How Star Trek changed, and why some fans hate it.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- Get your Vulcan / Klingon shirt here:
mixedtees.com/...
Available for a limited time in T-Shirts, Hoodies, and Tank Tops
Use Coupon: "ThePopcast" for 20% off!
Someone maliciously used the youtube copyright system to remove our last video, this is a re-edited version of the original video. Please like and watch the whole thing so we can show people that bullying youtubbers will not work.
SPECIAL thanks WAVEFORM, who let us use his Star Trek TOS Intro.
His work is amazing, subscribe to him here: / @waveformvfx
------------------------------------------------
SOCIALIZE:
TH-cam: / thepopcast
Twitter: / popcastguys
Instagram: / popcastguys
Facebook: / popcastguys
Reddit: / thepopcast
Tik Tok: / thepopcast
Discord: / discord
Amino: aminoapps.com/...
------------------------------------------------
LISTEN:
Anchor: anchor.fm/thep...
BitChute: bit.ly/2pIs8y5
Spotify: spoti.fi/2AFIry9
iTunes: apple.co/2Op6ARt
Soundcloud: / popcastguys
CastBox: bit.ly/2ALuRsR
Overcast: bit.ly/2Vols4h
Stitcher: bit.ly/2Ongdjy
------------------------------------------------
SUPPORT:
Patreon: / popcastguys
SubscribeStar: bit.ly/2Mf1ogl
Website: popcast.co
Merch: mixedtees.com/...
If you want to get a behind the scenes look at how we came up with this theory, support the channel.
------------------------------------------------
JOIN THE CONVERSATION:
Our Discord: / discord
Come join us on Discord for instant updates on the schedule, information on what's going, and chatting with Shane, Brian, and the rest of the crazy Popcast Family.
#StarTrek #StarTrekPicard #StarTrekDiscovery
If you think you are having Dejevu, you're not. A few of you saw this video before it was Maliciously struck down by a company abusing the TH-cam copywrite system. Since we don't have the Money to fight it, we re-edited the video and put it back up for you. We think it is even better this time and we really appreciate your support! Please like this video and watch the whole thing and let's send a message to these people that they can't bully us. Also please support the channel by purchasing this awesome Star Trek inspired design! mixedtees.com/vulcanklingon For 20% off coupon: THEPOPCAST
You have the voice of a narrator of a children's movie. Fantasy seems like the appropriate genre. Anyway this video was spot on. As someone who struggles to explain things in well worded sentences, you guys are doing me a huge favor on this.
I think you ought to reach out to Red Letter Media one of these days as they seem to be having trouble staying optimistic.
The Popcast copyright
first time seeing one of your videos... i think atleast in awhile... glad to see one...
Original Star Trek was more political than these ones consider it had one of the first interracial kisses. But the other series had more humour and light heart scenes, these new series do not. They are very dark in matter and visually. Orville which many trekkies like (not me though) is visually less dark and light heart scenes.
@@clanholmes yes it had politics ... but it didn't side exclusively with any political party, and it wad subtle.
I just miss that wide-eyed, optimistic humanism. Call it simplistic, naive, preachy, or whatever else you wish. I adore it.
I don't necessarily mind some deconstructed views of the Federation. Going back to TNG and even TOS, there were plenty of episodes where the antagonist was some other corrupt captain or admiral or judge, or some crazed Federation scientist or colony leader. Kirk and Picard may gave been the brightest shining examples of future humanity, but there were still plenty of human beings both in and out of Starfleet with a myriad of flaws. Harry Mudd was a criminal space pirate from TOS. The series may have focused on Kirk, but even Roddenberry's classic vision still produced both Kirk and Mudd as examples of future humanity. We'd like to think the future Federation has more Kirks than Mudds, but the Mudds existed, too. From the very beginning. So I, for one, don't mind some newer Trek series where they explore the gaping middle ground of humanity's between Kirk/Picard on one end and Mudd and the various other corrupt admirals or conmen on the other.
The Orville has that feel (also silliness lol). I love it.
Ah yes, "We're peaceful explorers. Fire photon torpedoes." Those were simpler, happier times. Mr Mistretta. Your agoniser, please,
I see people trying to act like the federation wasn't a peaceful and indeed a very shining example of the good in humanity.
Even though disruptors were generally a better weapon the federation opted to use phasers because they could double as a tool for a wide variety of situations.
The federation didn't even have a dedicated warship until the borg happened.
Sure there were plenty of instances of bad people in the federation. But you always knew that, no matter what, kirk or Picard or Janeway etc. would always do the best they could to uphold the starfleet principles.
@OldAgitator Humanism, not Alienism. 😃
You almost hit on a major issue, when you talked about original Trek's "subtle" commentary Star Trek always had progressive ideas but always presented them in with some subtlety and with focus on big ideas instead of beating people over the head with their message. Old trek asked deep questions for the audience to answer; new trek shouts answers to questions nobody asked.
"Shouting Answers To Questions Nobody Asked" pretty much sums up the 13th Doctor Who. I was willing to give a female Doctor a chance, but they blew it with the same shouty-preachy style. Maybe they're trying to be progressive, but they're DUUIN IT RONG, and giving the reactionary antiprogresive forces at play all kinds of ammunition. And lumping disappointed progressives into the same category as the worst misogynists because of a shared dislike for their product! I sometimes wonder which side these writers are really on.
@L1qu1d S1lenc3r the "Drumhead" did it better,
Old Trek sometimes presented progressive ideas with subtlety. We're all fans here, but this idealization of the past is wrong. There were episodes that presented allegories for the audience and challenged them to consider their ideas. Then there are episodes where Picard sanctimoniously pontificates to people about how his enlightened utopian society grew beyond capitalism.
@@animation1234111 Absolutely true. Star Trek was always very political and on the nose - even in the 1960s. The major difference is that the Federation and Starfleet were most of the time portrayed as the ultimate good guys, especially those we as the viewers followed on their adventures. DS9 got a lot of flag for deconstructing this image in its later seasons, and I'm one of these people who are not a big fan of how DS9's finale two seasons played out in the end despite them being amazing writing in of themselves. For me, new Trek, by continuing this trend of deconstructing the Federation, stripping away this idea of an utopia is kinda depressing. Star Trek was this fiction, this hope to hold onto, this picture that can never become truly real but that served as an inspiration to strive for and that is taken away now. This is at the very least what I, as a progressive, do not like about New Trek, especially Discovery.
But what buffles me is the number of right-wing conservatives who now claim to have been Star Trek fans but who dislike the new shows. Did they really never catch on to Star Trek as a franchise being opposed to what they believe in most of the time? And if they didn't then, what is it about the new shows that did? Was is really just the casting?
I think in a lot of modern message-driven narratives, it's also less "Here is our point, let's walk through the steps of how and why one might come to view things this way" than "Here is our point; all the 'good' characters already think this way, so we don't need to interrogate, investigate, or charm our way from point A to point B (and if a minor character thinks otherwise, he will be scolded and made a buffoon); if you didn't start out agreeing with our point, you must be a bad person." It's the social media bubble, now turned into script.
I don't have a problem with serialized story-telling. I have a problem with badly written shows.
So do I, which is why I hated Voyager so much...
Actually, serialized story-telling crippled my chance to write for Enterprise. I had written a script that was going to be submitted for season three, a sequel to a season one episode, but the producers had decided to abandon the stand-alone stories and go with a season-wide story arc. My script was shelved and that was it. BTW, my script had the USS Defiant (TOS Tholian Web) in it.
@@praeothmint2273 voyager is better than the new series though
True! I also have a problem with Star Trek writers joining the losers of Hollywood who can't write a compelling series without excessively graphic violence, nudity, hoplessness, and pessimism. Don't watch "new" Star Trek without first refilling your antidepressnt prescription.
I would say it is both of the problems in general, but Deep Space Nine had just a good lengthy story telling that it all worked. The type of stories they are trying to tell isn't as good as DS9. The Orville works, because it is the very heart of Trek. Where the current series seems to have lost that touch.
This video misses the most glaring divide: Old Trek had Heart. Yes, it was often accused of being 'boring' and 'preachy' with a lot of talking and philosophizing (especially TNG - which is also my favorite series), but it knew what it was and it was happy to spread that around the galaxy. Every Old Trek series was progressive and inclusive, but it was also anti-war and multicultural to a near extreme... for example, when DS9 finally ended the Dominion War, it did it with the optimism and hope that the Founders would one day come to be, if nothing else, at least friendly with the Solids they'd tried to enslave. It was naive, hopeful, unabashed flower-in-the-rifle optimism, and it was the emotional shower I needed to clean off the grime of modern life.
New Trek, on the other hand, is all flash and CGI and Angry Progress - and zero Heart. Even when it shows hope, it does so by setting dividing lines and determining what is Right and what is Wrong and declaring War on the Intolerant. From a cultural standpoint, I get it... it's the bitter, entrenched viewpoint of cultural minorities that have spent so long fighting for acknowledgment and equality that the hope of the past seems disgustingly naive in retrospect. The fact that four women sat and storyboarded Discovery doesn't surprise me - it has all the set-in bitterness and hatred for Yesterday's Emperor (i.e. cis-hetero white men) that is so prevalent on shows like the View. Whether that viewpoint is deserved or not (it mostly is, tbh), it gives New Trek an unfortunate bitter flavor that doesn't avoid war or hate conflict - nee, it seeks out conflict in the name of 'progress' and glorifies the destruction and chaos it leaves in its wake.
Old Trek didn't try to destroy history, civilization and corruption. It didn't try to burn down the past. It tried to incorporate it, to educate it, to enlighten us to the reality both of what we were and what we could be, warts and all. New Trek doesn't do that. It doesn't enlighten. It doesn't educate. It is Torquemada hunting down heretics and burning the Old City so as to build a Shiny New Utopia (in its own image) on the bodies of what came before it. It doesn't cleanse my soul or make me hopeful - it just makes me sad. And that, in the end, is the real reason Old Trek fans hate it - an episode of Star Trek should never make you feel worse about life than an afternoon on Facebook.
Old trek had faith....of the heart
It's not that it doesn't have heart, it's that it doesn't have _soul._ No wait... It has soul, but it really doesn't have any _heart..._
No wait... It has the heart, it has the soul, but Kurtzman doesn't have any _talent._
People hate it cause it's objectively bad.
Simple as that.
Current Star Trek, Pokemon, Star Wars and Doctor Who is
all a big Dumpster Fire. Yikes, really impressive.
Impressively bad, i say.
Oh, and let's not forget the not blood-related but definetly related issue
Netflix is currently having, with Cuties and all that.
Holy shit, that is the most concise, accurate take on Discovery vs everything that came before I have read. Well said. The first season at least, wasn't full of hope; it was full of bitter hate. Star Trek episodes have always embodied the idea of "this is what can be great," whereas Discovery is just "this is what is wrong, let's mercilessly destroy or marginalize it." You are right, it isn't feel good. It's just fantasizing about one group of people being victorious over another.
And unfortunately, with such a strong hateful message marring its opening season, I am not sure any changes will ever be able to remove that bitter feeling. It's like once someone has been such a colossal asshole to you, it's difficult to ever really feel great about them.
The Franchise is burning right now.
Someone mind to tell this to the creators?
Cause they sure dont know...
*Old Trek:* _Build a social commentary into the story._
*New Trek:* _Build a story around a social commentary._
Great summarized point. Roddenberry didn't have the budget in TOS to attract watchers with amazing special FX - he had to do it with compelling writing, but he did it without taking a side, but rather an unbiased look at what was developing in the world. But today's story writing has all the lens flares and FX to behold, with writers now more interested in ADVANCING the PC agendas. Star Trek was not about advancing an agenda, but tolerating different perspectives without ostracizing people.
Yes, this. Has all art and subtultitiy been lost in the 21st century? Quit trying to shove your current political views down the audience's collective throat.
this is brilliantly put.
@Rob Grier "quit trying to shove your current political views down [our throats]" you do realize star trek has always been pretty Overtly Political yes?
The New Picard defeats its own progressive message. Like 9-11, the destruction was a result of alien infiltration, that was then covered up by Political powers accumulated by the foreign alien invaders that secretly have only self interest without values for human-Star Fleet life.
One thing I hate about any franchise that detours from it's original path is when the show runners use the excuse "It wasn't made for you". Well then who was it made for? People who never saw the franchise before? If so just make a different franchise. No need to ruin something people liked. It's like walking into our house and taking a crap on the carpet then claiming it's not my house anymore. Get your own house.
Bingo. "We need to appeal to the wider audience"... at the expense of the people that got you where you are. And the truth is, if the wider audience gave a shit they'd already be there.
Exactly... those are WORST kind of people they do something bad and when you politely ask them what they are doing, they attack you in most insane way telling you its all your fault and that you are the bad person... exactly same psycho mentality.
Facts
100% truth GET YOUR OWN HOUSE!
The fact is that Enterprise showed the old generation wasn't interested in the old formula anymore. TV style and taste has moved on since then. The style of Discovery and Picard reflects what the modern aesthetic is, and if they tried to make a show like the old one, some old people would watch it, but not enough to justify the production. Whether you like it or not, all artistic traditions, especially dramatic conventions, change through time and reflect a relationship between the creators and the audience. When the audience and creators change through time, don't be shocked when formats change. You're welcome to criticize and dislike what you find, but don't pretend this is a sacred violation of what a long-running franchise is 'supposed' to be about.
I'll tell you where the divide is...
"Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!"
