I remember watching Voyager with my mum. It was the only Star Trek she liked to watch. Voyager holds a very nostalgic place for me because it was entertaining for my mum.
It’s funny how much more beloved DS9 has become with the passage of time. I remember back in the day, people were saying that Voy was better. A defender of DS9 said that in the future, people would come to see that DS was the best show.
I disagree about the Orville. It is a comedy, but only about 20-50% depending on the episode (sometimes even less, like the 2 part "Identity"). Otherwise, it uses much of the DNA from TNG, right down to when the first credits start to appear in many cases. It has the same feel, and the same non-accusatory look at ourselves that TNG was so good at. Now I do agree that Star Trek could never do that much comedy. On occasion yes (such as episodes like "The Outrageous Okanna"), but not as a main-stay. Yet I do think the TNG formula could work today. As it was back then? Probably not. Little too much cheese for today's audiences. But a lot of that could be fixed with quality writing like we see on the Orville. That and a resistance to the constant love triangles and other such "drama" that always seems to kill otherwise good shows. Though I think you hit the nail on the head on one point; show runners have forgotten how to tell a good story. They only care about making money, oblivious to the fact that if you tell a good story, you will make money. The two go hand in hand. Show me a famous author who is well liked, and well off, and I'll show you a good story teller. Star Trek was always about telling that good story, while making us take a look at ourselves in the process. It's not just Star Trek. I see a stark lacking of good, comprehensive, engaging stories on TV these days. This is what makes the Orville so good, and feel like old Star Trek. They tell a good story, while also making us ask questions about ourselves (with a few laughs along the way). Same with the NBC show, This is Us. It's simple, direct, and a wonderful story we can't get enough of. More to the point, both are very simple, very direct, and neither one is trying to live off of mega drama, or massive special effects budgets. They do just enough to tell the story, and tell it well, and in so doing, they are making their networks money. I think this is what has hurt Discovery (and probably Voyager and Enterprise) most of all. They got so stuck on making money, they forgot to save energy for storytelling. They tried to "make it modern" "Make it appeal to new fans", and along the way, they forgot what brought in the old fans in the first place; a good story. A world we wanted to spend time in. I mean, let's be honest; do you dream of serving on the Discovery? As iffy as Voyager and Enterprise were, I still dreamed (and on occasion still dream) of serving on both ships. And now, I'd love to be on the Orville. It is this connection that's lacking, and I fear more and more studios will turn away from it, making it harder and harder to find good stories, and good worlds to spend time in.
Word wall but I'm just surprised they let seth MacFarlane get away with it. I guarantee if Picard was never on one of his shows he wouldn't get away with it. That Hollywood clout.
This is a false dichotomy. There isnt a choice between good story telling and continuity. If you are telling an ongoing story, continuity is an intrinsic part of good story telling. If you're just writing to get paid, the audience can sense it. If you're dismissing continuity as unimportant, the audience can sense it. No, you can't always get it right. But I think audiences can tell how much you're trying. The idea that continuity is optional is antithetical to serialized story telling.
AKA the Dr Who effect. They ignore shit with the 11th Doctor and what happens? Ratings tank. Also look at the one "Modern" series that has now been going on for what 8 or 9 Seasons, Game of Thrones. That series AGONIZES over continuity. Yes its from a book but they could easily have done the "we are going to tell other stories in the setting" but they didnt and they stick to continuity and its the ONE show over the last decade to garner the most attention and to keep going.
I was trying to find the most tactful way to say this. Thankfully, you did the job for me. You can create good characters and stories, and still stay within the continuity of an established series. Fans want the kind of dedication to the lore that they have to be mirrored in the writers of their favorite series.
@@scifywriter9768 Working your stories in amongst the minutiae of lore is the fun and the challenge of writing 'franchise' fiction. There is nothing more satisfying in writing than tying everything together, and a pre-existing fictional universe gives you so many possible hooks to tie to.
This video is right to make a point about storytelling, continuity and rating...but it is focusing on symptoms of Star Trek's larger problem and the cultural zeitgeist that changed Star Trek's course forever, away from Gene Roddenberry. No, Gene Roddenberry didn't just give up control of the franchise, and it wasn't due to "poor health". It was due to prospective failure of the franchise and his personal embarrassment (and a large number of the writing staff to that point) in the real-world events that were wracking the political-world-wide scene. In all of his videos about the Borg, this youtuber doesn't seem to touch on the "BIG DEAL" that altered the course of Star Trek....which is a glaring ommission. Not that many Star Trek writers would openly talk about it, even the ones who shared Maurice and Michael's worldview. I don't think he's actually touched on why the Borg were actually created, probably much as your writers don't care to admit why the Borg were created. It's similar to why losers of every stripe blot out memories of their failures....out of shame and embarrassment, retreating into sophistry, feigned ignorance and/or falsified memories. That said, it's a rather well-known story as to why the Borg were created: Copy, pasting from 2014, though it is actually a recital of something written in the 1990s.... **** ""Younger people should probably know that the destinies of Star Trek TNG and its spinoffs were inextricably linked to the end of the Cold War. None of these series were created in a vacuum. The writers originally imagined an "introspective" series with episodic "lesson learning" (America-bashing), using alien races as props. Herb Wright, for example, was a socialist, college Vietnam protestor, and apologist for the Soviet Union, who created the Ferengi to represent an evil capitalistic race to be Star Trek's new primary villain. Needless to say, Wright frequently had confrontations with the lead writer who eventually created the collectivist Borg, Maurice Hurley, proving the adage that "A man is defined by the character and nature of his enemies". This was why so many of the early alien races especially the Ferengi in TNG were written, as many have complained, like "cartoon caricatures"; transparently insulting to the intelligence of its American audience. The fatal flaw of TNG's early writing (and therefore writers) is why the show was in real trouble in its first two seasons. Basically, TNG was swimming against the tide back in the late 1980s, although it should be noted that many socialists in the United States and Hollywood still regarded World Socialism as the "winning side" even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. America's "cultural zeitgeist" wasn't buying TNG's villains, in the same vein that many anti-war movies in the 2001-2008 era were losers, more badly-written propaganda than profit-driven endeavors to sell to an American audience. Things came to a head, however, with a slate of anti-Left events in 1988-1989: The election of Bush, the withdrawal of the Soviets from Afghanistan, and uprisings against Communist Parties all over the from Asia to Europe. By the time the Berlin Wall was breached in late 1989, TNG's executives realized they didn't just risk being criticized for being naive or incompetent or even apologists; They were at risk of being branded evil. While that might seem strange to some Millennials today, for the sake of illustration: imagine branding Christians and Jews as religious terrorist bombers right after 9/11. In hindsight, things like that are cheesy and laughable. In the moment of the times and for the people living though them, it's outrageous. The result was a major shakeup that led to the release/re-assignment/firing of TNG's writers and the hiring of writers who were less susceptible to showing contempt for their audience (especially in their major market, the United States). One of those writers was Maurice hurley's (the creator of the Borg) understudy and friend, Michael Piller, who became the narrative driving force of the TNG series as well as its spinoffs like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Piller used open hiring to circumvent Hollywood's closed-socialist hiring circles, discovering some of TNG's best writers including Ron D. Moore and Rene Echeverria. The Borg were not originally meant to be the primary villains of Star Trek TNG, but with Piller, they became the most recognizable and menacing villains of the 90s. The Ferengi, by contrast, were fleshed out in Deep Space Nine and received something of a more balanced narrative. Stories inevitably tell you more about the authors than about the subjects. This was true for the producers and writing staff of TNG just before the Cold War ended, and the new staff inducted into TNG right after the people in Hollywood realized the jig was up. Star Trek is not to be hailed as some sort of important creation on par with the combustion engine, the transistor, or even the Hoola Hoop. But TNG does represent a case study, like a capsule in time, reflecting Hollywood's response to prevailing attitudes in America during some interesting times.""
I still find it a tragedy that Voyager is so disliked; and especially, that it is compared to BSG- which it was never meant to be, but is so often pigeonholed as 'if it was more like it', as if that was the intent, which it just fell short of. I don't think it was trying to be that; it was trying to do something else. Either way, whatever Voyager was intended to be- I think there was so much good in Voyager that gets overlooked in favor of a focus on the Borg episodes, or the lack of BSG-style-ship-falling-apart grittiness/why-wasn't-it-all-like-year-of-hell. And I think that misses the heart of what Voyager was meant to be- and the areas where it really succeeded.
I still like Voyager, it's not my favorite but it's still fun to watch and even if it had major continuity issues. How many shuttles does Voyager have, like 100? But regardless I still love it and rewatch it now and then. I've only seen season 1 of STD and while competent it doesn't fell like Trek at all to me.
I think everyone is still missing the point. For the Borg to originate in the Alpha Quadrant not on is bad story telling but just a weak ratings grab. I'm pretty I remember an episode in Voyager that talked about the Borg starting as a race of organics 70k light years from of Earth in the Delta Quadrant, and evolving into a cybernetic race thousands of years before human were even aware that we were not the center of the Universe. How the heck does it make sense for the Borg to originate from humans?
"If Trek has to be this, then maybe there shouldn't be." I totally agree. I hear a lot of people say "it's better than no Star Trek at all,"but no, no it isn't. And don't get me wrong, I like Discovery for the most part (though I'll be the first to point out its numerous problems), but don't let shambles for the sake of money like Star Wars is
The first two seasons, which I personally enjoyed MORE than the last two, had taken its toll on the series. People had already left and the company wasnt prepared to sit through 2-3 more seasons for it to gain its footing.
@@memnarch129 my end of the story. in my country series was oficially licenced for televison broadcast in 2009 and was advertised as a solid sci-fi series. vievers count was almost constant and rather high for the channel that broadcasted the series. channel itself become popular because of enterprise and begun tos movies marathons on weekends nights got even more popular, then got bought by the fox, changed name and fall into obscurity
@@kokodin5895 yeah the original run period was 2001-2005. Your country would of been considered Syndication, aka series being shown after they go off the air for new broadcast.
TNG could work today. Orville takes on the same tone even if it throws in the comedy but most of the Orville fans dont watch the show for the comedy. They watch it because it keeps the heart and essence of Star Trek unlike Discovery.
