative control with Season 1.
I hear you. It was definitely a season of ups and downs. And as for Season 1 of TNG... lol. Yeah, I guess if I'm going to be one of those old curmudgeons complaining that the new stuff isn't of the quality of stuff in my day... well, I better willing to concede a lot of criticisms that DISC and PIC fans might hurl at TNG Season 1. Hard to defend, shall we say.
In a way, I sympathize with the people who run creative projects for these long running franchises. It's like a music band's fourth album. If the band stays completely true to its consistently established style, people accuse the band of growing stale. Stray too far from its original sound and the members are accused of betraying their roots. Same thing with TV / movie franchises. If the new shows were a virtual photocopy of the 90s shows, they'd likely be accused of being derivative, lacking growth. It's a hard needle to thread.
On the other hand, I don't know why Hollywood has become obsessed with resurrecting old franchises when they seem to have little regard for the source material, other than for the brand name recognition of the franchise.
ONLY remake that I like, and that did better than the original is the Dreamworks She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, taking what was originally a series to sell dolls and actually give the characters.....well...character and then some.
I've yet to see anything else get resurrected right.
Without writing a small novel, well probably a big one I can sum it up in a few words.
They don't care...there isn't anything they care about. Nothing is sacred to them...actually I take it back. At this point it isn't that they don't care...at this point especially with how mind numbingly stupid this season of Picard has been, it's malicious.
Kurtzman has a wake of franchises he has destroyed and I guess Star Trek is just another, a jealous untalented hack working on destroying things built by talented people
Can't have a honest conversation because of a white knight with power
What I don't like about the new shows? The fact that they destroyed humanity's utopian future and dragged it down to our level. Modern Star Trek is Earth, or rather, the US in the ealy 21st century, with starships and fancy gimmicks. Gone are the days in which Star Trek used allegories to discuss a problem, provided arguments for both sides and let the viewers draw their own conclusions. Be it religion, refugees, security and even terrorism (!).
And don't get me started about the actual writing. The Borg queen assimilated millions of species and trillions of individuals because she was lonely and couldn't find a friend!?! And when she finally finds one she can easily be talked into a more benevolent stance and - in the future - is only going to assimilate those who are willing. The Borg sure have come a long way, from menacing threat that cannot be reasoned with, to hippie commune. Every subject and every character these writers touch ends up worse and more shallow afterwards. If it wasn't for all the gore and murder, one would think this show was written for children.
What I don't like about the new shows? The fact that they destroyed humanity's utopian future and dragged it down to our level. Modern Star Trek is Earth, or rather, the US in the ealy 21st century, with starships and fancy gimmicks. Gone are the days in which Star Trek used allegories to discuss a problem, provided arguments for both sides and let the viewers draw their own conclusions. Be it religion, refugees, security and even terrorism (!).
And don't get me started about the actual writing. The Borg queen assimilated millions of species and trillions of individuals because she was lonely and couldn't find a friend!?! And when she finally finds one she can easily be talked into a more benevolent stance and - in the future - is only going to assimilate those who are willing. The Borg sure have come a long way, from menacing threat that cannot be reasoned with, to hippie commune. Every subject and every character these writers touch ends up worse and more shallow afterwards. If it wasn't for all the gore and murder, one would think this show was written for children.
Not sure which version of the Borg origin is worse, this or the novel version where a Starfleet crew is partially responsible for creating the Borg along with the Caeliar and a couple of Humans were the first Borg along with one Caeliar.
First and it's blanket, is the complete and total disregard for canon. I knew going into Discovery that canon was out the window. it's not even big stuff like the Spore drive. sure I can buy a classified tech that Kirk probably would not have known, but no mention of a war that had decimated the federation less than 10 years earlier?
Klingons having cloaking devices? they didn't get those until the tech agreements that gave D7 tech to the romulans. the pulse phaser tech that everyone EXCEPT the Donnie has? if they refit the Crossfields with the spore drive (Assuming a refit based on the hull number) why would then not upgrade the weapons to the Constitution class armaments?