This was the promise and new trek does not deliver on it.
new trek does not explore strange new worlds
new trek does not seek out new life and new civilizations
new trek does not boldly go where no man has gone before
Enterprise is about a a species at war with itself dragging the rest of the galaxy into it
The reboot movies are about the federation at war with itself
Discovery is about the klingon wars
Picard is about the borg wars
New trek isn't star trek it's star wars
Good point. I think that in that line of thinking, Voyager fits the bill much better than both Kirk's and Picard's Enterprises. TNG had the Enterprise on errands all over the place transportinig dignataries and going on conventions and visiting colonies. That's not where no man has gone before.. men went there before the Enterprise. TOS also had its share of weird errands. But Voyager was really where no man has gone before. That's what I like most about VOY. ENT was also not that bad. There was a fair share of weirdness about that temporal cold war and those aliens trying to destroy the Earth, but they had some very cool episodes about exploring. I particularly liked the mirror universe episode that connects to TOS the Tholian Web.
@@burieddreamer Yeah I could watch the enterprise series and even the reboot movies because they kept a bare minimum of the exploration but a new planet every episode or every couple of episodes interrupts the over arching narrative. Even though it is actually possible to have both we won't ever be seeing exploration in startrek again unless one of the die hard fans gets rich enough to buy the franchise.
I've plans for if that was me. Specifically I've got plans that would finally merge new and old trek together.
Good point until the last few sentences
Your comment sounds very much like someone who didn't actually watch the work they are criticizing. for one thing the Enterprise series explored the crap out of the Star trek universe taking a deep dive into several races. It also introduced several new cultures including the future federation.
Your comment was nothing but nostalgia.
I agree. Plus fundamentally, CBS wanted to use the loyalty of existing Star Trek fans to pay for their new show. So don't criticise them, listen to what they want. Innovate yes. But instead they gave them anything but star trek. And the 'new' fan base just isn't paying in big enough numbers. The first season of STD put me off. Watched few episodes of season 2. Then I stopped. Too woke, too man hating, too non Canon, and just a bleak future without hope, without humanity struggling to be better... There are plenty of free shows who do all that. STD is not star trek. Neither is Picard.
New Trek is something I can no longer watch with my kids. I loved talking through the moral lessons of TNG and Voyager with them. Now, I can't even avoid f bombs to do so. It's tough to find good (relatively) family friendly TV, but Trek was always an option.
The moment that 'nu-trek' stepped away from the idea that the future is supposed to be better, that WE, as People, are supposed to be Better, More Civilized, and more Optimally Ethical, with interesting and thoughtful and well written stories, and characters, it stopped being 'Proper Star Trek'.
@@jamesthomas7670 The Truth, if ever there was such.
That's super difficult to disagree with. So I agree. I do still like parts of DSC but that optimism isn't there and I miss it. It's why I love Star Trek.
The future can't become better unless people become better. The same scientists that developed rockets for the Nazis also developed rockets to get people into space for the first time. Use the power for good or for destruction, ultimately the choice is up to people.
I agree. I mean, DS9 tried to show a more pessimistic vision of the future, but its characters where still portrayed as trying their best to be better DESPITE not living in paradise and not always succeeding. As Sisko said: "it is easy to be a saint in paradise"...this is why DS9 is loved despite its darker tone. This doesn't seem to be the case with new Trek.
Part of your argument is something that i was thinking when i was comparing old Trek vs new Trek, and maybe it is not a valid position. Saying WE as People assumes that everybody who is not Human is not People - so Vulkans, Klingons, Romulans, even Borg are not People, because all those others i don't recall were completely More Civilized, Optimally Ethical, Better, right? And maybe what new Trek does is just bring that Us vs Them down to the level of the Federation itself, which then could be interpreted that now WE as People means all of the civilizations in the universe, and then spreads all the good and the bad across all. The good and the bad was, after all, present at all times. And to be clear, i am not discussing the stories and the character building - and even there, one could argue that the older series had more time to build up all the characters compared to a single season of Picard, and thus more opportunity for subtle innuendos, clever plots and twists, etc. etc.
I think the biggest complaints are not the serialized storytelling. It's honestly the bad writing/characterization/lack of a Utopian vision that makes it no different from other grittier shows that do that sort of thing better. Star trek has this aura of hope(even ds9 had this) that is missing from the newer series.
People are cool with serialized stories, lots of trek fans are(i'd even say a majority are fine with it). It's honestly the quality. And calling fans racists/sexist/xenophobic when trekkies are some of the most diverse fans on earth is asinine and insulting(in regards to the media/writers of the show).
Absolutely - Discovery is a dystopian chore - Picard to a lesser degree but still dismal and jarring. There's audiences for that kind of storytelling and I bet they like Discovery and Picard very much - but I'm a trekky.. I'm a geek, I love the escapism, the awe - and how it made me a better person for thinking that we really could be that noble one day. Deep, thought provoking science fiction - the irony?! the bitter irony is that Picard, is based upon 'Measure of a Man' - one of the finest episodes of the next generation by far - how could they look at that, see that it was so amazing - then do the exact opposite? that's not creativity - that's just subverting expectations.
It's that part
Very well said. I actually LIKED the serial components of ST:E (liked the entire series, actually, except for the finale and the theme song).
For me, with ST:D, it was not only the absence of, hmmm... the aura of hope, but also the sense of humor Trek had. Things like Worf saying "I object. I am NOT a merry man" or 100 different lines from Data ("Life forms... you tiny little life forms... you precious little life forms... where are you?") or Scottie asking for permission to beam tribbles onto the Klingon ship. It's just not there. It wasn't there in the Abrams movies, and it wasn't there in ST:D.
Add to all of that the absolute sh*t continuity and discarding of Star Trek canon, and this guy just can't stomach it.
Yes and no, one of the issues on both shows is that their serialization is drug out to long. Their plots could be covered half or even a 3rd the number of episodes. Serialization works mainly is the shows still embody a micro plot that is handled in each episode and that micro plot fits like a puzzle piece into a larger serial plot.
Think of episodes of a serial show as chapters in a book, each chapter should have it's own plot. Introduction, assessment, action, reaction, payoff, and setup for next chapter. Thus the reader is brought into the book, or chapter, given the characters assessment and actions, then the result of those actions, the characters acting on the results, the furthering of the plot, and then a bit of something to make them want to read the next chapter. Both Picard and ST:D don't do that, they lack the micro plot in many episodes and just focus on the main plot but feel like they are spinning tires in the mud of their politics.
I think had they wanted the dystopian show they could have done it, and we would have enjoyed it, had it been a mirror universe show. Even better one that ends with that crew being brought over the the prime universe, and then from there being rehabilitated into actual federation members. Yet again, missed opportunities. For most fans star trek is what we can be, and it did that well. Newer Trek feels like it is saying "No we could have had that if not for these people." Then followed by the casting of undesired politics as the bad guy. Thus the argument of removing politics as the focus of entertainment, you can have your message and even put it out there subtly, but don't shove it down peoples throat.
STD and Picard are Republicans style of Star Trek. I hate calling Republicans conservatives. Because they are nothing like true conservatives. Today's Republicans is the combination of people lying to themselves for 4 centuries. Which is the main theme to both Star Trek Discovery and Picard. Today's Republicans could never reach the harmonious ideologies of the previous Star Trek. Question: How can you reach an objective truth lying to yourself constantly?
If you look up who likes STD between Liberals and Conservatives. You wil find that Conservatives love STD. While liberals like myself cannot stand STD. The rewriting Star Trek history is a bridge to far. Make your own conservative sci fi series. Let liberals keep our own vision of the future to ourselves.
I'm an "old" Trek Fan even if I'm only 43 ... TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT .. I have the dvds & BR as well as the TOS + TNG Movies. I can watch them again & again with pleasure .... and BTW am I the only one to think that DS9 & Babylon 5 could be sisters series ? I loved both as much.
but I do not connect with Discovery .. sorry .. I cannot explain exactly why but for me the "heart & spirit" are missing.
For me "The Orville" is more the real Star Trek Spirit & I really enjoy to watch this serie !
I would be terrified to see a remake of Babylon 5. It would absolutely be trashed with wokeness.
"I was there at the dawn of the third age of peoplekind. It began in the feminist year 2257, with the founding of the first of millions of the woke re-education stations, located deep in white male heterosexual free space. It was a safe space for lesbians, gays, people of color, feminists . . . and LGBTQRSUVWXYZ from a hundred worlds....."
@@voltairedecent255 yeah ... the same for me. No reboot for B5 .. or they'll kill the original..
it's like Charmed .. or even Buffy ...
LadyArachnea wait...they rebooted Buffy?
LadyArachnea oh, on a side note, Paramount ripped DS 9 off of B5. JMS sued Paramount for that and won in a settlement.
@@voltairedecent255 : there are lots of Rumors going on .. especially with a blakc actress to play Buffy ...
They already crushed Charmed ...
The real problem is that so called nu-trek (STDisco to be clear) is morally bankrupt. The first season left me wanting to grab a phaser and vaporize the entire cast. The second season exasperated that feeling that I metaphorically did it by stopping watching. As schizophrenic as voyagers first two seasons were there was still a feeling that they wanted to get things right.
Disco needs to be stricken from canon
Do you mean "The second season exacerbated", etc.? I wish to understand what you are trying to say.
And yes, from JJ on, this oily, poisonous cynicism is not merely "not canon", it is not even Star Trek!
It never was canon! It's about pushing agendas
STD IS STD IN SPACE it is a gay porn in space 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
Agreed, it's by and large a thoroughly unlikable cast. It's a black hearted show.
WHen the showrunner isn't a fan of StarTrek, how can you expect this to be good?
Isn't the overall main plot/existential threat from the third filmed episode of TOS? A threat and conflict that kept being revisited in every series since.
Seems pretty consistent to me.
@@STho205 Star trek is an optimistic episodic adventure, this is a piece of garbage.
Or maybe you expected it to be bad because the showrunner was not part of your club.
@@niicommey4117 k
@@Ins0mnia365 Yeah, its how confirmation bias works.
Old Trek made us think. New Trek try to tell us what to think.
yup
exactly!!!
agree
Damn your right.
What does New Trek tell you to think? I'm genuinely interested.
I didn’t leave Star Trek, Star Trek left me.
Brad Viviviyal Oh how original and creative, just like the new series. Instead you have to try to be offensive to prove your value. I am sure you are just a periphery fan thrilled that somehow you now feel justified because you are being “represented”, and I am sincerely happy for you. To me Star Trek used to have stories which allowed the viewers to think and come to their own conclusions instead of being forced feed. I am taking you prefer the new format. Like I said, Trek left me and from your low browed response I am sure you fit in well with their new fan base they are perusing.
I agree
Just watch the old episodes then and stop pouting.
Matt Alleman bawhahaha, junky
daniel alfieri we used to be called Trekkies.
8:26 Old Trek is everything before the Kelvin movies reboots.
Old Trek was about exploration of new worlds and endless possibilities.
New Trek is about spectacle over substance, wars over space and territory.
New Trek: The new mission; to explore strange new wallets. To seek out new money and new currencies. To boldly take money where no money was taken before!
Beyond feels kinda old-trek-y by those standards...
@@Leon-wz1js ST:D: And ignoring EVERYTHING that was canon because the makers are to lazy to do the research for it. Because they shoved Deus Ex Burnam right into the viewers throats and pushed her into their stomachs and stated that the audience HAVE TO LOVE HER.
@@Anthyrion truer words...
Yeah, new trek is about giving people enough dopamine that they don't switch to something else
Discovery - "First female captain"...
Janeway - "Am I a Joke to you?"
there were female captains in TNG
@@tgdelta heck, there were female admirals in TNG
@@tgdelta there was a Female Captain in the Voyage Home.
DSC, the first female lead, not Captain. Of course they are still wrong :-)
People hate it cause it's objectively bad.
Simple as that.
Current Star Trek, Pokemon, Star Wars and Doctor Who is
all a big Dumpster Fire. Yikes, really impressive.
Impressively bad, i say.
Oh, and let's not forget the not blood-related but definetly related issue
Netflix is currently having, with Cuties and all that.
Whenever I watch new Star Trek I always come away feeling empty. It's just a soulless creation to me and I have no interest in it.
Try the original series. It's got more soul than the others.
Give the Orville a try
Star Trek was always about entertainment first and the social message was a subtle secondary thing. Today its the other way around. It's about preachiness to your face, almost bordering on social activism and that's a turn off. It's particularly disturbing because CBS is asking you to pay for it too! Ironically the people at Star Trek should watch The Orville.Seth McFarlane seem's to have captured the spirit of Star Trek better than the Star Trek people have.
@@JOECANDELA22 The Orville is an amazing show. Really brings me back to TNG. They nailed it.
Really?! Even the 60th series? I do not believe it.
"It's TV, don't take it so seriously"
Clearly anyone who says that knows absolutely nothing about the fandom, conventions, or people who LARP Star Trek. Old Star Trek's egalitarian message for all (and that includes heterosexual white men, as well as those who are short, tall, fat, skinny, pretty, ugly, gay, straight, etc...) has been a rallying cry for geeks and nerds of all walks of life. New Trek just doesn't get it.
agreed. CBS wants fans to spend thousands of dollars on merchandise on trek again like they used to-- the ONLY way that can happen, is if the fans "take this VERY seriously", which requires the show runners and writers to take the fans and the continuation and strengthening of the existing canon seriously. CBS/Paramount dropped the ball and missed the point at the same time.
Any time a show says that it doesn't care about the old fans, that is the same as starting a completely new show that nobody cares about from zero. It is so obviously counterproductive, that it is mind boggling that it is still happening, and causing billion dollar franchises to fail without any course correction.