I really don’t mind them taking liberties with continuity if it’s necessary to tell a better story. A lot of Trek really trips itself up. It’s always been that way. Back in the 60s they didn’t care about that stuff; TOS episodes contradicted each other all the time. Don’t break the timeline altogether, but feel free to bend it all you want. Otherwise, as someone who really doesn’t hate DSC, I’m glad you recognize that the medium has changed and you can’t make something like TNG anymore. And DSC doesn’t _need_ to exist; if there had been no Trek since ENT ended, I’d be fine with that. But why shouldn’t it exist? If someone’s got an idea for Trek that they’re excited about, and the studio is backing them, who’s to say it shouldn’t exist? I mean, if it generates no interest among the fans, it will quickly go away on its own. But why should those who don’t want it have the ability to veto it for those that do? If you’re okay with there being no more Trek at all, you’d be content to watch old series for the rest of your life. The existence of DSC doesn’t preclude you from doing that. Not enjoying it is perfectly valid and legitimate, and there’s no sense in pretending that you feel something you don’t. And it might sting a bit if you feel like you’re no longer the target audience. “Go away, old man; this isn’t for you anymore.” I felt like Doctor Who was saying that to me. So I stopped watching back in 2014. Then Jodi Whittaker got cast to replace Peter Capaldi, and I kept running into people who were outraged, up in arms, and I’d say to them “Who cares? The show won’t be any good with her. The show wasn’t any good without her. It hasn’t been watchable for years.” I’ll never watch again, so what does it matter to me whether it’s on the air or not? If someone out there is capable of taking enjoyment from it, that does not diminish my contentment with a life that does not include it.
The sad thing is, my generatiok has Abrams and Discovery. And the way they talk about ST differs. I have hard time takking to them ablut Star Trek, and most people that I enjoy talking ST about are kind patient older people, cause some older people just say "Oh you're just this tumblr poster, go away" Where TOS fans can talk with TNG fans, and it still hold for other trek, slowly, it stops. The fact that James T Kirk different perception in my time and yours proves it. Or even Spock. It changes the way we see, and in turn males us feel seperate. And with the separation, the new cannot learn to better the old. That's a problem.
I have a soft spot for Voyager. It was at a time when I was in grade school. I used to watch all the Star Trek series with my dad, but Voyager was the one I remember most fondly.
The Orville is NOT a commedy - at least not anymore. The second season is very serious (for the most part). If you haven't, please watch the two part episode "Identity".
It's hard to classify The Orville. I can't argue that it has escaped the "comedy" aspect because comedy is not necessarily absent of drama (sometimes very serious drama) and drama is often used to heighten the comedic elements. However, I personally couldn't classify it solely as a comedy either. The purpose of The Orville isn't to make us laugh, but to inspire us - to give us a hopeful vision of the future and discuss issues through the lens of science fiction. Part of me wants to not classify it and just enjoy it, but another part of me realizes that science is all about classification...
I would disagree about Orville being a straight up comedy and more a drama with comedic elements. AAnd I agree that if Star Trek had to end with Enterprise, I would have been okay with that. Besides there are always to reruns to enjoy.
Agreed ! I think McFarland wanted to do his own form of Star Trek but because of Licensing and trademark issues he had to keep the Orville unique to being a comedy . But you're right, it is a dramatic show with some comedy elements !
Seth has said it to be a comedy drama. Good strong stories that make you think and draw you in with some comedic moments. It's more drama than comedy these last episodes
@@Zaron_Gaming me and my buddy were watching episode 12 of the second season last night . "I counted 2 jokes" that I can remember !!! The rest of it was a "pretty damn good storyline" !
I really don't think "continuity" vs. "good story" is something that should happen. At the least, "let's smash continuity to pieces" makes me think you are being lazy.
Continuity breaks are not unreasonable every now and again due to just having different writers. Lately tho it just seems like they're just trying to downright retcon the entire franchise out of sheer laziness. I could accept nearly any continuity break if there was at least a decent explaination. Then you get to bend the rules to fit your story without giving a middle finger to established story
Lore did i hear you say that Star Trek fans wouldn't like The Orville? I believe almost all fans love and believe The Orville is indeed the new Star Trek. Yes its more comedy but they also have a good balance of drama as well. They fully captured the feel of what Star Trek was about. Star Trek has alway had a bit of comedy throwed in. On everything else i do agree and i dont believe the writers are totally at fault. It all starts with the show runners and the problem is CBS has never wanted Star Trek or they would have hired Braga and Berman guess where they are. Yep running The Orville and doing it with great success. So who did CBS put in to run STD, Kurztman someone who has a long record of hating Scy-Fi. Do or did they care about the millions of Trek fans. No they filed law suits preventing fans of paying homage to what they love. So why should Star Trek fans fawn over the abomination of Discovery just because it has the name Star Trek. The Orville may not have the Star Trek name but it certainly has Star Treks soul and the fans know it.
I always find myself on the other side of this debate. The Borg had already been defeated multiple times before they were villains of the week on Voyager.
i think that Continuity and good stories are not mutually exclusive and that the writers should should work to the best of their abilities to make those things come together
My concern about Lower Decks, the announced animated show, is not because it's a comedy but because the writing on Discovery is bad. The early Season 2 episodes were better, but the later episodes have this soap opera writing... cliffhanger scenes right before the credits to hook you for the next episode. The "good story above continuity" would be an interesting video to show where Star Trek has broken continuity before (and kept to it without retcon, like the klingons being Federation members in early seasons of TNG. though I wouldn'T call that breaking continuity as TNG took place about a century after TOS & the movies)
The only thing greater than Discovery's ignorance is its damned arrogance. Even it was its own thing and not a Trek show the sheer number of logical loopholes and poor quality writing still make it a bloody awful mess
When these shows were airing, I was a far more casual fan (I was also very young). At that time I was interested in Trek more for the exoticism of the stories. Adventures among the stars, etc. I didn't watch DS9 because I thought that it was more of a soap opera in space than previous Trek. Which is why I loved the concept of Voyager. A return to form, an adventure not just to explore the universe, but also one to get home. It was this love, this idea that Voyager is a return to TNG that made me overlook some things like the under-utilization of each character's abilities. I didn't care at the time about their limited torpedo supply or whatever. I assumed there was time spent off camera doing the boring work of mining for materials to make them. I also loved the idea (and actress) of the Fae-like Kess and was miffed at how they replaced her (imo the best part of the show) with the less interesting 7 of 9 AND how the show seemed to revolve around her after that point. That made me stop watching for a while. I tuned back in somewhere in the 6th season and while the exoticism of the Borg kept my attention, the magic was lost and I approached the show much more cynically. BUT, again I liked the original episodic concept of Enterprise. More of the same. Exotic stories blended with a "how we got there" storytelling. At this point I was a little more clued in to deeper Star Trek Lore and saw some of the inconsistencies (no nuclear war waged between Earth and Romulus?). But as they really started to focus on Time Travel and then the Xindi, I started to get lost again. Not enough reliance on their characters to carry the day and the mystique of the Exotic was wearing thin as we stared at the same struggle over and over again (those genocidal Xindi). So I stopped watching as religiously and as a result, became lost as the show relied more and more on continuity. I guess this is why I like Discovery, visual reboot be damned. It's a character-focused show and while it prefers a smaller scale of personal conflict than previous Treks (Michael Burnam isn't going to shout "Mr. President, get down" like Kirk did), it is refreshing that the main character isn't a Captain, the internal conflict isn't the burdens of Command, but reconciling when you think your Commander is wrong with your duty.
for me, it did end with Enterprise (and the 10th movie) the Kelvin movies are, in my opinion, good sci fi. They shouldn't be Star Trek, but they're otherwise good sci-fi I haven't personally watched discovery, but what I've seen and heard, I can't say I'd be a fan. Maybe it would also be better as a sci fi show w/o the Trek label?
I can not speak for everyone in the Country but here in the South I think 1 of the things that hurt voyagers ratings was simply the fact that UPN its network was constantly moving the time slot and even worse would constantly preempt it for a Basketball game or some other event and it was like playing weres Waldo to find it on the air and for working people like myself with a busy life you simply don't have time to play chase the tv show no matter how good it is. But I actually did like Voyager just got feed up with the network games
Actually, from "The Best of Both Worlds" on, where they indicate they need Picard to become Locutus to execute their plans, there has always been the collective and a tendency to use individuals where appropriate to their plans. It is quite possible that they do this as a means of compensating for their failures - a way of adapting to the human dynamic when they fail to assimilate humanity the first time. Seems consistent to me.
I can buy the preferance of good stories over continuity, but in most cases I can think of easy workarounds for a script which would leave it mostly intact, while respecting canon. Would it really be so hard for the writers to come up with a script, and then make amendments for the sake of continuity?
I am 55 years old, and have been a Star Trek fan ever since my teenage years. In all honesty, the franchise has never really been concerned about continuity. Episodes of TOS were written as mini movies independent of each other and with hardly (if any) connection to each other. There were a few exceptions (e.g. The two episodes to feature Harry Mudd).
Great opinions lore I do respectfully disagree on a few points for one I never liked how OP the Borg were in best of both worlds I thought it was silly that one cube could destroy 39 ships. And I dont think TNG did the Borg any favors afterwards either I actually prefer Voyagers portrayal of the Borg overall even with their missteps. 2nd the Orville is comedic but it's so much more than that lately it's been tackling current socials issues just as good as any trek has done before and helping to start a discussion rather than telling us how to think. I've heard the Orville is ideas from Seth's Macfarlane's rejected trek series not 100% sure if that's true or not though. I respect your opinions Lore these are just a few of my thoughts on the topic as always I enjoyed hearing your opinions
How stories are told has changed. It changed in part *because* of TNG. Best of Both Worlds - despite the reset button at the end in many respects - was a game changer. If TNG were created today, it would be serialized like Enterprise seasons 3-4. Or like Doctor Who from ten years ago. Individual episodes, but with a seasonal through arc. I really liked JMS proposed Trek reboot. The Federation discovers an ancient alien race that visited Earth and spread humans across the galaxy. Who are they? What do they want? Are they a threat? To answer these questions, Starfleet assigns the best and brightest to one of their best ships, and gives them a five-year mission - to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life, and new civilizations, to boldly go, where no man has gone before - and get the answers. The Series' arc would still see first contact with the Gorn and Tholians, first Romulan face to face contact, and regular conflict with the Klingons. But it would also explore the mystery of The Preservers. That, if the JMS responsible for B5 - not the One More Day JMS - was involved, would have been incredible. And could have supplanted the original. Instead we got JJ and Kurtzman and Bad Reboot.