Sarek adopted a human and no mention of her in TOS? that was as unbelievable as Spock's oh by the way sybok is my half brother TRIBBLE. Ditto Picard's mom's suicide. they tried to explain the the vision of his mother in Were no one has gone before that that was total weaksauce. oh, and we spent all that time rummaging around in his mind and his brother was where???
I was ok with the enterprise until suddenly there are a hundred odd fighters defending it? and Kirk NEVER considered their use? how many times did we see the hangar deck in TOS? I can think of 3 at least, and there was no evidence of anything more than maybe 4 shuttles. I could write another two pages, but I'll stop (for now)
A lot of good points. I am surprised a little about how much people seemed to have soured on Picard season 2. I found it pretty enjoyable. There are some things that really confused me about it though. Like how is Laris in the past? Is she supposed to be a Romulan or a Vulcan? Do Romulans mind meld now? If the Borg Queen is from an alternate universe where Seven wasn’t assimilated—how would she know about Seven being Borg?
The writers seem to assume since the viewers are familiar with Seven’s assimilation and mind melds the characters regardless of their positionally would be aware of it. It makes these Star Trek standard plot lines sort of short hand sci-if jargon rather than rational science fiction solutions to problems. Sonic screwdriver magicbox solutions…
Also Picard is kinda like one big bottle episode. They are hanging around the château the whole time. Where are the space ships? Where are the phasers? On the other hand, Star Trek does need more car chases—and Picard certainly delivered on that front.
The other thing is that as original as Picard seems to be—it is largely based on very, very standard Star Trek tropes. Go to the present or near-present to save the future, dark timelines, talking your way out of trouble by recognizing the enemies humanity (thinly veiled morality tales masqueraded as science fiction.)
Very boldly going where the franchise seems to often go...
It's not Laris, it's an ancestor (supposedly - Picard thinks she is, anyway).
And the Queen knows about Seven because she's somehow temporally linked with EVERY possible Queen incarnation in the multiverse (which is nonsense in the extreme - almost as much as the Queen being talked into actually offering assimilation as a choice.).
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
> @legendarylycan#5411 said: >(which is nonsense in the extreme - almost as much as the Queen being talked into actually offering assimilation as a choice.).
I didn't like the first major rewrite of the Borg in the first place - the queen was a dumb idea to start with. But simply convincing her to atop assimilating people in a three minute dialogue is way beyond a cheap shot.
I liked PIC S2 rather well, Qs storyline is interesting and he had a very strong dialogue with young!Guinan recently. But the whole Borg story is really an unbearable mess at this point.
And Spiner served no purpose whatsoever this season...
^ 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
> @legendarylycan#5411 said:
>(which is nonsense in the extreme - almost as much as the Queen being talked into actually offering assimilation as a choice.).
I didn't like the first major rewrite of the Borg in the first place - the queen was a dumb idea to start with. But simply convincing her to atop assimilating people in a three minute dialogue is way beyond a cheap shot.
I liked PIC S2 rather well, Qs storyline is interesting and he had a very strong dialogue with young!Guinan recently. But the whole Borg story is really an unbearable mess at this point.
And Spiner served no purpose whatsoever this season...
I'm glad i'm not the only one who thought the mere idea of a queen in the Borg was DUMB from the start.
Comments
yeah thats something that never struck me as all that odd, I mean Picard and her where BOTH admirals. this wasn't a subordinate conversing with his superior in a public enviroment etc. this is two peers arguing in private.
Burnham... eh. I don't feel like she's really grown any. Mutiny, crossovers, the Red Angel, time travel, so on... the hubris is still there. Mainly because it's like she has become the messianic figure of two centuries, and she knows it. "Burnham saves the day" has become a little tedious. It's actually nice to see the rest of the crew get some development, y'know (Tilly particularly has had some good moments of late).
I confess when it comes to the LGBT+ representation, I'm rather vocal in my support, mainly because I have a number of friends in that community (from a Star Trek fan series, of all places); Gray in fact reminded me of a good friend of mine. People will pull the "oh, you're shoving it down our throats, woke BS" nonsense, but honestly, if you're whining about Star Trek being "woke", I'm wondering what you've been watching.
Honorable mention: The original Gabriel Lorca. Way to leave us hanging, folks.
...oh, and I like the Disco Connie. Fight me.