@Angel Arch It makes no sense from a business point of view either. You *want* people to buy your merch. The target should be all the existing fans you already have. The goodwill the previous series cultivated means that any show you make that is targeted towards the majority of those people will make you money. Instead they decide to target the minority to cultivate “new” fans, throwing away more than 40 years worth of goodwill, insulting the people who made the past series popular. Then blaming the very people you want to sell your products to for not falling in love with something that has very little connection to the past series and insults them. The people who do buy the merch are a very small minority, the woke target market don’t even want to buy Trek merch and just like to rally behind a woke cause spiritually and not financially. The results speak for themselves. The value of Star Wars, and Star Trek just drop like a rock to the bottom of a lake. All that hard work the past producers and show runners did in winning fans over, lost in the blink of an eye. It took decades for Trek to become what it was, and only a year or two to destroy it.
It would be like Six Flags removing all the popular big coasters/rides and replacing them with small children sized ones not meant for adults, with the intent on subverting customers expectation. “Oh those big coasters you enjoyed in the past? Yea, they don’t matter anymore, learn to live with what we have for you now. Don’t like it go somewhere else. You are crazy for taking the previous rides seriously, its just a park relax. The park has evolved, it is not for you anymore, let a new generation of six flag fans enjoy a park made for them.” They then question why park attendance drops drastically. “I blame the old fans for not coming to the park, they just have a thing against children’s rides. Something is obviously wrong with them and not the park itself. The majority of people we see here like the park. I don’t know where all the hate is coming from.” It is so obvious to everyone but the people in charge, what is wrong is clearly a direct result of what is produced and given to fans.
Ummmm... Yeah this comment, particuarly with a ❤ next to it, really tells me all I need to know about tbis channel. Persecution complex much?
@@angelarch5352You think they're going to take criticisms seriously from communities that rally around declarations of white, heterosexual 'exclusion'?
@@theshadowdirector Not from me. I'm as far from someone with a victimhood complex as they get. I was simply commenting on those who would say "don't take it so seriously, it's a TV show" and how ignorant they would be to say that given the passion Old Star Trek's fans have displayed over the prior 5 decades.
Old Trek gave us good feelings and a cohesive (for the most part) canon that expanded characters and the universe. New Trek gives us the bad stomach ache that wont end.
Well, Deep Space Nine was largely an episodic series but it incorporated the dominion storyline throughout it's run very cleverly, the storyline started as early as season 2 but only mentioned by name until the season 2 finale we actually get to see more of them in the Jem Hader but it was never the main focused of the show, DS9 is evident of how doing a long term storyline the right way.
They still did the episodic shows but then when it was the right time it explored more of the Dominion and still gave more answers but left us with more questions
in fact, DS9 gave us the ending of the entire series in the 4th season just by one bit of dialogue by a Bajoran Vedek
DS9 😍 when I'm stressed I put it on and the world and it's problems disappear .... My favorite Trek
@@kabirh3626 I've said before that DS9 is my favourite Trek. (My gf who isn't much of nerd even loves it.) That said, I think it's too much of an apple-orange situation with the different series to rank them definitively.
I am watching Enterprise right now for the first time, and for the weakest Start Trek series pre DISCO, it certainly is more enjoyable than New Trek. It's not even close.
Porthos peeing on the sacred tree is hilarious. Archer threatening to whiz on that tree rather than apologize is classic.
I liked Enterprise a lot. More than Voyager or DS9.
@@JC-jt8vw LOL That animated series! The life support/environmental belts?!
That show would have run seven seasons at least were it not for that aweful out of place theme song I swear to god. It's really not bad for trek, I'll even forgive the quantum creep dude. I only started watching that series when it was possible to skip the intro. I have an almost visceral / physical response to that song, I fucking hate is so much.
I'm also watching Enterprise right now and I'm enjoying it. Apart from the cheesy opening theme, I don't understand why it's so underrated.
After watching Discovery and Picard, I'm currently in the process of re-watching DS9 (thanks to Netflix) - and it appeared to me, that the main difference between old and new trek is idealism. Every character on DS9 is an idealist - even Odo, Quark or Garak (they just follow their own ideals). Even clear enemies (like Gul Dukat, Kai Winn or the Founders) were idealists.
On Discovery NOBODY is an idealist. On Picard, the situation is a little bit better (Jean-Luc itself, Elnor, 7 of 9 show some idealism) but most of the other characters are just drowning in their selfish problems.
I also clearly observed, that the writing is a LOT better in DS9. In those old series there are wonderful dialogs and one liners all over the episodes. All minor characters in DS9 are simply great. I wonder if this apparent loss of quality is a consequence of the writers strike...
CoasterCouch great analysis and comparisons 🖖🏻
Here's the thing. I'm the perfect audience for JJ Trek/Disco. I was born in the late 90s. Didn't know anything about Trek until I saw the 2009 film. Initial reaction was, "It's ok. It's another Sci-Fi film with a lot of action and difficult to understand words". I was interested by an alternate version of this Spock guy, played by somebody called Leonard Nimoy?? So I went back and watched TOS, TNG, DS9. And I was way more impressed than JJ Trek. Generally, I'd say Trek is about the human element more than anything else (At least at its best). So you'll believe me when I say that Alex Kurtzman is running Star Trek into the ground. Don't get me wrong, he's a fan. But he's a fan who like Trek without really understanding why they work. Oh sure, he might drop a prepared sound bite or two but, when you watch the work itself, it becomes depressingly clear. Any TNG or DS9 that had "Ronald D Moore" in the writing credit, was very good (at the worst). At this point, unless CBS greenlights a new show run ENTIRELY by him (and maybe Ira Steven Behr), I might stop watching NuTrek.
@@judeisurufernando674 I totally agree. I also loved what Ronald D. Moore did with Battlestar Galactica.
@@coastercouch4079 One of the most useful things about episodic shows like TNG is that you come to appreciate a small story executed well. BSG had that in spades. Oh, sure there are ships and space battles but, in the end, it's about the people. I still remember the first episode "33" where the Cylons have been jumping to the fleet's location every 33 minutes. People keep dying and it's conveyed through a very simple visual. A number on a board. When you see that survivor count slowly decrease and decrease and Laura Roslin and everybody else realizes the gravity of the situation. At the very end of the episode, a baby is born. Laura increases the number by one. And they all have a glimmer of hope. So simple and yet so powerful. STD does not have that kind of earnest storytelling. It's just grimdark for the sake of being grim.
I SO MUCH miss DC Fontana's touch on things...
Count me as to one who absolutely hates the "New" Trek. I started watching Discovery and can't stand it. So much so, that I went out and bought Enterprise on DVD [to refresh my memory as to being as bad or not], and after watching, is a breath of fresh air.
been watching Enterprise for the first time recently and honestly it's not as bad as I had been led to believe. Not quite up to TNG/DS9/VOY quality to be sure
There’s nothing like watching Discovery to make you realise how good ENT was.
One thing that alot of people miss about Star Trek, part of the magic that has made it iconic for over 50 years. Fans of nu-trek look at classic trek and call it boring and too cerebral. Alien races are two dementionsl and flat. That Star Trek needed more action to make it appealing to a new generation.
For generations people have seen Trek as an adventure series about the exploration of outerspace, but in reality Star Trek was never about outer space, but was in fact about inner space. Each alien race was two dementionsl because each race was the personification of a portion of the human psych, whether it be aggression, greed, diseption, arrogance, racism, fear, and each episode explored the inner conflict to overcome those issues. In "Day of the Dove" Kirk and the crew could have easily dealt with the attacking Kilngons with violence, but to do so would have been to spend eternity in a never ending spiral of aggression, but instead of succumbing to the dark side they saw the situation for what it was. In "Encounter at Farpoint" Q was testing humanity to see if they had achieved the maturity to venture farther into space. Pichard resolved the situation peacefully thus passing Q's first test. If Pichard had dealt with the situation the way they would have in nu-trek he would have failed miserably.
Star Trek was never really about exploring outer space it's always been about exploring inner space to "Boldly go where no one has gone before"... into each person's inner thoughts.
I never liked Q as I consider him too powerful as a cheap writing device. However, I am sort of hoping that he can show up and snap his fingers and make all this god awful new trek disappear and never happened lol. (Yes I know Q has a very large fan base;)
"cerebral" :) Thats funny.
that's true..but do we NEED that today?
back then we NEEDED that because people weren't talking to each other about such issues as much. But after The Next Generation, things started to change. WE changed. We didn't need a show to slap us in the face with subtlety.
However, we ARE ignoring other things. Reality of emotions or things we SHOULD be able to just roll off.
Well, that was the specialty about Star Trek: It was high brow, smart and with depth, a universe ruled by reason and curiousity and nobleness of the human spirit, while all other scifi was low brow and dumbed down to please the majority (of dumb viewers) and cynical, soapy (everybody at everybody else's throat, intrigues and infighting, dumb people all around and anger against the smart people: I was shocked, when I heard in one early episode of Discovery "you think you are so smart? Taking so smart! You think you are better than me because of it???" This is something that you would have never heard in a real Star Trek episode, where smart was sexy and everybody wanted to be as smart as possible and being dumb and uneducated was embarrassing and to be avoided. What happened? Is the movie Idiocracy coming true? How come everybody seems to become dumber and dumber? If our planet will sink into war and disease and destruction, it will be because all leaders and people in power will be incredibly dumb and dim people, with no vision and people that destroy all education, because nobody should be smarter than them and of course, ruling the dumb masses is the easiest thing. A democracy is only as good as its citizens. Dumb people don't question the leaders and don't hold them accountable. A dumb people's president is a dictator.
@@angelarch5352 I could take Q or leave him personally, but as a writing device, he's leaps and bounds ahead of what "Picard" uses... The Power of coincidence... They just happen to be building the whole rescue fleet at one shipyard, when the Federation spans Over 150 planets, The entire rescue fleet just happens to be hanging in orbit over Mars when the attack starts. It just so happens that Pichard hires a ship from someone who just happened to have had some connection with the situation. Soji just happens to fall through the ceiling in front of the two people looking for her at the moment they walk by (on a spaceship that's 3 freakin' kilometers across!!!). Pichard and Soji walk into a machine that can transport you pretty much anywhere, and they just happen to plop into Rikers back yard.The Rikers just happen to have lost a son to an illness that could have been cured if not for the synth ban. 7 of 9 pops up to save the day just in a nick of time... twice! ... I could go on but you get the idea.
There is an old theory, "That you could put a thousand monkeys in a room with a thousand typewriters and given enough time the could recreate the collected works of Shakespeare... I think you could put one monkey in a dark closet with a box of crayons and he could recreate the "Pichard" script before lunch.
Disregard for life, glorification of violence, a Federation acting like the oppressors of the universe, gross interjection of cursing and worse, old characters like Picard treated like dirt, completely illogical plot contrivances, disregard for established lore, and a host of other reasons are why this current Trek is drek. In short, Picard and Discovery offer no hope and a bumbling, manic showing of the utopia-like future that Trek once was. Yes, The Next Generation and onward were right to say there is never going to be a complete utopia and characters still need conflicts and drama. This is the other end of the spectrum and it's completely badly done and insulting, to boot.
uhhhh thats a no? and discovery made the conflicts real and with true grit, the old series as much as i love em Voyager being my favourite, everything felt fake and not a real universe, no earth conflict/
? fuck off
well said
Cursing magically disappeared in the Trek universe because of broadcast standards, and unsurprisingly reappears on cable. Reality is hard sometimes, and for those times when it becomes too hard there is always broadcast TV or Disnet+.
It's like the show is liberal now
Basically its drifting far from what Gene envisaged and he would have hated it
As an 8 year old kid I remember watching Voyager and TNG and going to bed each Friday night satisfied that I had learnt something from Trek about the world in a story told in such a creative stage of the alpha or delta quadrant. For me that's Trek.
Exactly. Who wants to go to bed each night feeling hopeful and encouraged, filled with a desire to wake up tomorrow projecting kindness respect, and love? Oh... I do! Discontinuing CBS All-Access this month.
I love "old Trek" and I loved the non-serial method of storytelling. Having said that, I also love some serialization in storytelling. I loved it when Roger C. Carmel reprised his role as Harry Mudd. It was a treat for fans. I want to see the Trek that has a purpose. A Trek that embodies hope, honor, loyalty, friendship, humility and humor. There was so much about the original crew that I quickly grew to love. They were loyal beyond words and even if they made human mistakes they took the lesson to heart and strived to do better. I enjoyed the constant nattering of McCoy and Spock with Kirk in between them. The wit of Spock's comments to both of his friend's teasing. It wasn't overplayed, it was played just right. The three were a great triumvirate with McCoy being the heart and Spock being the logic/reason. The chemistry between the crew was so incredible. Next Gen eventually settled into a very good show but the first 3 seasons were a bit rocky. I would like to see more of the morality plays that the original ST writers brought to the screen and less of the PC, LBGQT agenda. I despise the removal of strong male characters of any race and replacement with strong female characters if it is done en mass and I am a woman. Give the majority of fans what they want (original, TNG Trek) and they will flock to viewership
Can we just admit that the new writers are hacks who cannot write self contained stories, not even 12 per season? TNG was 24 to 26 episodes per season.
That can't even keep true to their own stories in the same episode...noticed this multiple times.
it is't even that hard to do. you just have to think of a cool idea and explore it. here are 7 episode ideas for free.
1. an away team is stranded on a Forrest planet with foliage so thick that the whole planet is shrouded in darkness.
2. a ship is burred inside an inhabited planet and our heroes must find a way to rescue it's crew without harming the local inhabitants.
3. the main characters are transported to the future and are faced with a moral dilemma as returning to their own time would see this future and its people erased from history.
4. the ship travels to a universe made of antimatter however they cant exist in this universe for long and must find a way back before the ship and this new universe are destroyed forever.