Personally, I just really don't think Star Trek needs a "reboot". What Star Trek needs is to get back to it's roots of science, exploration, and a hopeful vision of the future - get rid of this "dark and gritty" storytelling and get back to exploring the final frontier.
To break down both topics let's talk about Voyager first. The borg are toned down yes, but 1 ship against the collective. I think You have to. If you see the borg between voyager and tng voyager was fubar the first time they met the borg. O nthe other hand, voyager is far more advanced then the Enterprise D. She was build for exploration, but also for war. On ther way home Voyager got some upgrades, so they where even more powerfull. I liked Voyager, but don't forget they where done in a different time, for a different audiance. and that takes me to Discovery. I think that the had discovery gets from the (old) trekkies is the same as the JJ movies. First they had to look different because of copyright. But also they are made again for a different audiance. Tng wouldn't work now, because of the time difference. They way stories are told, filming etc. Discovery has its moments, but I think that today with copyrights claims left and right, the writers are held back because of that. One step out of line and they might get sued these days.
The death of the Borg started in the first appearance. They were a one shot character they made soo powerful that they had to wimp out to use when fans loved them. One Borg get shot second one has a force field, next episode four get shot then one has force field. slow death
My thoughts? Brannon and Braga should be ridden out of town on a rail after being tarred and feathered. But I've always been something of a wimpy lily livered moderate when it comes to these things.
Thanks to streaming, Star Trek will live on forever. I don't have to watch STDisco. All that I love about Trek is just a click away. My now 16 year old daughter has enjoyed it over the years and I got to experience her watching these wonderful shows for the first time. That is what Star Trek means to me.
I'm a Star Wars fan, grown up with it all my life, watched the movies and tv series, everything that has come from it so my opinion might not count to some but when it comes to Star Trek, I grew up with that too. It's one of my favorite series after Star Wars, no joke, whether it was from TNG to Enterprise I did enjoy it with shows like DS9, Voyager and Enterprise being my absolute favorites. When it comes to Discovery, I can understand why Trek fans would be insulted and anger, it's being treated the same way Star Wars is being treated by Disney, it's not what it had been in the past and it seems like they just don't care. But unlike Star Wars, who has stories all over the place, not just featuring the Skywalkers when it comes to Legends and was much better than most of the crap that Disney is pumping out, Star Trek has always focused on a singular element: Humanity. It focused on the interactions and the betterment of mankind, how they had changed, how they defend their ideals and struggle with moral quandaries which isn't bad and can serve as a lesson to us all on how to be better people. But after five series of that point, the changing political climate and how humanity has started to become worse to itself rather than better; the humans in the show would also change. Like diversity, that isn't a bad word yet it carries a negative connotation, why? Because it's forced and has become a way to circumvent actual good storytelling; Discovery is one of those places where good storytelling has been circumvented for diversity. Though there are some episodes I love from Discovery especially the ones with the Mirror Universe but perhaps that's the problem right there. Star Trek is forced to change because at this point in time, we are changing in a more negative fashion. The Last Jedi tore the Star Wars fandom in half between those who liked it and those who felt supremely insulted by it. I liked that movie but will honestly say that they could have done MUCH better which concludes the point that Disney really doesn't know how to Star Wars right. Just like this, I believe that CBS has forgotten how to Star Trek. In order to save Star Trek, it might be time to shift the focus. Keep humanity as the major component but expand more into the other races. Deep Space Nine did this very well showing us the Cardassian side, the Federation side, and Dominion side which other Trek franchises use as a one off or done every now and again. They want to use diversity, well use the other races, have them come more into the forefront like a half-Roluman, half-human captain struggling with his sides but diversity for trek doesn't mean someone having a different skin color or slightly slanted eyes, they are humans, plain and simple. That isn't diverse because we are all humans and trying to think that we are all different from each other just due to our looks or nationalities is why something stupid like diversity is even brought to stage in the first place. That is what CBS and many people need to understand, we are all humans, no matter what we look like so get the hell over it, only by actions should anyone be judged. Show different, more interesting stories, have the planets exploded further the plot rather than just random exploration which Discovery is doing, even though how they are doing it in season two is rather annoying in and of itself. Keep humanity around but with all the races in the Federation, the other powers and areas of the Alpha/Beta quadrant that have yet to be explored, there is no reason for humans to still be the 100% center of it all. Want diversity, show a vulcan captain, maybe an andorian, a tellarite (ok, maybe not THAT one but you get what I mean). That might help to bring the story back on track when we no longer see ourselves reflected in it and can return to how Trek originally was. Just my thoughts.
@ Lore Reloaded - 1 - There's a BIG difference between Nerdpick Continuity (in an earlier episode they said THIS, but now they said this... mmm-hey!) and flat outright changing the source material. A LOT of the issues with Discovery, on a very basic level, are visual (especially the Klingons). There was NO Storytelling need to change the appearance of the Klingons, change what the uniforms looked like so drastically, and use technology unavailable to what was around just previous to Kirk. 2 - "Continuity" matters less and less if the stories are GOOD - this is where Discovery fails. They wanted to change everything, but their ability to tell a story fell apart very quickly. The characters (especially Burnham) are a mess, there's an over-reliance on Drama (vs. Science Fiction), and lots of stuff that just makes no sense. 3 - Writers use the "Storytelling trumps all" as an excuse for poor writing, then blame it on the executives and others. It's a lame excuse because trying to fit inside somebody else's vision is too hard. I'm sorry, but the writers of Discovery are just not talented enough to write Star Trek - this was PROVEN in the season finale when it appears they wanted to write for EVERY OTHER SciFi show out there BESIDES Star Trek (seriously... what was up with the Star Wars droids??????). 4 - I think your comment about The Orville proves you wrong about TNG. The Orville is a "comedy" only in that it has more comedic elements and doesn't take itself too seriously. TNG (and Voyager, and Orville for that matter) are a different type of storytelling - one not reliant on false drama, but the speculative questions. The recent episode with the Moclan female resistance brought back some GREAT Star Trek memories - drawing up questions we're supposed to ask (in this case, can we judge another culture by our own moral standards - what point is interference wrong, even if it's for what we think is the right reason?). I don't remember a single episode of Discovery asking these larger questions or inspiring debate on issues, but The Orville continues to do so in a way that often doesn't end the way we think it should. 5 - The Borg actually do have a story comparison to Discovery, but not the one you mentioned - it's a good reason why there should NOT be a Section 31 show. The Borg were great when they were mysterious and we didn't know much about them. The more we found out about them, the less frightening they got and the less we liked them. I think we've already gone WAY past that point with Section 31. Just as DS9 treated the Mirror Universe Poorly (and Discovery just kept stabbing that wound, not realizing it was already dead), so did Discovery with Section 31 (and the show will continue to beat that dead horse). The original Mirror Universe gave us a mirror to see ourselves and what we could be given different circumstances - a way to understand our own morality as situational. DS9 gave us Section 31 as a way to express the self-sacrificing noble for the good of king and country, and the dark underbelly needed to maintain a higher order. Both of these points were lost when they were used like playthings by the writers to give viewers the "kewl" factor. At the end of the day, given the state of current trek, I couldn't agree with you more about Trek should have died with Enterprise. I refuse to believe Discovery was any kind of "necessary" evolution of the genre vs. a group of people who wanted to write anything but Star Trek and instead used the "Star Trek" name as a cash grab.
I wouldn't call Orville a comedy. There's much more drama than there is comedy. I find it strange you'd say Trek fans would not be open to a comedy though. I don't mean to sound insulting, but I think that's a pretty baseless statement. Even if you consider the Orville a comedy, aren't Trek fans generally taking a liking to it?
Yes especially seeing that they call themselves a Comedic Parody that's NOT Star Trek they act and seriously tend to Trek a lot more then actual Trek lately. An that's kinda the problem. Trek now don't try and cant tell a good story, or continuity, to do the originals from Voyager back justice
And it seems odd to say "Star Trek fans would not seem open to a comedy" based on the stupid idea of a "Lower Decks" cartoon. Just because fans find one idea stupid, doesn't mean it rejects an entire genre...
I agree with your point, not just for startrek but also for any other established work (starwars, LOTR, Indiana Jones, ect). In my opinion an established work should only be expanded upon with content that improves the work in some way. I will say that the standard should be different for the original creator than anyone else. As an example I'll use starwars: The holiday special shouldn't exist(while he claims to have had no role in it, he had the power to keep it from airing). However episode 1 works, even if only for leading to ep 3( a sentiment I understand but disagree with, I like the entire trilogy). And for others; Splinter of the Minds Eye is a wonderful addition, but Solo should have been canned halfway through production. I do believe this should applie to all forms of additions. Whether it's in the form of media, or merchandise. Attack of the Clones was my favorite of the precuels and I think it gets far too much hate.
Star Trek and Star Wars. Are really stories of the past. The rules of these universes are based on a culture that isn’t around today. Being that these universes are fictional they are based on trope and prejudices of the time. That over 40/50 years becomes difficult to explain and hard to believe. I am ok without new Star Trek and Star Wars. Let the Orville and other shows go on their new take without having to be bogged down by lore, and our nostalgic preconceptions of it. The 1960’s had the idea that man will change to interact with technology so Star Trek had 3rd grade kids learning calculus and could handle complex math in their heads and for the most part manage their emotions. The Orville universe is around the idea that technology will adapt to work for the human animal so the characters are more emotional and have more relatable issues. Now in 2040 this may be considered unrealistic.