Picard: As a person who swears like a stevedore in real life, the cursing in season 1 is really cringy (an issue I have occasionally also had with Discovery). Because it's not talking like everyday people. It's played off as shock value. "Ooh, they said a naughty word in STAR TREK! Oh NO!" (Granted, I've been in roleplaying groups where we've dropped the bombs in interaction, but again, that kinda flowed naturally from player to character. Less so with this. It feels forced. Especially when you've got the horny sister-spy doing it...)
Wasn't a fan of the entire season plot of season 1. At all. Burning Utopia Planitia, secret Romulan plot... and the whole idea of android slaves. Did these people not watch TNG? Picard in fact spoke out against this very idea in the episode "The Measure of a Man", in which he is defending Data from being labeled property rather than an individual, and yet... we've got branded slaves working the mines so humans don't have to? The entire premise seems to just spit in the face of Federation ideals.
Hugh looking more like his "old self" and Seven of Nine being kind of relaxed and groovy (thank you, Eddie Izzard) were highlights, and of the new characters, I like Rios quite a bit (the constant interaction with his holograms is kinda funny too). The rest of them... there are some people who will look at any criticism of Musiker as being "oh, you're using the 'women are too emotional' card", but Musiker is not "emotional". Musiker is, period, end, bat-droppings NUTS. The way season 2 is going, she is likely to be a liability.
"There's No Way Like Poway!"
Real Join Date: October 2010
I don't think they did. A lot of them said they are not Trek fans, both Kurtzman and Abrams both admitting that Trek was 'too smart' for them, and that many of the staff don't like TOS, in fact, they loathe TOS, and only liked ST6, due to it being a bit dark.....and I doubt they care for positive, optimistic stuff. Hence why I love Lower Decks. Apart from Beyond, Lower Decks is the only post 2005 Trek I actually like, since it's McMan, not Kurtzman or Abrams doing it.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Oh, you're absolutely right. It's not like I haven't dropped my share of F bombs just trying to learn how to play this game
annemarie30
Exactly what I was saying. I enjoy plenty of dystopian and dark fiction; but what I loved about Trek - and what gave the franchise its unique identity - was the optimism, the thoughtfulness, and the aspiration. Feels like the new shows are trying to be trendy: Star Wars mixed with Grey's Anatomy. Consequently, they lose the Trek identity.
Fleetcaptain5
What????????? They killed off DS9 characters???? Tell me that's hyperbole. If they killed off DS9... that's so wrong. Pretty much your summary of the shows were my similar impressions and why I bailed on them.
they didn't kill off DS9 characters but they did. alternate timeline remember?
It seems clear to me they name dropped alien leaders we where attached to, partiuclarly to provoke an emotional reaction
> Fleetcaptain5
> What????????? They killed off DS9 characters???? Tell me that's hyperbole. If they killed off DS9... that's so wrong. Pretty much your summary of the shows were my similar impressions and why I bailed on them.
It is a bit hyperbole
Mild spoilers ahead (although you get this info from the very first episode of S2): The second season takes place in a alternate, dark timeline not unlike the mirror universe. The prime timeline protagonists are pulled there by Q and take the places of their dark counterparts. To establish how 'wrong' this tineline is, Q explains in dialogue some of the horrid deeds the dark/evil Picard in that timeline did. Which was killing a few well known characters from DS9 and TNG. But that's not much different from seeing mirror-Odo die in DS9
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Now, I've gone on record before as saying I don't hate Burnham - certainly not as much as some others. I hated how, in Season 1 and Season 2, she seemed to get the spotlight at the expense of all the other characters (except Stamets, Culber, Saru, and Tilly), to the extent that when they finally did develop another character in Season 2, it was solely so the audience would care when they killed her off two episodes later. Yeah, that rubbed me the wrong way too: it was cheap; insulting to the other supporting characters; and insulting to the audience.
But what I hate even more than that is the growth they gave Burnham in Season 3, having her prove to be a competent heroic character when operating outside the normal Starfleet Chain of Command and chafing - by even her own admission - under that chain of command, as if the writers were trying to drive home that she is not suited for captaincy and that's okay - only to put her in the centre chair at the end of the season anyway.