5. our crew discovers a seemingly abandoned ship but upon going there they discover it may not be as abandoned as they once thought.
6. our crew are tasked with transporting a dangerous criminal across the galaxy but as they go they are sieged by people who would rather see this prisoner walk free.
7. an away team is sent to set up diplomatic ties with a planet only to discover it is ruled by a despot who would much rather have them killed
Oh sure, but TNG was 90% shit filler punctuated by some brilliant episodes we all remember. They weren't brilliant writers, if you want a good story you need to take the pen and paper away from actors and directors and give it to an author instead. For example Game of thrones was good until they ran out of material, then it went straight into the dumpster. Actors and directors are driven fundamentally by what they think would be "cool" moments to film, it's rare that leads to quality storytelling. I'm sure there is some highly regarded finished star trek book out there they could do.
I am sure that money has a lot to do with it too. Compare the salaries of the actors from the older Trek shows to those of the new, and you'll probably not be surprised to find a huge difference. The effects also cost more money. It all comes down to money. It is cheaper to write a 12 episode serial, than to write 24 self contained epsiodes in the current economy.
Now, I personally believe that if you write a good story it will gain fans...but that is the problem, I personally don't like the story of Discovery or the new Picard, others do and that is okay...I just wish they'd come up with a balance between the two in order to reunite the fans.
There were some REALLY bad TNG and TOS episodes. Every old head wants to pretend that every episode made from TOS and TNG was great. The first season of TNG, in particular, was and still is HARD to watch.
For a show called discovery, they do very little "discovering". There was more discovery on DS9 and they were freakin stationary!
It was self discovery. A character study of The Heroes Journey, like the Luke Skywalker saga. She was not what she assumed herself to be, but she was the key to fate. Like her or hate her, that's what the show was about.
Kirk was the confident hero in the first frame, as was Pike. Same for Picard in his hammy opening soliloquy scene on TNG and martinette character the first two years. Same for Janeway and Archer. Only Sisco had to work into his role, given a shitty desk job after losing his ship and wife in the Borg war.
in other words since its not the white guy saving the day, start finding excuses on why the show sucks *PATHETIC!!!*
@ STho - the problem was the way they set Burnham up couldn't have been worse. Watching her undermine the ship's science officer then assault her CO in a half baked mutiny in the 1st hour of her on screen was not a good setup. Making her a part of Spock's family was an unearned way of making her look superior to an established character. If they had set her up as her own person, and had her trying to save a dying ship after the co is killed in action - they could have someone a lot more fans could buy into. As it is a lot of them (myself included) can't stand the sight of her and think she should be in jail. I don't have a problem with her colour or sex - I would just prefer a more likeable character. She is written as too much of a Mary Sue.
@@txrwauy yeah and Hamlet was an idiot. Play should have ended five minutes after meeting Dad's ghost.
Some people like such meandering characters and some people like the cowboy in the white hat that sets wrongs right.
High Ho Silver!
@Tom Guadalupe more like the 🖕🏽🖕🏽🖕🏽🖕🏽to *ANGRY* insecure white men
I'm not a prude by any means, but it really takes me out of the story when I hear Star Trek characters dropping F Bombs.
Especially when it was a plot point in the most popular star trek movie that they didn't swear, and had to relearn the art, and weren't good at it.
@@BrettCaton ahh yes..."colorful metaphors"!
@@unconbentional2044 Keep remembering my mother, and elementary school teacher, when I swear. "There's a whole dictionary of words you can use to express your feelings and ideas, stop using the poorest ones!" (mind you, she swears, but only in extreme cases). Because that was the point of ST all along: a future where we are finally civilised enough to use the full force of our intelectual capacity, language included, without reckless shortcuts.
I think they should have come up with new curse words: How did our dirty words from now extend 200-300 years into the future?
But, then it would not have carried the same punch, which seems to be what they were looking for.
@@adamross2256 Suspension of disbelief, they also speak recognisable english.
The word "fuck" is 400 years old. The phrase "don't give a fuck" is 200 years old. Swear words can stick around for a long time.
Star Trek started in the 60s at a time when our nation was entrenched in Vietnam, had social, economic and racial unrest. Star Trek showed a future where man had conquered all of its demons and had created an intergalactic government of countless different species that all lived in harmony. It was something to strive for. Now there is no message of hope, no message of overcoming, just badly written stories that are being turned out by people who know nothing about what Star Trek is, and until they come back to the original message, the new shows will continue to fail, and that includes the new Picard series!
@Manek Iridius That's your opinion, it does not happen to be mine.
@Manek Iridius ...and? Did the TOS and TNG treat the klingon/ussr badly? Or did the startrek captain and teams have dialogue and see their p.o.v?. And that is bad, how?
People hate it cause it's objectively bad.
Simple as that.
Current Star Trek, Pokemon, Star Wars and Doctor Who is
all a big Dumpster Fire. Yikes, really impressive.
Impressively bad, i say.
Oh, and let's not forget the not blood-related but definetly related issue
Netflix is currently having, with Cuties and all that.
Completely agree. People want Hope, not this horribly dark sci-fi.
New Star Trek has made me truly appreciate and admire the Trek that came before and recognize how truly timeless it is to watch years afterward.
There was a scene from TNG Unification with Picard manipulating the Klingons into doing him a favor while they tried to ignore him. THIS is the Picard fans remember. The badass negotiator. The leader. Not this sad sack that hangs out with trash.
Exactly.
Well, I wouldn't call the new "crew" trash, just the other groups of people in the Federation that aren't usually highlighted. There WERE good stories that could have been told there, but since hostility towards Picard is literally there every episode, one gets the distinct impression you are being told something not so subtle for you to consume (and pay for, I might add as well). This commentary video might have said that there was a certain perspective that "certain fans" had, but it ignores the fact that the entire show was pushing a narrative against an entire gender and race of people, not just "hinting" at it, and wasn't even good at doing that. There WAS a hostility in both Disco and STP towards straight white men, and it was only when it started to become a major issue that Pike was even flouted as a "there, now you lot can't complain",even though the backlash against the show was largely created by pushback against toxic marketing and some comments made by people within the shows themselves. These feelings of distrust didn't spring up magically overnight, it was disappointment time after time of quality lacking by a franchise who set the bar high itself in storytelling and framing of issues. The fans are not wrong for expecting the same kind of quality that an old show in the franchise had to be continued in new(er) shows. B'lanna never trashed Tom non-stop for the entire run of Voyager, Picard didn't belittle and humiliate Data or Worf or Geordi, and other setups as well. Nobody signed up for MurderTrek, and while having a more grim representation could have been better handled (as in not everyone in the Federation had a good life), nobody wanted a Mirror Universe setup as the Prime Universe. If the Prime is so dark, what's left for the Mirror Universe in any case? :/
That scene is epic and kicks all kind of ass. (but mostly Klingon) :D
It came out a few days ago that the ST:Picard plan all along was to degrade and humiliate Picard because has was a white male. They specifically said that. Also, it looks like Patrick Stewart was aware of that, and he either didn't mind or he kept his mouth shut to avoid having his character killed off.
the new series was good picard ended up saving the day I mean the dude is how old what kind of action do you except from him people forgot just how good picard was at getting the job done and he showed he still had it
Discovery: the problem is not "old Trek/new Trek." The problem is that these are bad stories about fundamentally unlikeable people that make no sense.
No they made the Federation a dirt bag organization
No they made the Federation a dirt bag organization
@@tnickknight in other words: fundamentally unlikeable.
@@tnickknight yes cause the federation has alway been fantastic and no admiral has been a bad guy ever
have you watched it all. discovery has problems, but your dream startrek. i grow up on kirk. hes a mans man. likes the ladys. a great captain. there is no one better. problems with kirks show, inconstant weapons and such. the ship destroys other ships without even trying. not alot of action. acting was so cringe. like over the top. but i enjoyed him and the rest of the gang. this is why ive seen all the startreks and can enjoy them. there not my startrek but each one has something i like. take sisko deep space nine. more action space battles and hes a killer. jane way is fucking bad ass. and the ship is cool. enerpise nx01 acher is bad it sucks and i cant even watch it.its the only one i cant get on with. ship is bad the captain is bad. and the crew is bad.
I personally think that much of this has come about from allowing creators to write off any criticism of their shows as a personal attack or either their gender/orientation/political beliefs and instead of addressing the critique are allowed to dismiss it because someone is sexist/racist/straight/white/male/etc.
This inability to take criticism from someone they disagree with has created a group of creators that refuse to believe that their ideas/stories/talents are possibly not good. This is the bigotry of low expectations, the rewarding mediocrity under the guise of inclusivity.
I prefer watching "The Orville" compared to "Star Trek: Discovery" and I am unanimous in this !
Without a doubt, Orville is light years beyond STD. Seth clearly has a better vision of Trek but can still relate to contemporary audiences.
@@HerrEllsworth The Orville is truly "Star Trek reborn" with good writing, great characters with well established and very real personalities and quirks, plus respect for the Genre. This new filth should just give it up and disappear.
@xheralt Propaganda is relative. Does CNN radiate truth?
Orville is not Star Trek.
@@MDarkraven Considering what Trek has become, that's a good thing.
This video has broken my heart. :(
I miss Star Trek so much.
At the time I thought Enterprise didn't quite meet the standards of the earlier series but compared to STD it is heaven... dark dystopian action SciFi just isn't Trek. I hope the kidnapped timeline dies soon, let Q come back and say that he is bored of it and snaps his fingers to erase it :-)
Same here they need to stop trying to turn Star Trek in to Star Wars or BSG.
If you can't take a little dark, dystopian bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe watching sci-fi out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid. ;) Not really disagreeing with you - just read your reply and remembered Q saying that. I miss utopian trek, too. The Great Bird would quite possibly let out a great squawk that would end Disco.
Yeah pretty much this. Enterprise wasn't good compared to the previous shows and movies (Save for the Xindi Arc which I did enjoy) but it's excellent next to everything that's come since.
I don't like Q at all really, always thought he was irritating a bit, but if he came back just to change Star Trek to be good again, I'd be happy to have him back😂
discovery just didn't give a damn about story or character development it wasn't till the very of season one they had a show that didn't have them in a firing weapons it was just really poorly done the people didn't act like normal people the writing was very bad to say the lest I have nothing ageist a strong female lead or people being gay but when you interrupt the stories to point it out like when she was hitting on the gay dude saying in my universe youre pansexual I mean it just had nothing to do with the story totally out of place and there was a lot of that
The problem isn't serialisation, it's how and where it's used. "Old trek" serialised when they had something they wanted to do. i.e. Enterprise did it in season 3 only. DS9 did it over it's last half, and still had self contained stories within it. DS9, if you ask a trek fan, is on-par with TNG as the most beloved. That's because the writers knew the story they wanted to tell.
Discovery & Picard commit the worst crimes in serialisation - the "mystery box".
"OOOH NO why is this all like this?? Find out, 5% at a time!" Then the second worst crime "We as the audience don't know because [character] does something dumb. The actual season-long arcs on Discovery and Picard could be written in a paragraph long synopsis, but that scant material is the entire show. Heck, in one episode of picard, the entire synopsis is "Picard tells Riker the story so far".
The antagonists in a mystery box story never make any sense. Their motivation is solely to do whatever kicks the plot ball the smallest distance down the track.
I hate watching 10 episodes to get one pretty simple story.
What's the whole plot of Picard S1? "Some guys got killed off by the AI they created. They told others not to do the same thing. The romulans don't want it to happen again. The federation don't know that they don't want that, for reasons. The AI decide not to kill people after all"
This same plot structure is a single episode of "old trek".
Ouch and yes. CORRECT.
I feel this. They're so padded and usually the padding is rAnDOM-aCtiON-SeqUEncE BoOooM BoOM
Here's the thing with "New Trek." If they'd called it "Discovery" and stripped away all references to the Federation and existing Star Trek races, organizations, ships, etc... and change the style a bit... it would be a terrible show that no one cared about, but it would mostly work exactly the same thematically and story-wise. If it were a non-Trek property, it would have died in its cradle as the writing is worse than anything any other sci-fi show could come up with. Worse than Andromeda at its worst. Worse than Dark Matter or any other show ever dreamed of being.
And here's the thing... nothing in "New Trek" fits within the same Utopian universe of Trek. It just has NAMES of things we recognize... a bit of fan bait with some familiar characters and references to keep you thinking it's still Trek... but, it isn't.
Now, take The Orville. Get rid of a bit of the humor and add a bit more philosophy and maturity, change the ship styles and names to reflect The Federation... and BANG... it fits right into that Trek universe.
There's something to be said for serialization vs episodic viewing, but it's not even in the top 10 biggest issues with new Trek.
Amen, and again. The only way we're going to ever have Star Trek "being" Star Trek again is if somebody takes it away from the ass hat hierarchy affectionately known as "SEE B.S."
Maybe the real fandom should unite and donate to help finance the NBC-MacFarlane Federation's attempted buyout. Afterwards we could give the offenders a taste of the dystopia they so covet with public humiliation, floggings, and maybe something involving red ants and/or genital mutilation to combat their chances of procreating. I haven't worked out all of the details yet, but it's a refreshing mental exercise.
just a thought
strip the st from ds9 and you get b5
still a pretty damn good scifi show
@@John-wj4dp As a huge fan of Babylon 5, I agree with you! DS9 was a great show about how the Federation would operate on its borders where it had little power over the region - and it was fantastic in that it could diverge from the idealistic Federation with so many non-Federation races involved in the running of the station itself, the planet below, the other side of the wormhole... and Federation renegades that were displaced because of Federation treaties. Loved it! But, it was a great story with interesting characters and races that could have stood on its own if it weren't a Trek property.