People say "The Orville" is a comedy. I've seen enough episodes where I'm willing to say that it it still a mostly serious show, but since it was pitched as a comedy, they sometimes (for better or worse) throw in comedic elements. With the most recent episode as of this writing ("Sanctuary"), dealt with serious issues of, basically, the rights of Women in society. Yet, it threw in a high comedic moment with a representative of an alien culture liked the "9 to 5" song by Dolly Parton, and started using it as a 'battle hymn' of sorts ^_^ Cut that bit out, and you still have an excellent story that very much felt like some of the best of TNG episodes, at least in my opinion.
Come on Lore, while Orville is pitched as a comedy because of its creator it tackles very serious subjects and does contemporary allegory just like TOS and TNG did.
I am rewatching Enterprise right now on Netflix and I rewatched Voyager and first I want to say that DS9 is still my favorite series. But Voyager has its own charm and if you don't have to listen to the Enterprise intro (Netflix let's you skip it) then it's not great but not terrible either. Thing is though I really don't like that they used the name Enterprise but I digress. Thing is though Discovery or STD as I like to call it, is terrible. Sorry I just can't find anything to like about it.
The problem with the Borg is that they were introduced as unstoppable. It's hard to keep the story going and keep that in place. I think what they should have done is limit the Borg to one cube (possibly with billions of assimilated people on it). That way no confrontation ends with the destruction of a Borg cube. Sometimes they trick the cube into going after something else, other time they just lose. Like half of star fleet gets destroyed/assimilated and the cube just leaves after getting what it came for. Then you could also have stories where the Borg just happen to show up during a conflict and they have to stop fighting and jettison any new technology to not attract their attention. You could have really moving scenes where Picard genuinely trying to save the people he is at war with (f.ex. Romulans) and begging them to just their cloaking technology to not get destroyed, which they of course refuse to do. This incident could then be the groundwork for diplomacy and trust further down the line.
A solution for First Contact (and Voyager) and the concept of the Borg Queen would have been to make Dr Pulaski the new _Locutas of Borg._ *[WARNING, ESSAY]* The problem was that the filmmakers wanted a *singular protagonist* for the heroes (Picard and Data) to act opposite and for dramatic interaction and dialogue, but the nature of the Borg and what makes them so terrifying is that they are a faceless foe, a force of nature that cannot be argued or engaged with - _"Listen. Understand. That Terminator is out there. It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with. It doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear and it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are dead"._ Giving them a Queen would be like making a Zombie King that ruled all the Walkers on *The Walking Dead.* It completely changes the concept of the walkers and makes them a conventional bad guy, which destroys their essence. Track down and argue, reason, monologue, trick and kill the Zombie King and all the Walkers die, it would jump the shark faster than a zombie sharknado. And at the very basic level the Borg are a horde of Cyberzombies, and should be treated as such for dramatic purposes. That is the problem with making a film for general audiences and not just the fans (and if you don't like it, then don't expect big budget films to be made), it tends to accommodate the casual viewer and studios are generally very risk adverse so they went for a traditional narrative and a generic bad guy. But what could they have done differently to make both groups happy and not dilute the purity of the Borg menace? Remember I mentioned Dr Pulaski, that is where the emotional shock and the interaction with an individual comes in. In The Best of Both Worlds we see Picard get assimilated and turned into *Locutus of Borg,* still a individual, who not only engaged the crew in dramatic dialogue, but did so from the perspective of one of their own turned against them - The bad guy who was a former friend. To continue the Borg are cybernetic undead theme it's like when one of the good guys gets turned into a vampire and now uses their intimacy to hurt the heroes emotionally a well as strategically… _"Your resistence is hopeless...Number One."_ [It can be seen to great effect in season two of Buffy with Angelus, her true love Angel is now her worst enemy through no fault of his own after losing his soul]. Having the Borg once again chose an *'Emissary'* keeps the concept of the Borg pure but allows for one on one dramatic interaction, but why Dr Pulaski? Well having a newly introduced character assimilated lacks dramatic and emotional impact, and it gets into the redshirt trope, which has now become the revolving helmsman, I knew Lt Hawk was Borg fodder as soon as I saw him and it wasn't a shock (I was surprised the helmsman survived in Insurrection). So it's best for a series regular to become the new voice of the Borg, but who? Working through the list I realised instead of killing off a regular cast member why not reintroduce someone who was in the series, that fans knew and that casual viewers would go 'yeh, sorta remember' and most importantly would have a backstory with the characters and a casual familiarity that lets viewers know they're one of the gang (and not telegraph that they're going to cop it). At that describes Dr Pulaski, the only other candidates were either committed to DS9 (O'Brien or Keiko) or off discovering new Dimensions _"shut up Wesley"_ (and too contrived to reintroduce him, and if the Borg assimilated his power it's game over). Dr Pulaski was there for 20 episodes, the only other candidates were Guinan (Whoopi's hair under a bald patch?) Also she's too close, losing her would resonate to deeply, and after all she's got another thousand years at least (hasn't aged in half a millennium, and they may have thought she could be required for further movies, she can keep turning up in different time periods including the far future), or Lwaxana Troi, and her problem is she's a comedic character, and a telepath which just makes her overpowered versus Picard (only Data could outwit her) and she's part of DS9. Also neither of these characters are human and the Borg world chose a _human_ to coordinate assimilating Earth. So near the start of First Contact Dr Pulaski is visiting the new Enterprise and her old friends and that seems perfectly normal to the audience, she's just caught up in the battle, there's some fun doctor versus doctor banter between her and Dr Crusher (who was absent when she was aboard previously because Pulaski was her replacement) about what's happened since she left regarding relationships (two female doctors, they'll gossip about mutual friends and colleagues) and most importantly Dr Pulaski will discuss Data with Dr Crusher. She was always obsessed with the idea of Data's sapience and had a complicated relationship with him, at times antagonistic but also respectful. The emotion chip would be a topic and also a way to remind the casual viewer of that aspect of Data, since it's something that happened after Dr Pulaski left and through that the audience is reminded she had a connection to the crew. This would explain the Borgs new obsession with Data, Locutus considered Data irrelevant. _"The android, Data, primitive artificial organism. You will be obsolete in the new world order."_ With Pulaski at the helm, the Borg would change their assessment of Data. He had a daughter who died, he killed his twin brother and he has emotions, all of which happened after Pulaski left, she would be fascinated by this and it could show in some pre assimilation dialogue where she catches up with him and apologises for her previous attitude and mentions how he's grown as a person or individual. ("That's the nicest thing anyone had ever said to me Doctor"). And that allows for some deeply emotional conversations between Borg Pulaski and Data, about his family and development instead of the cringeworthy seduction attempt of the Queen. The scene where it's revealed that she's the new Borg Emissary has the potential for great drama as well, as they learn that their colleague is now the mastermind against them. And maybe she points out that the Borg are no longer vulnerable to being hacked like they did with Locutus ("We have adapted"). The actress who played Dr Pulaski had a thin face that would look suitably sinister as a Borg, and also her eventual death wouldn't effect series continuity (like bumping off one of the core seven and telling that actor "no more big movies for you, sorry about your career and mortgage"). Her removal from the collective would be just too contrived, being assimilated becomes too casual, give it some resonance, they won, but lost a friend. Also what about the moral implications of the Starfleet Borg they killed if they could've been rescued as well? The only issue is they would have to come up with some other way to wipe out all the Borg that just 'they die without the Queen'. But the Borg are not *sullied with individuality,* and it can even become part of their modus operandi - they assimilate an Emissary to lead them in conquering a species, and if it doesn't work, they use a different individual to very their methodology. But it gives them insight into their victims psychology and tactics, and the most appropriate way to assimilate them, and is yet another strength of the Borg. Also with Picard having insights into the Borg, it shows that the best weapon against the Borg is former Drones that have inside knowledge and can still 'feel' what the Borg is up to. He didn't target a particular weak spot that Cubes have (they have no weak spots, that's the basic idea of their design) he was able to intercept information from the Borg about where their systems were damaged, it's not like "maybe we should write that spot down". Seven of Nine could be played the same way, she understands where they are vulnerable, instead of just having Janeway outwit the Queen at every encounter while the Queen sputters _"JANEWAY (curses, foiled again!)"_ Now onto Voyager… [*looks at length of this essay as a TH-cam comment and thinks "Frack this, smeghead - May the tl:dr be with you"]. Although briefly (hah!) regarding Voyager, instead of the Borg Queen they could have had a series regular assimilated as the new Borg Emissary, gives it the interaction without the mediocrity. And for that they could have gone with ensign Kim, (instead of having a death match with his agent using a hottest Asian actor listing in a magazine as a TKO to get rid of Kes) as they had planned to get rid of him in Scorpion. Or promote another actor from background (like Seska) planning full well to eventually Borg them. I personally would have had Harry have a relationship near the start with Seven (her being the aggressor, much to the amusement of Paris and concern of Torres), and then in the episode where the Queen 'returns', (when the steal a transwarp coil, although she's not canon now because she didn't appear in First Contact) instead Harry gets assimilated and becomes _Kimatas of Borg._ That gives the crew a major shock, and sets back Seven's emotional development as blame goes round. It also keeps Kes in the cast, no doubt with some saphic undertones to her friendship and concern for Seven. Perhaps Kes can be given the same age slowing treatment the Oncampa travelers had, or she ages and eventually dies near the end of the series. And it could explain why Janeway can beat the Borg, she (and Paris) knows Harry so well and can predict Kimatas's plans and tactics, using the Borg's strength of adopting an Emissary against them. As a final question, what should Pulaski's Borg name be?
DS9 is one of my favourites now that I am older, Voyager had its issues but it was fairly ok. I enjoyed enterprise and TNG, cant stand the first one anymore. I'd have been fine with it ending before or after enterprise. And i'd have Really loved for them to push forward rather than backwards and mess up the lore as they have. But this is what they've done so here we are.
I wonder what Voyager would look like if it had to face the Borg of Wolf 359 by the end of Season 3. Would it be a "Year of Hell" type of 2 - 3 parter (Something that would have replaced Scorpion 1&2 + The Gift) and Voyager never encounters the Borg again? Or would it be 3 seasons of Voyager constantly on the run? With no viable allies save for maybe Species 8472?