Remember how people complained how Kelvin Kirk was completely unsuited for command and had no business commanding a starship? At least the writers of ST:09 didn't go out of their way to agree with us! It just screams that the writing team were doing one thing, and the showrunners themselves were planning something completely different.
I'll tolerate a lot in my Trek: I rewatch Season Two of TNG for crying out loud: but I at least expect the creators to have a modicum of respect for their own work.
On a lighter note, I also really am not a fan of the constant 'we are Starfleet'ing DSC does. Yes, you're the good guys, we know. Even Picard didn't have to remind the audience every five seconds that the Federation are the 'good guys'. Please stop. It's camp. It's campier than the campy '60s show which, ironically, had Kirk make the whole 'Risk is our Business' speech once and that was it. You're camping harder than the show made in the age of camp Discovery - stop it!
Unless Anson Mount's the one doing it. He can make it work.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
TBH, I think the reason DS9's darker tone works is because it constantly contrasts the darkness with the optimistic ideals the characters all fight for. That's quite heartening in a way: even when everything around them is on fire, they still fight to defend their ideals. DSC tries to do this, but...to be honest, after the third 'we are Starfleet' speech, it just felt cheap and empty. DSC showed us the dark side of the future but, beyond the characters saying they believe in Federation ideals, we don't really get any positivity to balance it out... until Season 2. My favourite part of DSC (and serious contender for all of Trek) is when Pike tears Cornwell a new one for Section 31 using mines:
Pike: Starfleet doesn't believe in mines.
Cornwell: Starfleet didn't build them.
Pike: That's a distinction without a difference.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
'Starfleet doesn't believe in mines'
*120 years later*
Starfleet: 'Let's mine the Bajoran Wormhole with a minefield that can't be destroyed because they constantly replenish their numbers!'
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
I actually liked TNG's season 2.
But yea, they really seem to like to aggravate audiences with Burnham having the luck of the devil, it seems. Wish there was a halo burnham to blast in the game, like when we had that one time blasting halo Kurland on DS9.
Agreed, I liked Season 2 of TNG as well. Every season had its ups and downs, and sure 2 had a few stinkers, but hey, it also gave us "Q Who", "Elementary, Dear Data", "Measure of a Man", all gems. Plus, I really liked Pulaski. It was nice to have a strong, admirable character who could still butt heads a bit with some of the other main characters, act as a foil to them.
My point is more that I can tolerate the bad stuff in Season Two of TNG because there's enough good to balance it out, and it never felt like the showrunners were insulting the audience or, as with DSC S3, their own writers.
Note I picked Season 2 to pick on and not Season 1 - at the risk of offending the Church of Roddenberry, I can't stand TNG Season 1 aside from 'Encounter at Farpoint', 'Neutral Zone', 'The Battle', 'Heart of Glory', and 'We'll always have Paris'. Even then, 'Encounter', 'Neutral Zone', and 'The Battle' are the only ones I go out of my way to watch. IMO it's really obvious they gave Gene just a little too much creative control with Season 1.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Again, my issue is more with how little respect the showrunners seemed to show Burnham's character. The writers gave her almost an entire season of development showing her thrive specifically away from the Captain's chair and then the showrunners glued her straight into it at the end of the season. What was the point?! They had the potential to do something genuinely different with Burnham in DSC S3: move the protagonist away from the Bridge. They could have told the show from two perspectives moving forward: Burnham fighting for the Federation's ideals from outside Starfleet and the Discovery doing the same but from within. Instead, they threw all that potential away for the sake of being 'conventional' - when the desire to do something different was, I thought, DSC's entire point!
That's my biggest issue with it. I hate wasted potential.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I hear you. It was definitely a season of ups and downs. And as for Season 1 of TNG... lol. Yeah, I guess if I'm going to be one of those old curmudgeons complaining that the new stuff isn't of the quality of stuff in my day... well, I better willing to concede a lot of criticisms that DISC and PIC fans might hurl at TNG Season 1. Hard to defend, shall we say.
In a way, I sympathize with the people who run creative projects for these long running franchises. It's like a music band's fourth album. If the band stays completely true to its consistently established style, people accuse the band of growing stale. Stray too far from its original sound and the members are accused of betraying their roots. Same thing with TV / movie franchises. If the new shows were a virtual photocopy of the 90s shows, they'd likely be accused of being derivative, lacking growth. It's a hard needle to thread.