So many people today are watching Trek and are really torturing themselves because they desperately WANT to enjoy it and hope it gets better. It's like watching a person in an abused relationship that goes back time and again b/c things weren't always this way & they still love them and hold out hope they could change for the better. It's so sad!
@@Kingramze and stil you felt that the fed wanted to do the right thing but was not able to do.
like sisco in the pale moonlight
@@John-wj4dp exactly! The Federation was the same as it always was, but had to make tough decisions for the greater good - like displacing citizens because of a treaty. Sisko had to be creative and flexible & when he acted, he and others could step outside of Fed rules through loopholes or where the regs didn't apply for the greater good. It was all consistent with what one might expect in a contested region of deep space on a civilian station merely operated the Federation in conjunction with the locals.
The station wasn't Federation property or design, the first officer and chief of security weren't Federation, the planet below wasn't Federation, etc. etc. There were a lot of reasons why things could deviate from other ST properties. But, the federation ships DID look like federation ships, the federation DID still act like its old self w/ the same ideals.
This new trek... just doesn't care about keeping a consistent look and feel and shared universe. Picard especially - whatever ship they're flying in doesn't look like it was made in the same galaxy as federation ships. At least DS9 told us the Cardassians made DS9 - which is why it looks nothing like any Star Fleet base I've ever seen before.
I have always loved Star Trek, especially the idea that the characters are relatively good idealistic people that are struggling with circumstances and are trying to better themselves. In the "NEW" star trek, ( Discovery and Picard ) I am very disappointed that they have gone to ugliness and cruelty in their characters and story lines. As well, the aggravating attempts at trying to tick off every possible politically correct marker that they can ruins a lot of the story for me. An example that stuck me was having Echeb, a great character from Voyager basically tortured and eviscerated and then having Seven have to mercy kill him - which is followed by Seven murdering a person for it - which is followed by Seven trying to start a relationship with a broken woman at the end of the season. This is not Star Trek, this is we live in 2020 Trek.
@Elwood Blues Morris I realize we are talking about fictional characters, however, when you think of the Voyager Series, Echeb was a modest, good person that would some day be great in Starfleet. His killing by seven ( to generate her emotional need to kill ) was totally unnecessary.
I couldn't get through the 2nd season's first episode of Discovery that they had on TH-cam. It was really bad. Picard on the other hand made more sense. There are some things here and there that don't need to be there but over all can be dismissed. I think it continues the timeline after Nemesis pretty nicely.
I think you place too much emphasis on the serialized vs stand alone issue and significantly down play the biggest gripe which is the quality of the writing.
Good serialized shows have existed for a while now. We are very used to this format. Star Trek just has never had a good serialized show post-2005. I guarantee you if the writers of "The Expanse" took over for Kurtzman & Co. you would see A LOT more fans praising Trek. The Expanse is really well thought out and developed science fiction writing. And new Trek doesn't seem to understand the difference between science fiction & science fantasy-- so they treat Star Trek as if it's just another science fantasy property (like star wars)... rather than delivering the great thought provoking science fiction from pre-2005 Trek. The science fiction that created the fan base in the first place. People are upset because Kurtzman is actually changing the genre of trek to a dumbed down, action packed, cartoon version of what it was-- and hoping trek fans won't notice because they threw in easter eggs/nostalgic references to chew on when we're not distracted by lens flares and rapid fire plotting.
Now in Picard we have magic devices with no internal logic or science beyond "think of what you want it to do and it will do it." Like a sonic screwdriver. It fills in the story gaps the writers are unable to close. Star Trek always made a strong effort to have a grounding in the real, in order for us to suspend our disbelief and think that this could very well be our own future. That's why most of the innovations of trek have either come true or have had minor developments toward become reality (i.e. communicators, transporters, phasers, cloaking devices, Holodeck, food replicators)... and they would never invent magic tools that do whatever's convenient for the plot in that given episode. That's not just bad writing, but a complete misunderstanding of how the star trek universe works. There is a significant drop in the quality of writing in these new shows that has nothing to do with how people were skeptical of past trek incarnations when they came out. I'm just baffled. How lazy and bad does the writing need to get for people to finally realize- "oh yeah... this used to be a lot more thoughtful and smart, right?" When will people see past the shiny objects they're flashing in front of our faces?
100% agree that serialization is not the problem. DS9 is the best ST and they did it episodically serialized.
I find it interesting when you talk about the political divide you fail to mention how the show-runners openly said the klingorcs were an allegory for Trump supporters and then actively called the fans racist for any criticism of the show no matter how small.
STD/Picard are made by people who hate Trek for people who hate Trek.
8:00 Well, I still fume about Enterprise, but that's because it wasn't given the chance it deserved, just as it was starting to listen to the fans and be 'True Trek'.
The last season was epic! the chemistry the actors had built into their roles over the seasons? really shone. Yeah - it took a mad turn with the Xindi attack but when all that was wrapped up? that's when they did their best stuff - but people had already lost interest :( it was the bloody intro song I swear - they should of gone with trumpets and violins.
@@JohnnyWednesday Well, until the finale, that is.
I feel like they had a great cast, and tons of opportunity to explore the early days of the star trek universe. The writers were questionable at best, every season obsessed with the same time travel arc
@@longfellowdeeds4726 The writers were a damn site better than those doing ST:D.
Moonves cancelled it after meddling for 3 seasons.
This is why S4 its last season is awesome.
The reason nu-trek suffers from being a season long arch where other trek shows haven't is because D.S.9 and Enterprise had a few seasons under their belts to develop characters and the basic premise before going into a season long arch... nu-trek writers barely know how to swim but insist on jumping into the deep end of the pool.
I agree. Plus, a lot happens in the serialized episodes of enterprise. It took Picard 5 episodes to find out where soji is but we knew all along. And even in the serialized seasons of ds9 and enterprise, they threw in an episode or 2 that was mostly self contained.
That's bs. I cant believe you got 4AM thumbs up.
DS9 season 1 was good from the pilot and get-go. To say "a few seasons under their belt" is a cop out. Enterprise was 1000 times better than STD since it's pilot. What you are saying makes no sense at all. You're giving a pass to bad acting, bad casting, and a terrible prodiction that simply isn't star trek.
Spock: "The writers, they can't swim. They're drowning."
Kirk: "Then let them drown. Let. Them. Drown!"
"These are your words? You spoke these hateful words? 'Let them drown'?"
"Those bastards murdered my show...!"
"YOU ADMIT YOUR GUILT! Exile these ... criminals ... these _toxic fans_ ... to live, and to die, on Rura Penthe!"
@@JohnSmith-eq2tf I'm not sure what you mean, in my opinion S.T.D. and Picard are horrible. My comment was that going into a season long arch from the first episode doesn't give the audience a chance to get to know the characters or the situation. D.S.9 and Enterprise were able to have successful season long archs because they gave the audience time to develop a relationship with the characters before putting them in a situation that requires a season long investment of time D.S.9 and Enterprise are both far and away better than anything Abrhams or Kurtzman have tried to pass off as Star Trek. And we're on full agreement D.S.9. And Enterprise were both good from the start. The key is they didn't try to tackle the Dominion war, or the Zindi afair from the first episode, you cared enough about the character before they went to war to have a full fledged emotional investment in what happened to them.
It’s simple, I got the message, Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who... they’re not made for me any more. The makers don’t like me and want me to go away. So I did.
You are not alone.
In a world of products that care about themselves first and their audience last or never, where creativity is trampled for uniformity at every turn, you are the many, and they are the few, and in most cases, the one. Your mass dusty exodus into the sunset may no longer matter to the bottom line, but it is not unnoticed.
Jesus everything is a slight against white men, LMFAO grow the fuck up
Nobody mentioned white men yet fucking idiot. Its a bit more nuanced than that.
@@jaceygaither2581 For one no one mentioned white men you lunatic. These show writers have literally said they hate the properties they are working on and want to change them as a fuck you to the fans.
It's interesting how the new sci-fi is teaching people to use arguments like "grow up" to prove their point. Think like me, or you're a child.
Do you really believe that? If so, is calling people idiots how you get them to actually grow up and develop intellectually? Or do you have to instill the understanding they're lacking?
Old sci-fi did precisely that to prove its point. New sci-fi just tells people to grow up, and people turn it off.
So if you want to exemplify your shining morals, and prove how much better than us you are, by all means keep using arguments like, "Grow up."
If you want the world to actually grow up, you have to treat us like adults who are equal to you, even if we aren't.
That's the thing... people who aren't adults... become adults... by being treated like adults. People who are always treated like children stay children.
Yes, each time a new series was released, it meant a change and that didn't sit well with fans.... eventually, TNG or DS9 had grown on fans and become a cannon thing. But there was a significant difference between them and Disco or even Picard. I personally had always enjoyed Sta Trek for its promise of a better future, where we all can find our own place. The new shows are very grim, dark and hopeless. They imply nothing had ever changed and underneath, we are all still the same. All the negative traits about characters are emphasized.
Strange New Worlds isn’t dark or grim in my opinion. Discovery I tend to agree with you, but Strange New Worlds has been a lot of fun to watch. It’s also episodic rather than serialized which is a refreshing return to the old way of making shows. I also like Lower Decks, but I can understand why some fans don’t. I love South Park so Lower Decks definitely hit a positive note with me.
Anything can be changed, as long as it is at least done WELL.
Felix B except no
the new shows are absolute garbage.
@Felix B Very well done. Too bad there is so much blind hatred of anything new flocking to this video to post garbage!
@Ucallit 71 Gene is rolling in his grave at that answer. Good job!
LOL at current Trek being done well, Terrible writing coupled with a complete disrespect of the characters and previous canon.Sonar in Space?? Pike watching a photon torpedo detonate through a TRANSPARENT blast door? An Android performing a MIND MELD?? This is what passed for writing in today's Star Drek.
After Gene Roddenberry died, his ideals died with it.
Without Idealism, my father's voice, would not have found expression...
@xheralt I think your correct, thank you for your insights.
TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and even Enterprise all did one thing that is at the core of trek: it doesn't tell you what to think. It poses situations and is subtle (as was said in the video). Trek since the JJ Abrams films has not done this. The philosophical aspect has been removed entirely in place of action and later, in Discovery and Picard, grittyness and edgyness.
Other things the originals did: family friendly but in no way patronising, the scrips were written with complex language (no need to pander or talk down to anyone). The utopian aspect came from it being in a future where humanity has eliminated poverty and people are free to pursue their passions rather than for financial aid. The conflict mainly came from the dangers of adventure and discovery - DS9 was grittier than the others and was more politically focused, but it didn't deviate from the core.
New Trek: we can't make stories without making the background into a dystopia. Abrams films didn't do this, but Discovery and Picard did.
As for personal opinions: i didn't like Enterprise or Discovery at all. The Abrams films are so-so. I felt like they were fanfiction that got a budget and wasn't really trek, but had some entertainment value. Picard has entertainment value and is at least *trying* to get back some of the subtle nature of TNG. It has some philosophy creeping in, but it really damaged the Trek universe. I do enjoy watching it for the most part, but i fully expect much of it to be love of the old actors and nostalgia. I can't see me re-watching it like I could the old stuff.
As for serialisation over episodic storytelling. The latter has a few major advantages over the former. One being rewatchability - it's easy for me to rewatch all of Star Trek or just certain episodes i really liked. What was your favourite episode of Breaking bad/GOT ect? You don't even know them because it's part of one big story and it all blurs together. You need to watch hours of it to rewatch it, instead of 45 mins, and generally, i find that once a series is done, i almost never feel the urge to rewatch them because if that. Another major advantage is that if there is one bad episode, it doesn't ruin the whole story and you can just skip it on a rewatch. Episodic stories are harder to write as you have to tie everything up in one episode, but this can cut the filler and they allow the stories to have variety and individual characters to have their 'moment'. Obviously, serialisation has the advantage of more being in-depth and allowing characters to change more with time. But this is where the issue remains: Star Trek suited serialisation as it was less character driven and more story driven. TNG episodes were designed to act as morality plays, not to tell one focused story. There was some element of serialisation on all of them, a thin thread of a timeline where people would reference previous events. Voyager had an endgame: getting home, so it had a thread of a timeline which episodes were centred around. DS9 became serialised at the end because it also had an endgame and I had no issue with that as they still maintained some episodic storytelling within that.
My biggest flaw in the video is the fact that apparently hetero men have all the diversity problems, while I can say I am neither of those things and I had problems! Wokeness does not help diversity, it makes people hate it, no one likes being preached to and told what to think or enjoys one group of people being put down purely to elevate another and you don't need to be a minority to realise that! I hate the fact that Discovery had a bunch of women do it and say 'we women get to decide the future of Trek' because it makes women look bad to me, as if we're all preoccupied with our own gender when the point of trek is that it just doesn't matter. Why does being female have to be beaten over everyone's heads? It's annoying! Not saying there aren't ways that feminist ideas happened in TNG, but it had context and it didn't beat anyone over the head with it. It'd also argue it's egalitarian rather than feminist. I'm female and i would never have done or written what they did, nor would i have had such arrogance about the whole thing. Most people can find people's personalities relatable, regardless of what they are. I found Data, Spock, Dax and 7/9 to all be relatable. Gender or species didn't really factor in it.