I think the main problem with the Borg as well as why they were "watered down" is that in their original portrayal they were so staggeringly powerful they would have just mopped the floor with the Federation and anyone else until the entire galaxy was borg. Even the Q prefer to stay clear of them. Then they proved very popular, and were brought back for further encounters. Which needed their power cut down to more managable levels or that would have been it. Then, with Voyager having to travel back from the other side of the delta quadrant completely on its own, which was already known to be their home turf, the Borg had to be nerfed once again. Otherwise Voyager wouldnt have made it 5 lightyears once they ran into them.
Claiming a Star Trek franchise is utterly unredeemable and worthy of cancellation because you cannot forgive certain particular things about it is basically the argument every embittered fanboy has been harping about since DS9. How many "fans" would have been happy to see Star Trek dropped from black-sheep Deep Space Nine? Honestly if the showrunners of TNG in S1 heeded the fandom after being outranked in Nielson ratings by _Jeopardy!_ there would be no TNG. They wouldn't have syndicated and used that as their launching point into S2. I get that you want to make the argument that all Star Trek messes with continuity for ratings, and somehow "past trek" just does it better because they "build up" from boring, cheesy crappiness into gold through weakened executive control. But from a show business perspective, not a fandom perspective, you cannot "build upon" on a show that is cancelled regardless of who is in control. Its a moot point. To be competitive commercially Star Trek has to not only stand out, but get people talking again -- and yes, that general interest good or bad translates into market share and that is a good thing.
Very interested to see what's going on with the Borg in Picard (as I'm sure everyone who cares the smallest bit about Trek is as well). That last scene in the 1st episode was pretty interesting! And as we've all seen in the trailers Seven has a big role to play. SO it's pretty much a given we will be seeing a lot of them this season. Will they be watered down, or will they be the monstrous, almost insurmountable enemy that they could have been? I just hope they're interesting, no matter how they're portrayed.
I felt the same about Star Wars. Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher lived happily ever after in 1983 and had three beautiful kids (not one swole douche). Leave it alone, Disney.
Voyager destroyed the Borg as DS9 destroyed the Mirror Universe. The problem with Voyager is that the made the Borg Queen too individualistic rather than just the voice of the collective. I understand that the movie First Contact started this trend but it did not have to go to the extent that it did. The Borg became a nuisance to Janeway rather than the ultimate threat that the Alpha Quadrant faced at Wolf 359. I had no problem with Seven of Nine regaining her humanity (as she was assimilated as a child) but to turn the Collective and the Borg Queen into sissies was an injustice. The problem with DS9 is that they destroyed the Mirror Universe. The series itself was amazing but I have nothing but disdain for what they did with the Mirror Universe. What fans enjoyed about the Mirror Universe in TOS was that it was exactly the opposite of the almighty Utopian United Federation of Planets. DS9 took that away. It lost its enjoyable aspects by making the Terran empire a softer version of the prime universe. Quite pathetic. Star Trek Enterprise did a wonderful job of tying in the true Mirror Universe and was one of the most enjoyable episodes in the Star Trek universe.
The shows today do have different styles compared to STTOS. They're faster paced for one, but I could see Anson Mount doing something similar to a STOS series. He's very good when they give him a chance.
Would I watch a show that is light hearted today? Yes. In fact, I stopped watching television because they started taking everything way too goddamn seriously. I watch more TNG reruns than I watch modern programming, and I rarely watch TNG reruns. The issue isn't that there isn't an audience for light hearted programming today, it's that producers don't want to take a chance that there is. Dark, serious and angry works these days, and that is what producers will stick to.
I loved Voyager as a kid. I watched it with my dad cuz it was the only New star trek show at the time and hes a big trekkie and I feel like if that show hadn't aired I would've never got to bond with my dad or understand star trek for what it was.
People say Discovery isn't any good however I disagree. I'm new to the show and I personally enjoy it, after watching I it's got me hooked into the franchise and i know others that feel the same. Please keep up the vids, loving them!
As far the Borg being the "bad guy of the week" the Borg presence in the alpha and beta quadrants is minimal, so having Voyager in the Delta quadrant where the Borg originated the Borg presence is substantially greater meaning that Voyager is more likely to encounter the Borg at any given time. Also the Borg technology being so much more advanced made a great opportunity to get Voyager home. TNG did to the Klingons what Voyager did to the Borg. Also the Borg weakened themselves by messing with species 8472, a classic ' the bigger they are the harder they fall'.
The borg aren't definitely in discovery, as control is basically like zamasu from dragonball super and a certain robot species that nearly made an appearance in star trek enterprise from a famous british sci fi show, what i mean is that control is genocidal, NOT assimilate all life, which means control doesn't equal borg
I figured Control is similar, but not the same. Control can manipulate holograms while the Borg have yet to demonstrate this ability. If Control has access to all of Federation technology and knowledge, then it should have access to EMH-style holo-technology by time it eradicates the Federation, thus negating any need for flesh blood and nanite drones. If it needs to send a boarding party somewhere, all it has to do is drop a few holo-emitters and you have a bunch of Holo-Lelands running around your ship.......
I'm satisfied with the borg mythos. But I disliked how they created 7 or 9. They took a borg zombie and turned her into a blonde super model. It would be much more intriguing if 7 kept all her borg implants and scared the crap out of the voyager crew. The crew was far too accepting of 7. She assimilated millions of people and that's OK? But like you said it's all about business. A blonde bombshell in a slinky outfit puts food on the tables of writers and keeps them from getting cancelled.
I'm a Trek fan, yet I love The Orville. Sure, Season 1 had some dumb episodes and episodes with a good plot but handled poorly; but Season 2 is quite awesome! The 2-parter with Isaac was a little bad but that epic space battle was INSANE and I'd watch that again over and over. Kind of the reason why I liked the Dominion War arc of DS9 so much, so many epic battles!
I do appreciate continuity but I am glad that we do sometimes get some amazing stories from Voyager, Enterprise and Discovery. Pretty much seasons 3 and 4 of Enterprise ignored some canon and embraced others but almost every episode was great. For Voyager they adapted canon and we also got a few good episodes like Shattered. And with Discovery, while mostly bad imo, we got an amazing episode in Magic to make the sanest man to go mad which was a story that could've worked in any Star Trek series and was just joyful, Then we see an episode like Memory serves which appeals to the TOS canon everywhere and it kind of lacks as an episode because of it.
Good vid, thanks. A shame to mainly consider Orville a comedy though; season 2 especially has done wonders in establishing their setting and offering good developments/drama within that. It's making me care for what happens, something Discovery neved managed to do.
I hate to say it, but you raise very good points. Star Trek isn't Tolkien. Its showbiz, not an epic story for the sake thereof. Personally, I think each series had its strengths and weaknesses. I loved them all, if for somewhat different reasons. I would have had Star Trek end with Enterprise. Enterprise having come from the same era as TNG, DS9, and STV. The old guard will always be critical of the new, and the old guard will always be left behind for the new. That's just the way the world works. Happily, I can still watch the five series on Netflix, so there is that.
The irony is the best Trek all the way back to TOS is not the flashy lights or big battles, but episodes that had to be bottle shows due to season budget constraints. For me, I hoped Discovery would be again around the time of Kirk, but on the other side of the Federation. About worlds, societies only mentioned or created new ones for the first time. The reasoning could be very simple, the Galaxy is a big place and so is the Federation itself. Just because you didn't hear about them in the other shows didn't mean they don't exist. So you could create whole new races and situations that are a threat to UFP or better threats to people. Be they local planets or the main characters themselves. The reason you didn't hear about them in TOS is because they were busy with their own threats like Klingons, Romulans, and Unicron Jr. that was shaped like a funnel that ate planets.
From what I'm seeing about star trek and reading, that Star trek online stayed true to the canon and continuity cause it took years of trek story telling to make it fit all together with throwback episodes or mirror versions of the same lore, if they really wanted to make a really good trek they should've done it like online instead of throwing in a series that re-wrote the history of trek
Playing loose with continuity and the rest can work, when the stories that come from it are good enough to justify it. From a business standpoint, better ratings and more profitable merchandising is that justification. I believe the defense of Voyager fails on both of those accounts. The powers that be might have felt that a more classic Trek formula wouldn't work in that modern age, but Voyager didn't work either. The writing wasn't just bad as a "Star Trek" series, it was weak even if you take away the "Star Trek" branding. As a Star Trek series, Voyager became viewed as a joke, or the butt of jokes, for multiple reasons. Even the initial dislike for Enterprise didn't redeem Voyager with an "at least it is better than Enterprise", and that is before we get into Enterprise's own eventual rocky path to redemption. (It is also worth noting that, despite the powers that be arguments of classic Trek/TNG not working in modern times, the retoolings of ailing Star Trek series is to make them appear to be more like classic Trek/TNG.)
Can someone explain to me why Voyager was the least liked before Enterprise? I love TNG and Voyager and resently rewatched both 2yrs ago and Voyager is still my Favorite even if it wasnt ambitions enough in its premis! Id like to hear opinions
Maybe Im an average viewer but let me say that I have watched all of the star trek movies and have spent the last 2 years binge watching star trek starting with TNG. There is a complex continuity with the borg story and the borg as characters have evolved from thier first appearance until now. I think Discovery is trying to incorporate the borg into the temporal cold war. Dont forget that their are federation timeships out there that are constantly influence current events. I think season 3 of Discovery is gonna put tge discovery in a future where Starfleet still exists and may explain some of the science behind Timeships based on Discovery's spore drive time travel technology. Star trek has been really good so far at writing holes in its plot that leaves possibilities open. I enjoy the new series and though voyager may have lost ratings in the past, it still stands strong as a series. TNG made the borg out to be mindless drones until they caught 1 and taught him individuality. Borg have used time travel to attack Earth so Discovery may be telling a very interesting and complex origin story. Just like how Jean luc nearly destroyed the past in his future, we may be witnessing a similar event with section 31 and the Borg.
What specifically did UPN false advertise about Voyager? I watched the whole series from 95-01 on UPN, and don’t remember them doing so. To be fair 18 years have passed since I watched a Voyager on UPN, and was only an adult for season 7 of the series.