On the other hand, I don't know why Hollywood has become obsessed with resurrecting old franchises when they seem to have little regard for the source material, other than for the brand name recognition of the franchise.
there's a bunch of season 1 i like as well. Home Soil, Where No One Has Gone Before, the halodeck one, Datalore, etc.
ONLY remake that I like, and that did better than the original is the Dreamworks She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, taking what was originally a series to sell dolls and actually give the characters.....well...character and then some.
I've yet to see anything else get resurrected right.
They don't care...there isn't anything they care about. Nothing is sacred to them...actually I take it back. At this point it isn't that they don't care...at this point especially with how mind numbingly stupid this season of Picard has been, it's malicious.
Kurtzman has a wake of franchises he has destroyed and I guess Star Trek is just another, a jealous untalented hack working on destroying things built by talented people
And don't get me started about the actual writing. The Borg queen assimilated millions of species and trillions of individuals because she was lonely and couldn't find a friend!?! And when she finally finds one she can easily be talked into a more benevolent stance and - in the future - is only going to assimilate those who are willing. The Borg sure have come a long way, from menacing threat that cannot be reasoned with, to hippie commune. Every subject and every character these writers touch ends up worse and more shallow afterwards. If it wasn't for all the gore and murder, one would think this show was written for children.
Not sure which version of the Borg origin is worse, this or the novel version where a Starfleet crew is partially responsible for creating the Borg along with the Caeliar and a couple of Humans were the first Borg along with one Caeliar.
Klingons having cloaking devices? they didn't get those until the tech agreements that gave D7 tech to the romulans. the pulse phaser tech that everyone EXCEPT the Donnie has? if they refit the Crossfields with the spore drive (Assuming a refit based on the hull number) why would then not upgrade the weapons to the Constitution class armaments?
Sarek adopted a human and no mention of her in TOS? that was as unbelievable as Spock's oh by the way sybok is my half brother TRIBBLE. Ditto Picard's mom's suicide. they tried to explain the the vision of his mother in Were no one has gone before that that was total weaksauce. oh, and we spent all that time rummaging around in his mind and his brother was where???
I was ok with the enterprise until suddenly there are a hundred odd fighters defending it? and Kirk NEVER considered their use? how many times did we see the hangar deck in TOS? I can think of 3 at least, and there was no evidence of anything more than maybe 4 shuttles. I could write another two pages, but I'll stop (for now)
The writers seem to assume since the viewers are familiar with Seven’s assimilation and mind melds the characters regardless of their positionally would be aware of it. It makes these Star Trek standard plot lines sort of short hand sci-if jargon rather than rational science fiction solutions to problems. Sonic screwdriver magicbox solutions…
Also Picard is kinda like one big bottle episode. They are hanging around the château the whole time. Where are the space ships? Where are the phasers? On the other hand, Star Trek does need more car chases—and Picard certainly delivered on that front.
The other thing is that as original as Picard seems to be—it is largely based on very, very standard Star Trek tropes. Go to the present or near-present to save the future, dark timelines, talking your way out of trouble by recognizing the enemies humanity (thinly veiled morality tales masqueraded as science fiction.)
Very boldly going where the franchise seems to often go...
And the Queen knows about Seven because she's somehow temporally linked with EVERY possible Queen incarnation in the multiverse (which is nonsense in the extreme - almost as much as the Queen being talked into actually offering assimilation as a choice.).
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
>(which is nonsense in the extreme - almost as much as the Queen being talked into actually offering assimilation as a choice.).
I didn't like the first major rewrite of the Borg in the first place - the queen was a dumb idea to start with. But simply convincing her to atop assimilating people in a three minute dialogue is way beyond a cheap shot.
I liked PIC S2 rather well, Qs storyline is interesting and he had a very strong dialogue with young!Guinan recently. But the whole Borg story is really an unbearable mess at this point.
And Spiner served no purpose whatsoever this season...
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I'm glad i'm not the only one who thought the mere idea of a queen in the Borg was DUMB from the start.