Yes! That's what I keep saying about this feminism business. I think Janeway is the best captain in Star Trek. Many disagree with me, but no one can deny her role was remarkable. When Discovery was about to come out I heard this ridiculous thing about Burham being the first female character to have real presence on Star Trek. What the hell does that mean? Burnham is a boring, annoying character, not because she is a woman, but because she is a boring, annoying character! Janeway was a much more consistent, strong character, and she is far from being the only strong woman in Star Trek. We had Dax, we had Dr Pulaski, we had Troi (I prefer Troi in the end of TNG, but anyway) and Dr Crusher, Kira, Uhura, Guinan, Keiko, Tasha and after/during Voyager we saw Seven of Nine, Bellana and T'Pol, all strong female characters, most of them with decent background stories, every single character with a believable motivation, an bunch of interesting aspects to explore, not to mention the non-permanent characters, like ensign Ro and K'Ehleyr. And we had the baddies like Kira from the mirror universe, the female shape-shifter and the Borg Queen. How is Burnham so special? She is the least memorable female character on Star Trek in my humble opinion.
Apart from not liking ENT (which is my personal opinion, I love it :D), I agree.
> It'd also argue it's egalitarian rather than feminist
Yes, exactly that. You can *show* diversity without *telling* diversity. That's what most Trek installments did, relative to their timeframe. Uhura may may not have been the strongest character but relative to her time simply being there was a huge deal; then have an Asian *and* a Russian on the bridge all together, that was radical for its time. You don't need to make a point of "hey look, Sulu is Asian!" if it's not relevant to the story. He just is, and he's good at his job.
JJ Abrams was, and is, an idiot. He had ZERO idea to do with the source material. No clue about the Star Trek universe. And has changed Trek for the worse. Everything that has happened since has been garbage. The “‘more light flares!!” And “grittiness” is bullshit.
We all loved Trek because it gave us something to LOOK UP TO! To aspire to! No one wants to see their favorites torn down and dragged through the mud.
If I could violate the temporal prime directive, it would be to go back and give JJ a new hole in his head. F’ing wanker.
Amazingly well said. Thank you
Sure, there was a time when TNG, DS9, and Voyager were the "new" Trek, and it always takes people some time to warm up to new ideas, but the important thing was that those shows respected what Gene had attempted to do with TOS and lived up to what Star Trek was. This is why they're now accepted. On the other hand, most of post-2009 Star Trek has NOTHING to do with the optimistic humanism that defined the earlier series. There's the Enterprise, and guys with pointy ears, and even Patrick Stewart, but that's all just a make-up job. This new content has more in common with Star Wars or even (shudder) the MCU than it does Star Trek.
Exactly right!
Yes, that is the problem: new Trek is a rip-off of Star Wars. This point is what really puts me off from STD, and this video does not address it at all! Old Trek (and I'm including STNG and DS9 here) was never an action series: it was a science fiction series. Yes, in some old Trek episodes there were very short fights, but they didn't dominate the plot, which was mostly about exploration (scientific or philosophical). STD and the J.J. Abrams movies seem to be targeted to an audience that expects the main characters to spend the whole episode running, jumping, falling and shooting. Exactly: it is tailored to Star Wars fans. But Star War fans already have... well, Star Wars. This explains the lack of success of STD.
Yeah, nah. That's just not true. DS9 specifically goes against the idea that humanity is always perfect. And even against the optimism of TNG. And it's better for it. Not defending Discovery, just defending DS9, my favorite Star Trek show. People get lost when it comes to DS9, they want to pretend like it wasn't what it was. It was anti-Roddenberry in a really good way. Humanity is not always perfect. Humanity should not be shooting first and asking questions later, as is shown in TOS. The Prime Directive is not always a good thing. It deconstructed earlier Trek beautifully.
That and story came above all else, even the message.
This is not even the most serious problem. Yes, it's a total betrayal, but it's also a very, very bad betrayal, in every way. As well on the construction of the characters as on the quality of the stories and their plausibility. The characters and the stories NuTrek propose are totally stupid.
The fact is, Kurtzman is a hack who was never invested in the setting in the first place. Picard and Discovery reek of the JJ movies, which were at least tolerable compared to them.
JJ isn't a Trekkie and it showed... the first 6 films, felt like a WWII naval battle film! It was intelligent Naval warfare... Khan is the story of Moby Dick, Motion Picture is about Computers becoming self aware, Undiscovered Country was about the Cold War and how stupid it really is...
@Freeze Peach We absolutely have every right to "whine". The series has been appropriated by people who never cared for it. Your "wokeness" and corporate consoomerism doesn't amount to anything outside of your hugbox. Crawl back to your den.
@Freeze Peach What's actually absurd is that you think people shouldn't get to criticize something... even when it's nonsensical and badly written garbage.
picard was story driven it was good not as good at STNG but still good STD had nothing good about it
@@jonnym4670 Picard was just as bad. Same writers as STD man, applying the same cynicism and disregard for the universe and characters. They're of the mindset that TNG needed fixing. Kurtzman kills everything he touches.
I hate Discovery, I hate J.J. Abrams. No point in calling it Star Trek when everything is done differently.
Jessica Zhang what she said
I hope you hate Kurtzman too.
J.J. Abrams is a good movie to watch when your bored, but not to watch to keep the history of the name 'Enterprise' the same for Discovery. It's something I'd watch when i'm bored but I'd never include it into Starfleet History, It's not even close to being like the 'Old Trek' We just need more appealing STAR TREK shows like Voyager, where they show something we've not seen and have seen in Starfleet. Not something a child would make in his dreams which is how I personally see Discovery and JJ Abrams.
Admiral Mac Smith Star Trek was never meant to be a “turn your brain off and enjoy the sparkles lights”. It was always supposed to be something you think about during and after the show. Original Trek didn’t have the best special effects but it had thought-provoking decisions and dilemmas.
Today,visually stunning movies are a dime a dozen because computers and artists are so cheap. But good writers are rare and even rarer are producers who care about good writing.
Why are people so opposed to change? JJs movies are great, especially the first one. Even the original cast loved it because it paid enough homage to Gene's vision but introduce a contemporary look on it.
Anyone else notice the music blaring from the getto blaster Spock turned off, was changed to The Enterprise theme song?
I noticed, but only because I actually like the song.
Duhhhh
Yes, I thought it was familiar. Did the writers mean it as a humorous criticism of ‘Enterprise’?
DUH> and IIIII HATE YOU! and IIIII say "SCREW" You! and IIII Hate new Trek tooooo!!!!
I hated that after the first season of Discovery I still didn't even feel like I knew who the crew was. Like even their names.
Serialization only works when you have a story worth serializing.
When you mentioned seeing yourself in the Star Trek universe, that spoke to me. I can’t see myself in the Star Trek universe anymore. I feel like I am no longer accepted. The irony, it use to be a place that accepted everyone.
For that reason, I have a hard time suspending disbelief to enjoy the show.
I will forever identify with T'Pol because it's the most fringe character that's ever been written.
It was the Tribble short trek that got me.
What kind of bad boss is there like that young woman?
She typifies the worst stereotype of the “woke” millennial or younger.
@@peterkessler1348 I was so confused because they got a director who was primarily working in sketch comedy. The whole thing felt like a SNL sketch and yet, we're to believe that this is Star Trek.
Trek can do comedy. (See the tribbles episode of TOS or the Ferengi episodes of DS9). But, they did it without breaking the rules. Without compromising the believability of the world.
I’ve been a fan of Star Trek from the original up until they cancelled enterprise. But it just doesn’t feel like star trek anymore.
@S Cramer and for that opinion they will call you a racist bigot incell
@@jbowen867 except that this comment doesn't say anything that could be construed as any of those things. I don't know how op feels but the comment is a very neutral criticism of the show.
Now if he said, which I'm sure you are guilty of by your reaction, I hate the show because it's bad... And they are forcing female leadership down my throat and I can't fucking stand it.
The issue lies in the second half. Anyone might read this and say "that's obvious" but with you I'll take no chances.
I personally think discovery is very bad. It turned me off enough that I am afraid to watch Picard. But there being diversity hamfisted in by a money hungry corporation is not the bitter herb that poisoned the meal. It's the lack of direction. The poor storylines. The abandonment of the progressive Utopia that star trek was supposed to represent. The subtle challenges to our morality and cultural perspective.
But this idea that new Star trek is too woke is insane. TNG had an episode about gender identity and blatantly made the people trying to change the person to be villians. It's a super progressive series and if you get mad at "representation" then you're just mistaking your nostalgia for the scifi elements as comprehension for the previous shows sociopolitical themes and elements or even their purpose.
Tbh i NEVER liked Enterprise.
Still don't.
Never will.
It'll never be pre enterprise again😒
After Discovery/Picard it hit me like a German 88 that it never will be again.
I'm 40yr old, black and nostalgic for what has past.
Janeway,Sisko,Kirk,Picard what Star Trek was and the likes of which I'll never see again in my lifetime...
@@umbrellacorporationwuhanfa3731 the reason I didn't like enterprise was cause it was a prequal and that just really turned me off from the beginning
@@hdna33 You think people who insult others use logic? lol.
I miss Trek when it was still Trek. They have tried to turn it into a Trek version of Star Wars.
I liked Enterprise, flawed as it may have been in the beginning. It still had the spirit of Star Trek established by TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY. Discovery however, just feels more BSG and Expanse than Trek. STD seems to take itself too seriously. You can change and be creative, without messing with success - DS9 and VOY showed that. And Enterprise at least felt authentic in the set designs of the ship. STD tried so hard to be the Kelvin Trek, rather than authentic Trek. All flash and no substance. Can we look back fifteen years from now and feel affection for the STD characters the way we feel for PIcard and posse, Sisko and gang, Janeway and team or the legendary Kirk and crew? I think that is the best test for how STD is doing...
ENT had some great characters: Dr. Phlox, Trip, Shran, T'Pol, Malcolm and Porthos.
@@ayyywerelisteninghere1022 Agree. I liked those characters so much I read the novels that continued the story line. I didn't do that for any other series.
@Freeze Peach ENT was awesome it's the gay sh it STD THAT SUCKS DICK 😉🖕🏻
I love Trek, BSG, and The Expanse. I haven't watched a single episode of Disco or Picard, though.
@@Hoganply No interest?
For me the 90s Star Trek is the best. That means TNG, DS9, and Voyager.
Big Three will always be best
My big three are TOS, TNG and VOY. Never liked DS9. The show is called Star "Trek". "Trek" means trip, voyage, movement not standing still on a space station. Also, Cisco was the only cool character on that show. ENT could have been better if they had "devolved" the technology better. It's a prequel and there were times where the tech seemed better than the TOS era.
TNG and DS9 was the 80's lol
@@insomniacbritgaming1632 Oh god... You are on the internet dude... Use the internet DS9 aired from 1993 to 1999 and TNG aired from 1987 to 1994. Yes that means first part of the TNG aired in the late 80's but I am specifically talking about that 90's part because I don't really like early TNG.
You know it !!
Since 2009, modern Trek has had a much darker tone than the previous incarnations of it. If you do a side by side comparison, you can see the difference..... there are few things missing from modern Trek.... Hope, positivity, and humanity..... there is too much non-stop conflict and contrived ideas.
And gory violence and bad language. WTF is this, Game of Thrones??
I have a really, really hard time believing that any fan who's watched the last couple of seasons of DS9 could possibly believe serialization is a bad thing.
Agreed, I think the writers did a fantastic job with the later serialization of DS9. And it's not nostalgia talking, as I didn't grow up watching any Star Trek, finally having watched DS9 on Netflix when I was 25. I genuinely enjoyed it.
People forget ENT was supposed to be serialized too. The formation of the Federation was the guiding light of the series... And no one forgot it more than the people who worked on the first 2 seasons.
Temporal Cold War distracted from pre days of the Federation. There were some decent episodes that brought the races together, but then they went Xindi Arc to compete with BSG which further distracted from the birth of the Federation...
It took Manny Coto, S4 to bring the early days of the Federation forward in short serialized stories spanning a few episodes at a time. S4 shows how a good idea can be executed... instead of modern day showrunner's who take an idea and stretch it out where nothing happens for whole episodes.
If SH want fans back, they'll make ENT S5... but we know they won't because SH and Kurtzman want to change what ST is to what they want it to be. A dystopian waking dream where only identity matters. Not experiencing the galaxy and coming to a consensus on what strange new worlds and new civilizations mean to us.... TNG had the crew abandon, retreat from and on occasion battle new civilizations before a resolution could be reached on how to interact, or not interact with a new culture could occur... STD's mashing all religions into one shows just how uneducated the shows writers...
They are not optimistic... They are stupid, jamming things that at times are in direct conflict together... and calling it progress while ignoring the fallout that choice would create.
Serialised isn't the problem. No mention of the focus on the relentless action or the grim visuals?
TOS often had the Daniel Boone, Bonanza 1960s pacing for drama, reveals and especially physical violence and stunt work.
Overture teaser
Act 1 exposition
Act 2 a fist fight
Act 3 a rushed resolution (sometimes through violence)
Epilogue often a joke or conversation to make you forget the five dead crewman extras and reset the ensemble for next week.
Graphic visuals first appeared in TNG season one finale, even more graphic than in Wrath of Khan which was the first visually gritty Star Trek (considered the best by many fans).
@@STho205 I've been a star trek fan since I was a kid growing up with TNG. To my shame I've seen every single star trek show...except the original. Finally got round to starting it the other day, such a different show but I kind of enjoyed that 1st episode with Pike.
@@nefariousnilbog enjoy them. Consider them in context to US-TV in the era. Most end on an upbeat, but about two or three each year end on a serious tragic note. Those were typically the best screenplays and concept stories.
@@STho205 Looks like quite a few to watch. I enjoy watching movies and TV from decades gone by. I find how things were done so alien compared to now but in a great and interesting way.