Continuity is part of immersion. "We suspend our disbelief and we are entertained." - Neil Peart : As for the Borg they were the one enemy that was genuinely scary. TNG Parallels has one of the most disturbing scenes, when Worf is looking for his Enterprise, one of the Enterprise is from a universe where the Borg are dominating the galaxy. This alternate Enterprise, Riker is disheveled and mentally/ emotionally frayed to wits end does what he can to leave his universe cuz the Borg are too much.. This was a very disturbing glimpse into the level of threat that the Borg could be.. And then there's Voyager, unparallel plot armour and a poor Operations Officer who in seven years never got promoted, whose biggest character change was he went from playing clarinet to sax.. Yuck.
Hmm, so on Voyager the writers were on a very loose leash while on Discovery the Execs are calling all the shots. That actually explains a lot about what happened with both shows.
Authoritarian? Have you heard the story about Bill Mumy making a cameo in DS9? He added 1 word to his line (reflexively, the word 'Well' ) and the directors freaked out... Had to authorize the change... And was denied... Bill was incredulous...
If you think TNG is the pinnacle of Trek, then I don't know what to say to you. TNG was NEVER great, and quite possibly the nadir of the series, followed up by its apex, DS9. And she's right, the story and the characters always take precedent, even if continuity should be followed as a general rule.
If there would have been an internet, when TNG aired... well, let's just say there wouldn't be a discussion these days... or anymone who knows Star Trek. But really, could the TNG-Recipe work today, I honestly don't know. But I would agree with Disco's executives, that a greater storyarc s the best way, to keep the audience interessted, especially in the time of streaming, when you can so easy switch to something else. But maybe they should do it more like DS9 at its end or ENT with their 3-Episode arcs in the final season. The other thing is, what you said in another video: they should have done it later, fist gave us some single episodes with character developement, so we, as the audience and fans, know who we should care about. So I still think, Disco wanted too much to fast, like to be DS9 in the Dominion-War-Arc instandly. The other thing with continuity is: Well Voyager had the luxury to be set in the Delta-Quadrant, so they got their freedom. ENT and Disco as prequels have restricted themselfes. Not in reallity, but in expectations. The name "Star Trek" brings expectaions withit, like "Lord of the Rings" or "Walking Dead", so with the name are always some basic rules set. And every outbreak of these rules have to be made very carefully and after some time of acclimatisation, I think. Disco just crashed with the head thorgh the door with it changes in tone, designs and storytelling, that noone really could adapt. But to the serious writing: I can only respect those who gave us these stories, bad or good, because, danm if I would make them, they would be the worst fanfiction you have seen in years and I don't want to be in the shoes of those guys who actually work for CBS and Disco, getting strict orders from executives and harsh critics from the "fans".
Different people different times, could you imagine if Star Trek was made back in the 1930's? It would be like Flash Gordon their main Frienemy would be a Snobby Q who tests them. Their ship would be a little rocket ship and everyone would speak with a posh American or British Accent, Charlie Chaplin would be the Captain of course.
I am a huge Trekkie but I agree with everything you said about Voyager and Discovery and I was always annoyed with how they treated the Borg in Voyager and the weird as hell version of the Klingons in Discovery
I would not give a crap if they just said this is a new continuity, yes there would be moaning. With the exception of the very very small minority that wont let anything go, the drama would die down. STD would get its viewership from the casuals would build, and those who want Star Trek even if its just in name would go over. It would not stress the community like how CBS has handled it. ultimately, my issue with continuity is a marketing one, CBS needed a solid base line for all access, so Star Trek was the brand to do it, but they expected the name alone to hold weight, the viewers of ST are typically smarter then that, so in marketing as classic trek they damaged the viewer base and lost money. STD is a tragedy because it was marketed extremely poorly and damaged both parties, the community that grew around the story of ST and the Executives baseline. Its all because the classic crutch of execative thinking, that a name alone will make them all the money when they need to put in that extra penny of effort.
I wanted a fifth season of Enterprise and I think you are being entirely too harsh. Beach iteration of Star trek is different unto itself.that includes TV shows movies animation even the short treks. I don't think that is a bad thing. I took the first season of Discovery with a grain of salt.Once the big reveal of the first season happened I got pretty excited. Overall I was not disappointed. The second season has as criticisms as wellbut I would much rather see it and have it then to not have anything at all.
I think that Star Trek could work with modern story telling methods. TNG was not told the same was as TOS, and DS9 not the same way as TNG. VOY and ENT made the mistakes of trying to be TNG, and it was only when ENT decided to do its own thing that show actually garner more attention. Yet, Enterprise went out of its way also to ensure that the overall continuity stayed in tack. Section 31 existed, but they had no name, Earth met the Klingons, but while it wasn't a disaster like Picard states, its still wasn't all that great considering they almost go to war with them 2 years after they meet. The Xindi incident was obviously huge, but its not mentioned in any series going forward, but even then, its easily rationalized why it wouldn't be. My point is the writers found that balance between good writing and continuity. Now, the main reason why Voyage and then Entperrise's ratings dropped (besides writing) was also competition. All network TV ratings were down, and UPN was one of the lowest at the time. They were suffering from competition from cable. Heck, I remember a TV Guide cover stating Stargate SG-1 had passed Enterprise in ratings. And SG-1 would be joined by Atlantis and BSG before Enterprise would be canceled. I am a writer, and it is hard as hell to keep continuity in tact. But you can and still make a good story, its just hard. TNG changed things about the Federation and Starfleet that TOS set into motion, but at no time did it feel unnatural and really nether did VOY, even when it came to the Borg. The problem? VOY never really tried to rectify the changes, mainly because of First Contact. They were too close in time to do so the way they did. If they were going to focus so much on changing the Borg, they should have just gone all the way, and had a full season dedicated to Voyager navigating the collective as a whole, but that's a modern TV mentality not one from even VOY's time. Even DS9 skipped around with the Dominion. Discovery is just a mess, its a prime example of executive interference. It had every chance in the world to be a great series. Hell, if Discovery took place after DS9/VOY everyone would like it far more (it would still need to be seriously cleaned up, but still). Hopefully they take a look at the Picard Series, and do this. Right now, Discovery is the type of show that get's reconned out of existence at some point in time.
When I watch Star Trek, I say does this entertain me, yes it does, including Discovery. I hear people complain about everything about Star Trek doesn't mean I going to stop watching. I hear the story and think it their story. Some of the story are right but at the end of the day you need to ask one question, does this piece of work entertain me?
Picard defeated a Borg cube in TNG, by telling the borg to sleep. Apparently, they adapted.... but the waste disposal system was their next largest weakness. Seven of Nine's parents' studied a vessel up close without it causing any alarms. Furthermore, one can almost safely board a Borg vessel, and they are docile? Try just beaming onto the Voyager for a picnic. They repeatedly fell for the trick on Icheb's planet with the fake warp signature lure. Sure the last two were explained away by the show, However, it just reeks of incompetence. With the exception of Wolf 359, which could be argued as Picard unknowingly giving away all of Star Fleet's secrets, the Borg were just boogie men that the audience gave too much credit. Sure they had billions, if not trillions of drones, and massive ships, huge swaths of territories, extremely technologically advanced in many ways, but what Star Trek Villian isn't really? Maybe the Son'a with their daddy issues with the Baku, but I digress. I love the universe don't get me wrong, but the continuity issues are all over the place. For example, the Eugenics war in alpha cannon is stated to have happened in 1992, and the Voyager crew is on Earth in a very normal looking 1996. This is weird because Memory Alpha states "Eugenics Wars had a devastating impact on Earth, as entire populations were bombed out of existence". Alternatively, they may have happened in 2026 as well, so I'm really not sure which to believe. However, You can always make a new timeline, blame time travel and screw continuity.
I like what Voyager did with the Borg, they were never unstoppable juggernauts, yes they destroyed a lot of ships but they were defeated by hacking into their systems and telling them to go to sleep, the way voyager did it was similar in that they took advantage of built in weakness just because the writers said they wanted then to be unstoppable, doesn't mean they wrote them that way, like for Pete's sake data used Picard to put the Borg to sleep, how is that different from what Voyager would do
My thoughts are if Trek had to stay like it was, there should not be any more Trek. The Roddenberry tropes and antiquated story telling of Trek was already played out and cliche by the time TNG came around. It was at the root of why all the TNG era Trek shows initially suffered. It simply did not work then and it most certainly will not work now. Culture is an evolving thing. If Trek does not evolve with it, it has no reason to exist. Trek is not at its core about "hope". It is about examining what humanities future will be. How can it examine what our future will be if it is stuck dwelling on the past and defiantly ignoring our present.
Gotta be honest I've watch everything from Tos to Ent and everything in between and it all kinda just works. DS9 specially was a wonderful change up to TNG. As for Voyager Id be lying if I said I didn't love the show then and even now. Both shows in my view held strong to continuity while making something new. STD is the only Trek Iteration I've ever seen that really doesn't care and or doesn't understand the continuity it wanted to play in. It just comes across like the writers rooms snorts meth (yes snort) before writing an episode. This is the only way I can see the horrendous dialog and forced character moments being things that have actually happened in the world. Also for the Orville it isn't just a comedy its a blend of both comedy and drama.....and if im being honest I would except the Orville as trek its a new dynamic and they don't feel the need to force an agenda on me as a viewer they comment on topics in manner that you get what the message is but dont have to be drowned in what the writers room political beliefs are. I don't count myself a filthy normie. However I think Voyager did a great job with the Borg. They weren't a mcguffin. You could beat them but they would most certainly burn down your entire solar system in the process. It says a lot as a life long Trek fan who likes just about everything they put out (insurrection is my favorite movie) has to stop and say "wow thats really really inept childish and incompetent writing" It think any writers on the show would say they love trek I wouldn't neccesarily take them at their word seeing what they've let air.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA Finals D1 | Fall | ยิงต้องโหด ให้เหมือนโกรธกันมาก่อน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OnTdfGySmds/mqdefault.jpg)
I remember watching Voyager with my mum. It was the only Star Trek she liked to watch. Voyager holds a very nostalgic place for me because it was entertaining for my mum.
I remember watching it with my older brothers. We all religiously watched TNG DS9 and Voyager. Those were the days.
It was the first Star Trek that I watch , so I can't never truly hate it but I must admit DS 9 was my favorite.
Yup! Those were the days....
It’s funny how much more beloved DS9 has become with the passage of time. I remember back in the day, people were saying that Voy was better. A defender of DS9 said that in the future, people would come to see that DS was the best show.
@mrS I do tend to agree. Just the amazing characterization of Elim Garak put DS9 a notch above Voyager.
I disagree about the Orville. It is a comedy, but only about 20-50% depending on the episode (sometimes even less, like the 2 part "Identity"). Otherwise, it uses much of the DNA from TNG, right down to when the first credits start to appear in many cases. It has the same feel, and the same non-accusatory look at ourselves that TNG was so good at.
Now I do agree that Star Trek could never do that much comedy. On occasion yes (such as episodes like "The Outrageous Okanna"), but not as a main-stay. Yet I do think the TNG formula could work today. As it was back then? Probably not. Little too much cheese for today's audiences. But a lot of that could be fixed with quality writing like we see on the Orville. That and a resistance to the constant love triangles and other such "drama" that always seems to kill otherwise good shows.
Though I think you hit the nail on the head on one point; show runners have forgotten how to tell a good story. They only care about making money, oblivious to the fact that if you tell a good story, you will make money. The two go hand in hand. Show me a famous author who is well liked, and well off, and I'll show you a good story teller. Star Trek was always about telling that good story, while making us take a look at ourselves in the process. It's not just Star Trek. I see a stark lacking of good, comprehensive, engaging stories on TV these days.
This is what makes the Orville so good, and feel like old Star Trek. They tell a good story, while also making us ask questions about ourselves (with a few laughs along the way). Same with the NBC show, This is Us. It's simple, direct, and a wonderful story we can't get enough of. More to the point, both are very simple, very direct, and neither one is trying to live off of mega drama, or massive special effects budgets. They do just enough to tell the story, and tell it well, and in so doing, they are making their networks money.
I think this is what has hurt Discovery (and probably Voyager and Enterprise) most of all. They got so stuck on making money, they forgot to save energy for storytelling. They tried to "make it modern" "Make it appeal to new fans", and along the way, they forgot what brought in the old fans in the first place; a good story. A world we wanted to spend time in. I mean, let's be honest; do you dream of serving on the Discovery? As iffy as Voyager and Enterprise were, I still dreamed (and on occasion still dream) of serving on both ships. And now, I'd love to be on the Orville.
It is this connection that's lacking, and I fear more and more studios will turn away from it, making it harder and harder to find good stories, and good worlds to spend time in.
Word wall but I'm just surprised they let seth MacFarlane get away with it. I guarantee if Picard was never on one of his shows he wouldn't get away with it. That Hollywood clout.
@@ns0557212 sorry. I do that. Guess I just have a lot to say.
I could not agree more!!! Well said!
Yeah, they've already dropped jokes in some episodes already. After that what's left is Star Trek in spirit.
This isn't the place to write a novel. No one is going to read that mess.
This is a false dichotomy. There isnt a choice between good story telling and continuity. If you are telling an ongoing story, continuity is an intrinsic part of good story telling.
If you're just writing to get paid, the audience can sense it. If you're dismissing continuity as unimportant, the audience can sense it.
No, you can't always get it right. But I think audiences can tell how much you're trying. The idea that continuity is optional is antithetical to serialized story telling.
AKA the Dr Who effect. They ignore shit with the 11th Doctor and what happens? Ratings tank. Also look at the one "Modern" series that has now been going on for what 8 or 9 Seasons, Game of Thrones. That series AGONIZES over continuity. Yes its from a book but they could easily have done the "we are going to tell other stories in the setting" but they didnt and they stick to continuity and its the ONE show over the last decade to garner the most attention and to keep going.
I was trying to find the most tactful way to say this. Thankfully, you did the job for me. You can create good characters and stories, and still stay within the continuity of an established series. Fans want the kind of dedication to the lore that they have to be mirrored in the writers of their favorite series.
@@scifywriter9768 Working your stories in amongst the minutiae of lore is the fun and the challenge of writing 'franchise' fiction.
There is nothing more satisfying in writing than tying everything together, and a pre-existing fictional universe gives you so many possible hooks to tie to.
capacamaru here here well said sir!
This video is right to make a point about storytelling, continuity and rating...but it is focusing on symptoms of Star Trek's larger problem and the cultural zeitgeist that changed Star Trek's course forever, away from Gene Roddenberry. No, Gene Roddenberry didn't just give up control of the franchise, and it wasn't due to "poor health". It was due to prospective failure of the franchise and his personal embarrassment (and a large number of the writing staff to that point) in the real-world events that were wracking the political-world-wide scene.
In all of his videos about the Borg, this youtuber doesn't seem to touch on the "BIG DEAL" that altered the course of Star Trek....which is a glaring ommission. Not that many Star Trek writers would openly talk about it, even the ones who shared Maurice and Michael's worldview. I don't think he's actually touched on why the Borg were actually created, probably much as your writers don't care to admit why the Borg were created. It's similar to why losers of every stripe blot out memories of their failures....out of shame and embarrassment, retreating into sophistry, feigned ignorance and/or falsified memories. That said, it's a rather well-known story as to why the Borg were created:
Copy, pasting from 2014, though it is actually a recital of something written in the 1990s....
****
""Younger people should probably know that the destinies of Star Trek TNG and its spinoffs were inextricably linked to the end of the Cold War.
None of these series were created in a vacuum.
The writers originally imagined an "introspective" series with episodic "lesson learning" (America-bashing), using alien races as props. Herb Wright, for example, was a socialist, college Vietnam protestor, and apologist for the Soviet Union, who created the Ferengi to represent an evil capitalistic race to be Star Trek's new primary villain.
Needless to say, Wright frequently had confrontations with the lead writer who eventually created the collectivist Borg, Maurice Hurley, proving the adage that "A man is defined by the character and nature of his enemies".
This was why so many of the early alien races especially the Ferengi in TNG were written, as many have complained, like "cartoon caricatures"; transparently insulting to the intelligence of its American audience. The fatal flaw of TNG's early writing (and therefore writers) is why the show was in real trouble in its first two seasons.
Basically, TNG was swimming against the tide back in the late 1980s, although it should be noted that many socialists in the United States and Hollywood still regarded World Socialism as the "winning side" even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
America's "cultural zeitgeist" wasn't buying TNG's villains, in the same vein that many anti-war movies in the 2001-2008 era were losers, more badly-written propaganda than profit-driven endeavors to sell to an American audience.
Things came to a head, however, with a slate of anti-Left events in 1988-1989: The election of Bush, the withdrawal of the Soviets from Afghanistan, and uprisings against Communist Parties all over the from Asia to Europe. By the time the Berlin Wall was breached in late 1989, TNG's executives realized they didn't just risk being criticized for being naive or incompetent or even apologists;
They were at risk of being branded evil.
While that might seem strange to some Millennials today, for the sake of illustration: imagine branding Christians and Jews as religious terrorist bombers right after 9/11.
In hindsight, things like that are cheesy and laughable.
In the moment of the times and for the people living though them, it's outrageous.
The result was a major shakeup that led to the release/re-assignment/firing of TNG's writers and the hiring of writers who were less susceptible to showing contempt for their audience (especially in their major market, the United States).
One of those writers was Maurice hurley's (the creator of the Borg) understudy and friend, Michael Piller, who became the narrative driving force of the TNG series as well as its spinoffs like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Piller used open hiring to circumvent Hollywood's closed-socialist hiring circles, discovering some of TNG's best writers including Ron D. Moore and Rene Echeverria.
The Borg were not originally meant to be the primary villains of Star Trek TNG, but with Piller, they became the most recognizable and menacing villains of the 90s. The Ferengi, by contrast, were fleshed out in Deep Space Nine and received something of a more balanced narrative.
Stories inevitably tell you more about the authors than about the subjects. This was true for the producers and writing staff of TNG just before the Cold War ended, and the new staff inducted into TNG right after the people in Hollywood realized the jig was up.
Star Trek is not to be hailed as some sort of important creation on par with the combustion engine, the transistor, or even the Hoola Hoop.
But TNG does represent a case study, like a capsule in time, reflecting Hollywood's response to prevailing attitudes in America during some interesting times.""
I still find it a tragedy that Voyager is so disliked; and especially, that it is compared to BSG- which it was never meant to be, but is so often pigeonholed as 'if it was more like it', as if that was the intent, which it just fell short of. I don't think it was trying to be that; it was trying to do something else.
Either way, whatever Voyager was intended to be- I think there was so much good in Voyager that gets overlooked in favor of a focus on the Borg episodes, or the lack of BSG-style-ship-falling-apart grittiness/why-wasn't-it-all-like-year-of-hell. And I think that misses the heart of what Voyager was meant to be- and the areas where it really succeeded.
BSG
WAS SHIT
THE
CREATORS
WRITERS
PRODUCERS
DIRECTORS
ALL WORKED ON
STAR TREK
BEFORE THE
BSG REMAKE EXISTED
Voy>bsg oh and for dren and giggles, farScape>bsg
I hate Voyager, but Enterprise is so much worse and gets defended harder. Fuckin Nostalgia glasses ruin everything
It wasn't trying to be BSG. It was trying and failing to be season 1 of Lost in space but they couldn't even pull that off.
I still like Voyager, it's not my favorite but it's still fun to watch and even if it had major continuity issues. How many shuttles does Voyager have, like 100? But regardless I still love it and rewatch it now and then. I've only seen season 1 of STD and while competent it doesn't fell like Trek at all to me.
I think everyone is still missing the point. For the Borg to originate in the Alpha Quadrant not on is bad story telling but just a weak ratings grab. I'm pretty I remember an episode in Voyager that talked about the Borg starting as a race of organics 70k light years from of Earth in the Delta Quadrant, and evolving into a cybernetic race thousands of years before human were even aware that we were not the center of the Universe. How the heck does it make sense for the Borg to originate from humans?