Serialized isn't the problem otherwise a series with a similar fan base like Rick and Morty wouldnt be popular. It the multitude of issues that add together. Serialized series can be a downfall when plotholes happen. If they want serialized but keeping creative then do 2 or three and maybe 4 episodes that connect (bullcrap reasoning by the way as this locks you in as well, serializing that is).
this was such a great breakdown and awesome visuals. I guess i would call myself old trek. I grew up with TNG and I honestly feel like it was so formative to my world view as i grew up. And I feel like roddenberry's vision was about truly unified humanity. Where we overcame identity politics because we found a way to eradicate poverty. not that it would've been called identity politics back then but I think roddenberry treated racism and discrimination as a product of classism. what we saw consistently were characters of varying ranks interacting with one another as equals but at the same time able to know exactly where they stood in rank when it came to fulfilling their duties. it was like the perfect balance and it felt more like a celebration of relationship building, despite individual differences. New trek to me feels so much more preachy and lecturing where they are specifically alienating individuals they don't like. There's an agreed upon group of thought that must be protested, called out and defeated. It's just not about unity anymore. it's just about winning the civil war. And the part that gets me so frustrated when I hear the whole "straight white male" comment is because yes I suppose that would be me but I've never thought to characterize myself by such superficial immutable traits. when did we agree that books MUST be judged by their covers. We have become a society obsessed with identity. This is news to me that sexual preferences, skin colour, political stripes and age can all be identities. Here i was believing that those were just aspects of your identity and what made you who you were was far deeper than that. TNG from first to last episode was about challenging perceptions and breaking through ideological filters to conceptualize an ideal outcome for everyone. I can only speak for myself but I want to say that i don't give a shit whether there are any "straight white male characters" but if I detect that there is a theme of vilifying straight white males or clear bias to demonstrate things are better because of their absence then I do notice that and it does drive me crazy because that's just racist. and i worry that it teachers children that we ARE engaged in a race war and they DO need to pick sides and they ARE being judged by their immutable characteristics. We've abandoned original sin through faith and replaced original sin through ideology. It's not even that I have any issue with straight white male villains, it's just that they ALWAYS seem to smuggle broad sweeping generalizations in to paint the villain as representative of the broader community. It's like modern black face. it reduces a community to a caricature of the lowest common denominator. that's not star trek.
nicely said
It's Trek versus Crap.
Well, that was a well thought out and detailed answer. Good job! and I see you have a fan club too. Here's your sign! :-)
I like both! What's wrong with that?
@@evertonporter7887 You like #FAKETREK then.
More like Trek versus Trash
@@evertonporter7887 Like both, whatever. There are many people who like bad shows.
It doesn't mean we won't be disappointed by it.
Nope. Huge difference between all “old” Trek and this new Discovery and Picard unwatchable dreck. And no, it’s not about old and new. Those who get what Star Trek is all about KNOWS. This video fails to “see” that. What an utter shame that this is what we were offered. So many interesting stories that could’ve been told and now this woke trash.
Star Trek's msg was always Hope and Discovery , They forgot about that and decided Representation was more important . I hope some day they remember what Gene Roddenberry's vision was .
"They forgot about that and decided Representation was more important"
But only for some people. The rest need to be demonized constantly.
They could and should do both. A diverse group of characters without having to shove it in our faces.
Just watch the orville for now.
The names and places might be different, but its star trek with a little humor.
I will never consider the Kelvin universe movies or Discovery to be canon.
Kelvin isn't canon, it's an alternate timeline. In a scene Spock explains it so to the crew and the audience.
Consideration is not required; by definition, it is canon
@@thatHARVguy Alternate timelines Have loving to do with a determination on the canonical nature of the work. It is canon, by definition
I am deeply saddened that it is no longer about exploration 🥺
Everything up to JJ Trek is pretty fantastic: hopeful, philosophical, ethical, and cerebral. Everything after that is preachy, dour, shallow, and cynical. No thanks! I'll stick with The Orville.
This is just me but I like the old feeling of the old Star Trek without all the fancy green screen technology
So doctor who?
Yes, the quality of the show is based more on writing and story-telling, not relying on special effects as much to make it entertaining.
Real trek did have some long story arcs or throw backs, DS9 especially - hardly Babylon 5 levels - but I agree the change of story-arc length is a factor. I get that change can be good - but there was so much to change! Discovery is just.. depressing! Babylon 5 had awesome long arcs and it kept the joviality alive. Too much darkness - not enough light. Escapism? I want to escape to a better place - not a worse one.
Episodic tv is better than long story arcs. Writers these days are just too lazy /uncreative to come up with a fresh plot/adventure every episode. I agree Ds9 did it right, but it does have less replay value than other trek real shows.
Well said.
"I want to escape to a better place - not a worse one."
The serialised elements of DS9 and season 3 of Enterprise were all we really had. Networks at the the time were terrified of serialised TV, they tbough it would kill syndication value. They had to fight to get tbe episode 'Family' made for example, simply because it directly followed up on TBONW without actually being part of said story. Voyager was also especially bad when it came to the 'reset' button issue.
B5 had one BIG advantage and that was a sole writer/producer who could take those long story arcs and weave them together across multiple seasons. B5 was the "Game of Thrones" ala species in space before there ever was a Game of Thrones and that is what made it great.
This video makes some very astute points....but.....it draws the wrong conclusion on others. Straight white males are not the problem. It is the condescending arrogance of incompetent producers. Hacks like Alex Kurtzman, JJ Abrams, and Alex Chibnall (of Doctor Who) want the prestige of a legacy franchise, but without the nuisance of having a fanbase who kept those properties afloat for decades. They not only dismiss anyone who doesn't like their work. They seem to display open contempt for them, BLAMING the audience for their own failures.
The people behind Sonic the Hedgehog, on the other hand, took the criticisms from their fanbase seriously and immediately course-corrected, spending additional months and millions of dollars to do so. THEIR movie is now highly successful, while Star Wars, Star Trek, and Doctor Who are being driven off a cliff. Sonic the Hedgehog remembered the old saying, that "the customer is always right." Now, if those other guys can be replaced by more talented folks, who aren't high on sniffing their own farts, maybe these IPs can be salvaged.
Why not tell it even more simply... Kurtzman, JJ etc are parasites, they do find suitable franchise as host and suck it dry of money, fame, brand... then they toss corpse away and look for another victim.
Just look at Kurtzman career, he drowned even super simple shows like Hercules or Mummy reboot... those are most simple of movies yet he destroyed those IPS, now ST... what will be next?
I'll just point out that Kurtzman, Abrams, and Chibnall are not white. They took the ideas of white men and tried to make them the way they wanted.
Well said. Much the same reasons I stopped liking Star Trek are also the same reasons Star Wars and Doctor Who. It has nothing to do with less straight white males in the shows. It has everything to do with things like bad/boring writing, glorification of violence, characters I find unlikable or otherwise find unrelatable, and the general feeling of hopelessness in the newer shows.
I at least repect JJ for setting his in an alternate timeline, thus barely affecting the main story. But STD is said to be set in the main timeline, thus that needed a closer focus on continuity and they failed.
I dont really know what you mean about JJ Abrams, as he never directed Star Trek Tv series, only the movies. And the old Star TRek Movies were....not good. Sure, the series are good, but the movies were mostly bad...and even trekkies aggree about that. So JJ made a good action flick in the Star Trek universe, which were at least successful, being more like Star Wars than Star Trek, thats true ofc. But they are fun to watch
What I don’t like about this star trek, is the deconstruction and ruining of beloved characters like Spock and Picard. Bad writers deconstruct other established characters in order to prop up their new characters, rather than creatively write situations that can prop up those new characters in order to stand as great on their own.
I think the problem with Star Trek: Picard is that it reflects the world and society as it is now in real life and the show is influenced by Logan and Game of Thrones particularly the bad language, two evil Romulan siblings who are incest lovers, characters getting killed off and a major space battle sequence in the season 1 finale.
Logan didn't work because it had curse words or because it was dark. I was listening to the commentary by James Mangold (the director) and he talked about not having the R rating just because he wanted to make a "gritty" film. He wanted the R rating because he wanted to express deeper themes than "heroes beat villains". He wanted to show a Logan who wanted to kill himself. But, in the end, it wasn't without hope. Logan and Charles died but they died protecting their future. Laura was his daughter but really she was his best side, his human side. That's why it was terrifying when X 24 captured Laura. Effectively, his worst self was destroying his best self. It might have darker elements but, it's not grimdark. This is also true for Trek. Disco is "gritty" just 'cause. DS9 had darker elements but not without hope.
I must have missed the episode where the Romulans had incest sex? Which episode is that?
I liked it shows how society gos though dips when everything is good all the sudden people don't care as much then when things start to get bad again because people stopped caring as much things start to get better
If only they would have tried to write new material while keeping the appropriate original appearance and canon in tact, none of these problems would have happened. Their attempt to "get new viewers" and forget decades of canon and appropriate appearances of things and people in their proper historical context within the show's universe is the whole problem for viewers like me.
I bet my family jewels that I if could gather a couple dozen serious and knowledgeable trek fans and let them brainstorm for a couple weeks while feasting on redbull and pizza they would have come up with far better storyline and format than the shyte CBS has made.
You are not wrong.
I love the new story line. How about you people go back to your 8 other Star Trek series and leave this one to those who appreciate it? Stop taking it personally. What is this, Galaxy Quest?
I do not think these new show runners are trying to entertain or trying to tell stories. The agenda is full and foremost the goal and thus the goal to tell an interesting story with characters that viewers can feel emotionally attached to has dropped off the radar for the show runners. Good propaganda is appealing and therefore the agenda can not be naked and not appealling. Some of these SJW shows have more positive reviews than real views. Uh that is weird. Ha ha the left do not buy the shows they say they like.
Those little things?
They did, it's called Anaxar.
DS9 may have had a serialized story toward the end, but it wasn't EVERY episode. Individual stories cropped up regularly without completely ignoring the ongoing Dominion War.
The world-building and writing in new Trek is abysmal. It's science fiction for people who don't like science fiction made by people who don't understand or care about science fiction. Red Letter Media do great analysis of new Trek that goes from ridicule to despair. They're absolutely right.
The idea the writers think we care about Elron after he spent 5 minutes on screen is crazy
Amen! Praise be to Mike Stoklasa for he walks the path of logic, of truth, and of tormenting Rich Evans.
RLM are pretentious hacks that don't have a clue what they're talking about half the time... I'm a comic reader of 30 years and I can only facepalm at the bullshit they spew when comparing comic movies to the source material which they clearly know fuck all about.
@@SA80TAGE You must be a Rich Evans fan.
@@mattgilbert7347 Who is Rich Evans?
Never will this "new" star trek be fondly remembered as is the "old", not because it's new, but because it's demonstrably bad in every possible way.
@Freeze Peach I'm glad that someone likes it, maybe some good can come out of all of this.
I've watched all the old series multiple times, yet with ST:D I can't seem to find the strenght to even finish season 1.
@Freeze Peach funny how std had to steal some of its elements from a indie game.
Hey chickenshit - come to a convention sometime so we can smash your InCel face in.
@@john-lenin Look another brave keyboard warrior.
thunberbolt two Said the 400 lb couch Nazi.
SOME ? Sorry but Trashed Trek has fallen far from Gene's vision and has nothing to do with real Trek just as Star Wars and now Dr Who have destroyed their futures and our enjoyment. 😞😞😞
no it's just that they're evolving with the times wtf
True, the new progressives can't write stories or scripts.
ENTERPRISE wasn't bad and the reboot movies were like TOS
Too bad they couldn't use the cast from the reboots thy were excellent.
Anything after that
G.I. G.O.
Peace to you all
KEEP ON TREKKING!
Maybe we'll get lucky some day with this
I'm not holding my breath
however.
Keep safe
Keep well
Keep Strong
People hate it cause it's objectively bad.
Simple as that.
Current Star Trek, Pokemon, Star Wars and Doctor Who is
all a big Dumpster Fire. Yikes, really impressive.
Impressively bad, i say.
Oh, and let's not forget the not blood-related but definetly related issue
Netflix is currently having, with Cuties and all that.
"And Archer is Scott freakin' Bakula! " Best line ever!😂 Nailed it!😁
This is my take. Gene knew something that many people don't. The old adage "Life imitates art more than art imitates life." could not be more important.
You see... Old Star Trek (OG, TNG, DS9, Voyager) highlighted issues humanity and the Federation had BUT the broad stroke of the brush painted a picture of a more ideal future. It gave viewers HOPE. HOPE is the keyword here... I don't get that feeling while seeing the new "trek". It has become more about getting you "hooked" (very subjective) and far more about action sequences. TNG taught me about moral dilemmas... critical thinking, overcoming differences and gain HOPE that humanity can evolve past how we currently treat one another while new "trek" makes me feel like... nothing changed with us except that we have space ships.
There might be people out there who disagree with me and that is fine... but I doubt any of them can convince me that I can learn as much about philosophy and what it means to be a human MORE in an entire season of new "trek" than I can in a SINGLE EPISODE of TNG. Trekkies aren't just Scifi nerds... some of us are futurists who still believe in Gene's vision for what we can become and that's exactly what new "trek" has made us feel robbed of. We don't need more comic relief or fighting sequences... we needed and always needed hope.
It is all too common for us to have hope stolen from us nowadays... and that is why I will always be an original Trek series fan.
"new "trek" makes me feel like nothing changed with us except that we have space ships" very well said !
@Manek Iridius well, how could we studied it objectively than separates it without "the newest alien"?. So we dont get burdened by unnecessary "associations" that blinded us more than help us?.
People hate it cause it's objectively bad.
Simple as that.
Current Star Trek, Pokemon, Star Wars and Doctor Who is
all a big Dumpster Fire. Yikes, really impressive.
Impressively bad, i say.
Oh, and let's not forget the not blood-related but definetly related issue
Netflix is currently having, with Cuties and all that.
I've been watching Star Trek since I was a kid in the 1970s, so I'm definitely a fan of 'Old Trek.' However, I equally enjoy the new Trek series, Discovery and Picard as well. I like where both series are going and I am enjoying the serialization approach. It is a new way to consume the stories, but it adds a level of depth and story development that wasn't as possible in the old style of storytelling.
I think this is why I also really enjoyed shows like Babylon 5, that did a blend of serialization and stand-alone episodes. Stargate SG-1 really was also more of a hybrid as well, having elements of both. The Battlestar Galactica reboot did a fantastic job with serialization and showed how well a darker take on sci-fi could be done well.
I honestly don't understand the criticisms. I've always loved all forms of Star Trek and I will continue to be a fan until the bitter end.
Seriously? Even if you like these new shows you have to admit that the writing is awful from a pure quality standpoint, full of plot holes and cringe dialogue. Not to speak of the complete abandonment of an optimistic future the very essence of star trek.
@@kynikersolon3882 No, I don't have to admit anything. I think the writing is brilliant. I am looking at the bigger picture of the story they are trying to tell and I think they are doing a magnificent job.
So sorry they popped your little utopian bubble, but outside of the Federation, life in the future wasn't all sunshine and roses and it never was. Now we're just getting to see the gritty underbelly of the reality of what life is really like in the future.
@@Kleineganz Although I disagree with you, I'm glad you're bringing your perspective to the conversation. Internet comment sections are often overwhelmed with negativity and bandwagoning, and your reasoning is valid.
I think people who used to love old Star Trek , just grew old and grumpy themselves :)) younger generations like new Star Trek, cuz they have fresher eyes 😅
@@xrbabystudio Im 25... I hate the newest incarnations. Not that I like Kirk mind you cause that's cringe for me but I can appreciate for time period. Favorite is next gen. But this new just feels like lazy writing. They treat all this queer stuff like it wouldn't be normal by then. Who cares. I don't like the new one simply because the story points, character interactions, directing, and general direction of the show feels lazy and pandering rather than inquisitive and thought provoking. I mean my gay little sister thought the show was something only a 6 year old might like.
I've been an "Old Trek" fan since i was 9 watching TOS, and thinking wow when i first saw Spock and Kirk etc .... On the tv wanting to live on spaceship and join Starfleet same thing happened when i watched TNG, DS9, VOY ENT thinking this could be fun .
With "New Trek" i feel confused pissed off and WTF . STD is just bad and i've only watched the first 12 episodes of season 1 (there is a channel in the UK showing it free). But I have given it a chance . No idea if i well watch Season 2 . And for the characters unless you like to shout alot there just annoying especially Burnham nothing to do with race etc .
As for Picard it's a hero to thousands into a senile old man who just there and takes abuse from everyone on the show . Again depending on if i want to watch season 2 no idea .
"New Trek " also ruined Khan don't get me started on how i hate Into to Darkness.
It's Star Trek's Legacy that's getting ruined with all the bad writing, bad acting crapping all over characters we loved in the past .
By the way love The Orville Brotus reminds me of Worf .
And Loved Enterprise which needs more credit .
Season 2 of discovery is pretty good. The introduction of Pike changes a lot. It's worth a view.
I never thought of Star Trek Discovery as STD. This opens a completely new perspective. So I guess when watching Star Trek without the proper protection you can end up with an STD. The question is can it be cured? Would one want to be cured?
Discovery and enterprise to me are the worst
@@ThePharaz changed my mind next time I discuss Discovery am shortening it to ST DIS .
@@Shaunks86 am still thinking about season 2 .
Old trek was not liberal it was optimistic and progressive (the old definition of progressive before it became a trigger word.)
If Star Trek can not figure out where it went wrong and correct course, I am 100% comfortable without it in my life.
And I'm sorry to have to point this out but, fans are not the ones drawing the lines.
It has nothing to do with serialized storytelling, people's problems with modern Star Trek stem from a number of reasons, which include the infamous licensing issues, but also because Hollywood writers are very out-of-touch with both the pre-existing fanbase and current world affairs.
We live in a post-Bayformers and Dark Knight Trilogy cinematic landscape, one where outside of probably the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Hollywood has never been able to shake off it's "darker and edgier" phase, and think that the only thing that will catch people's attention is constant bombastic action and explosions while at the same time either trying too hard to be pretentious or being edgy for the sake of being edgy.
The Kelvin Timeline, Discovery and Picard are of that nature, forged from the fires of Michael Bay's explosions and Christopher Nolan's cynicism and pretentiousness, mixed in with the current pessimistic geopolitical climate. They were not made for pre-existing fans, they were made based on focus groups and corporate mandates.
Masterge77 You mean the “licensing issues” invented by idiots on the Internet? Those “licensing issues?” The ones that never actually existed?
This is the best response to this video that I've seen. Thank you sir.
@@Teletheus No, the one were they keep using solely new props and designs and avoid entirely using pretty much ANY of the old ones outside of occasional cameos. I mean Starfleet has NEVER had a standardized fleet... until they got owners unwilling to pay for logical variety in ships and ship classes. Hence the ugly Discovery, hence the copy and paste fleets (on BOTH sides) in STPs finale, hence the seeming constant plagiarism and/or inferior copies of stories and ideas better done before elsewhere in STP AND STD, hence the unrecognizable Klingons, etc.
I am sorry but you are arguing against a rather massive pile of evidence at this point.
Bertoxolous The Puzzled You’re arguing against the law, sweetheart. And you don’t understand how it works at all.
@@Teletheus What law exactly did I "argue against"? Lol.
TOS is Star Trek. Everything else is derivative.
Wow you're so intelligent.
Elaborate
Amen!
Agreed ☺
I can't watch TOS. I've tried, but the ridiculous over-sexualization and sexist attitudes towards the female characters is overwhelming. It really grosses me out.
... because Viacom took "Star Trek" away from Paramount (which treated "Star Trek" like a jewel), and gave it to CBS (which treated "Star Trek" like an ATM) ...
JJ Boredoms has done enough damage to Star Trek that it may never recover!
He has also ruined Star Wars. No director has done more damage to Science Fiction, in my lifetime!
You're not wrong. Imagine being the guy to ruin both Star Trek AND Star Wars within the span of a single decade.
I miss Star Trek being an optimistic and bright vision of the future which is something the genera really needs right now and it being about exploration and finding new worlds and strange new lifeforms.
Gene Roddenberry, and oh so many others, had a dream. Some, like Ira Steven Behr, took a critical eye to that dream, but in so doing, strengthened it. As dark and gritty as "old Trek" ever became, it still aspired to be better.
The difference to me is that while "old Trek" seeks the light, "new Trek" seems to be happy to wallow in the darkness. Whether it's down to poor writing, poor direction, poor acting, or some combination of the three, even during the moments that "new Trek" characters claim to be seeking the light, more often than not, their proclamations ring hollow, like crocodile tears.
"Old Trek" has always been a positive, an inspiration, and a source of comfort, that we can rise above the issues of the day; where humanity can be magnanimous in helping others to join them. "New Trek" will sometimes pay lip service, like when Michael Burnham gave a speech about how no one on the crew of the Discovery would leave a comrade. A few minutes later, Evan Connolly's pod was struck, he likely died, but it was never confirmed. No search was ever made for him, or the body; at least, none on screen.
The dialogue and musical cues prior to that were designed to make the audience support Burnham, and dislike Connolly. The plot contrived to make Burnham correct and Connolly wrong. And just for added measure, they had Linus abruptly turn his head towards Connolly in the turbolift in order to sneeze on his face, which made Burnham smirk.
"Old Trek" works together, while "New Trek" bickers and tries to one-up each other.
For anyone who has read this far, I have one simple question. I do not know the answer. But I would like you to think on this. How many times can you name where someone was able to reverse a decision, goal, or summation, of Michael Burnham's through reason and discourse?
This well presented video leaves the elephant in the starship unaddressed. The intolerable wokeness of Discovery and Picard shows the Federation characters to be pessimistic, hateful, intolerant, violent and so forth. This stands in stark contrast to Roddenberry's optimistic, inclusive society that had transcended the petty issues of today. The assertion that the original series and Discovery are both progressive for their day is true in the sense that they challenged the status quo. The difference for me is that rejecting racism over five decades ago makes sense to me and the intolerance of today does not. Transcending gender stereotypes in Voyager warms my heart while being confused about male and female does not. I don't usually mind story arcs though they can be frustrating at times. The difficulties I have with the two new series is that the issues of today are presented hundreds of years from now as if no progress has been made that seems particularly contrary to Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future. In short, they are not Star Trek.
From Alex Kertzman himself: "I was never really a fan of Star Trek." This is precisely why the shows are failing with the audience members. I've said this before but for those who haven't read it; the one and only reason to remake, reboot, ripoff, etc, is because you have a legion of fans of the original property to serve as standard bearers. These standard bearers act as free advertising; they spread the word, they lead the new prospective fans into the fold. Therefore, “They”, the fans of the original property, are the most important demographic. There’s a reason they’re called the “base”. They’re the foundation, without them the building crumbles. Kertzman isn't a fan, so he has no use for what the fans want. He, like most progressives in Hollywood are more interested in telling fans what they want and injecting copious amounts of identity politics and ideology into what has become a tool of propaganda. Add to that , the fact that almost EVERY SCI-FI ELEMENT OF HIS WRITING IS PLAGIARIZED. (The entire season 1 of Discovery taken from the game Tartigrades/ in Picard, the Haptic interfaces for ships, the groups of female warriors that bind themselves to your cause, the artificial intelligent beings in dark space waiting to wipe out all organic life, etc etc etc WERE ALL DIRECTLY RIPPED OFF the Mass Effect Trilogy of Games by Bioware Canada.) Kertzman obviously isn't smart enough to realize that Sci-Fi watchers are almost always Sci-fi Gamers as well and the producers are obviously oblivious to his fraud. These are just some of the reasons these two shows are horribly received and doing much poorer than CBS had hoped. As so many other IP's are finding out, you can't fool fans with a paper bag filled with Dog @#$% just because it has a Star Trek logo on the side.
Kurtzman is so bad because he is unable to understand his own stupidity, he has milions of dolars and he thinks he is smart but he is sooo stupid... its tragedy for us, for him, for next generation... he can have all money in the world and he could buy ice cream and new car with them nothing else.
@DevMag 52 I dont think there is many of such "fans" its just few super vocal individuals.
Where exactly did he say he wasn't a fan?
I think it is more pecisely to say, that they call it "Star Trek", because it's a brand, that people know, rather than they do it, because Star Trek has fans. New Trek isn't made for fans of Star Trek, but it's made for people who have heard of Star Trek. That's why they bring back the characters that even the people know who never watched a real Star Trek show (Spock, Picard, Seven of Nine). They use them as selling-arguments ("Ah, Picard - that's the bald one with the tea, right? I've seen him in some memes. Now I've got something to connect with this show."), not because the show needs these specific characters.
Yes, because at some point the bag will drop on the floor and the content will be revealed: SHIT
My observation is that modern mainstream sci-fi - including Star Trek - is made by people who don't read or watch sci-fi, and don't understand sci-fi, and don't even like sci-fi. They do it to follow the money. It shows in the shows.
My "insurmountable chasm" with DSC/DIS/STD/PIC/etc is not the new look or style or direction or format. Serialization is a non-issue in this age of media content streaming, were not chained to TV schedules like TNG audiences were. My issue is about bad characters in a bad show, it felt like a chore to watch, it's not Star Trek regardless how many stuffed tribbles and Roddenberry Names are included, it's just some other kind of sci-fi show for some other kind of sci-fi audience.
Combine all that with the showrunners being petulant, dismissive, and insulting to fans - and CBS being openly hostile to fans - and nothing more really needs to be said. There's always more "real" Star Trek entertainment out there.
Very true: Look at Star Wars, many years ago, George Lucas has a story to tell, he told it well and everybody loved Star Wars. it was not about the money, but it became iconic, beloved by all and amazing and the money kept rolling in because of it. Now Disney bought it and turned it around: They want to make as much money as possible. Now lets find a story that we can tell. This is the wrong way around and it shows. If you look at the new Star Trek and the new Star Wars you will find that all new things in these movies suck, because the makers have ZERO CLUE what Star Trek or Star Wars really means. All the good elements are the ones that were copied from the old Star Wars movies, but this way, it becomes a pale meaningless copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.
Star Trek Continues, Phase Two.
A lot of good stuff out there.
@@samdog8087 Nope, Star Trek died with Enterprise. Let it rest in peace, don't grave rob it and sully its great reputation as something special. Ratings are dropping, it is expected to be cancelled soon: Netflix did not want to pay for it anymore, as it did not do well. Now Amazon is still supporting it, but they will also pull out. Star Trek still had momentum from the original series and movies and it kept going, even with the new stuff being total garbage. This momentum will run out and it will crash.
@@nigratruo Agreed...It has to crash, no other way.
Watch The Expanse on Amazon. It’ll change your mind about modern sci-fi
moderation is the key ds9 had serialization, but most of the episodes still had micro stores with resolution. an overarching plot is good but that does not mean you cant have individual stores as well look at the mandlorian for an example.
Voyager is my favorite series become the episoric storytelling of previous with a main plotline (getting home). It still has something new each episode/every few episodes while also slowly progressing the main plot and actively changing things.
With TOS and to a lesser extent TNG each new episode felt like a complete reset with next northing carring over, previous events rarely if ever even getting mentioned again, most episodes while interesting in their own felt like filler in anime.