"If Trek has to be this, then maybe there shouldn't be." I totally agree. I hear a lot of people say "it's better than no Star Trek at all,"but no, no it isn't. And don't get me wrong, I like Discovery for the most part (though I'll be the first to point out its numerous problems), but don't let shambles for the sake of money like Star Wars is
Josh Giles yeah it backfired for Star Wars money wise as well Solo lost money.
Star Wars made its villains & heroes incompetent in Last Jedi so all other problems were compounded. Tv series have more wiggle room.
what are my thoughts?
i likes enterprise a lot and i never will understand why it had to end the way it did when it just got really good
The first two seasons, which I personally enjoyed MORE than the last two, had taken its toll on the series. People had already left and the company wasnt prepared to sit through 2-3 more seasons for it to gain its footing.
@@memnarch129 my end of the story. in my country series was oficially licenced for televison broadcast in 2009 and was advertised as a solid sci-fi series. vievers count was almost constant and rather high for the channel that broadcasted the series. channel itself become popular because of enterprise and begun tos movies marathons on weekends nights got even more popular, then got bought by the fox, changed name and fall into obscurity
@@kokodin5895 yeah the original run period was 2001-2005. Your country would of been considered Syndication, aka series being shown after they go off the air for new broadcast.
TNG could work today. Orville takes on the same tone even if it throws in the comedy but most of the Orville fans dont watch the show for the comedy. They watch it because it keeps the heart and essence of Star Trek unlike Discovery.
I really don’t mind them taking liberties with continuity if it’s necessary to tell a better story. A lot of Trek really trips itself up. It’s always been that way. Back in the 60s they didn’t care about that stuff; TOS episodes contradicted each other all the time. Don’t break the timeline altogether, but feel free to bend it all you want.
Otherwise, as someone who really doesn’t hate DSC, I’m glad you recognize that the medium has changed and you can’t make something like TNG anymore. And DSC doesn’t _need_ to exist; if there had been no Trek since ENT ended, I’d be fine with that. But why shouldn’t it exist? If someone’s got an idea for Trek that they’re excited about, and the studio is backing them, who’s to say it shouldn’t exist? I mean, if it generates no interest among the fans, it will quickly go away on its own.
But why should those who don’t want it have the ability to veto it for those that do? If you’re okay with there being no more Trek at all, you’d be content to watch old series for the rest of your life. The existence of DSC doesn’t preclude you from doing that. Not enjoying it is perfectly valid and legitimate, and there’s no sense in pretending that you feel something you don’t. And it might sting a bit if you feel like you’re no longer the target audience. “Go away, old man; this isn’t for you anymore.” I felt like Doctor Who was saying that to me. So I stopped watching back in 2014. Then Jodi Whittaker got cast to replace Peter Capaldi, and I kept running into people who were outraged, up in arms, and I’d say to them “Who cares? The show won’t be any good with her. The show wasn’t any good without her. It hasn’t been watchable for years.” I’ll never watch again, so what does it matter to me whether it’s on the air or not? If someone out there is capable of taking enjoyment from it, that does not diminish my contentment with a life that does not include it.
The sad thing is, my generatiok has Abrams and Discovery. And the way they talk about ST differs. I have hard time takking to them ablut Star Trek, and most people that I enjoy talking ST about are kind patient older people, cause some older people just say "Oh you're just this tumblr poster, go away" Where TOS fans can talk with TNG fans, and it still hold for other trek, slowly, it stops. The fact that James T Kirk different perception in my time and yours proves it. Or even Spock. It changes the way we see, and in turn males us feel seperate. And with the separation, the new cannot learn to better the old. That's a problem.
I have a soft spot for Voyager. It was at a time when I was in grade school. I used to watch all the Star Trek series with my dad, but Voyager was the one I remember most fondly.
The Orville is NOT a commedy - at least not anymore. The second season is very serious (for the most part). If you haven't, please watch the two part episode "Identity".
It's hard to classify The Orville. I can't argue that it has escaped the "comedy" aspect because comedy is not necessarily absent of drama (sometimes very serious drama) and drama is often used to heighten the comedic elements. However, I personally couldn't classify it solely as a comedy either. The purpose of The Orville isn't to make us laugh, but to inspire us - to give us a hopeful vision of the future and discuss issues through the lens of science fiction.
Part of me wants to not classify it and just enjoy it, but another part of me realizes that science is all about classification...
I would disagree about Orville being a straight up comedy and more a drama with comedic elements.
AAnd I agree that if Star Trek had to end with Enterprise, I would have been okay with that. Besides there are always to reruns to enjoy.
Agreed ! I think McFarland wanted to do his own form of Star Trek but because of Licensing and trademark issues he had to keep the Orville unique to being a comedy .
But you're right, it is a dramatic show with some comedy elements !
Seth has said it to be a comedy drama. Good strong stories that make you think and draw you in with some comedic moments. It's more drama than comedy these last episodes
@@Zaron_Gaming me and my buddy were watching episode 12 of the second season last night .
"I counted 2 jokes" that I can remember !!!
The rest of it was a "pretty damn good storyline" !
I really don't think "continuity" vs. "good story" is something that should happen. At the least, "let's smash continuity to pieces" makes me think you are being lazy.
Continuity breaks are not unreasonable every now and again due to just having different writers. Lately tho it just seems like they're just trying to downright retcon the entire franchise out of sheer laziness. I could accept nearly any continuity break if there was at least a decent explaination. Then you get to bend the rules to fit your story without giving a middle finger to established story
Lore did i hear you say that Star Trek fans wouldn't like The Orville? I believe almost all fans love and believe The Orville is indeed the new Star Trek. Yes its more comedy but they also have a good balance of drama as well. They fully captured the feel of what Star Trek was about. Star Trek has alway had a bit of comedy throwed in. On everything else i do agree and i dont believe the writers are totally at fault. It all starts with the show runners and the problem is CBS has never wanted Star Trek or they would have hired Braga and Berman guess where they are. Yep running The Orville and doing it with great success. So who did CBS put in to run STD, Kurztman someone who has a long record of hating Scy-Fi. Do or did they care about the millions of Trek fans. No they filed law suits preventing fans of paying homage to what they love. So why should Star Trek fans fawn over the abomination of Discovery just because it has the name Star Trek. The Orville may not have the Star Trek name but it certainly has Star Treks soul and the fans know it.
The Orville isn't a comedy, it's a drama with occasional jokes.
Season 1 was a comedy sci-fi, while season 2 is a shitty soap opera.
I always find myself on the other side of this debate. The Borg had already been defeated multiple times before they were villains of the week on Voyager.
i think that Continuity and good stories are not mutually exclusive and that the writers should should work to the best of their abilities to make those things come together
Seriously tho this is a fantastic video about the behind-the-scenes of Star Trek which is always an interest to me.
Thank you for an enjoyable video.
Aaron Telford it was good until the end where he says Star Trek should exist if it is like discovery....
My concern about Lower Decks, the announced animated show, is not because it's a comedy but because the writing on Discovery is bad.
The early Season 2 episodes were better, but the later episodes have this soap opera writing... cliffhanger scenes right before the credits to hook you for the next episode.
The "good story above continuity" would be an interesting video to show where Star Trek has broken continuity before (and kept to it without retcon, like the klingons being Federation members in early seasons of TNG. though I wouldn'T call that breaking continuity as TNG took place about a century after TOS & the movies)
The only thing greater than Discovery's ignorance is its damned arrogance. Even it was its own thing and not a Trek show the sheer number of logical loopholes and poor quality writing still make it a bloody awful mess
When these shows were airing, I was a far more casual fan (I was also very young). At that time I was interested in Trek more for the exoticism of the stories. Adventures among the stars, etc. I didn't watch DS9 because I thought that it was more of a soap opera in space than previous Trek. Which is why I loved the concept of Voyager. A return to form, an adventure not just to explore the universe, but also one to get home. It was this love, this idea that Voyager is a return to TNG that made me overlook some things like the under-utilization of each character's abilities. I didn't care at the time about their limited torpedo supply or whatever. I assumed there was time spent off camera doing the boring work of mining for materials to make them.
I also loved the idea (and actress) of the Fae-like Kess and was miffed at how they replaced her (imo the best part of the show) with the less interesting 7 of 9 AND how the show seemed to revolve around her after that point. That made me stop watching for a while. I tuned back in somewhere in the 6th season and while the exoticism of the Borg kept my attention, the magic was lost and I approached the show much more cynically.
BUT, again I liked the original episodic concept of Enterprise. More of the same. Exotic stories blended with a "how we got there" storytelling. At this point I was a little more clued in to deeper Star Trek Lore and saw some of the inconsistencies (no nuclear war waged between Earth and Romulus?). But as they really started to focus on Time Travel and then the Xindi, I started to get lost again. Not enough reliance on their characters to carry the day and the mystique of the Exotic was wearing thin as we stared at the same struggle over and over again (those genocidal Xindi). So I stopped watching as religiously and as a result, became lost as the show relied more and more on continuity.
I guess this is why I like Discovery, visual reboot be damned. It's a character-focused show and while it prefers a smaller scale of personal conflict than previous Treks (Michael Burnam isn't going to shout "Mr. President, get down" like Kirk did), it is refreshing that the main character isn't a Captain, the internal conflict isn't the burdens of Command, but reconciling when you think your Commander is wrong with your duty.
Silverhawk100 I liked 7 and Kes, but overall found Kes a more interesting character.
for me, it did end with Enterprise (and the 10th movie)
the Kelvin movies are, in my opinion, good sci fi. They shouldn't be Star Trek, but they're otherwise good sci-fi
I haven't personally watched discovery, but what I've seen and heard, I can't say I'd be a fan. Maybe it would also be better as a sci fi show w/o the Trek label?
I'm okay with the Kelvin timeline. Only if I a confirmed to be an alternate universe and not replacing Canon.
I can not speak for everyone in the Country but here in the South I think 1 of the things that hurt voyagers ratings was simply the fact that UPN its network was constantly moving the time slot and even worse would constantly preempt it for a Basketball game or some other event and it was like playing weres Waldo to find it on the air and for working people like myself with a busy life you simply don't have time to play chase the tv show no matter how good it is. But I actually did like Voyager just got feed up with the network games
Actually, from "The Best of Both Worlds" on, where they indicate they need Picard to become Locutus to execute their plans, there has always been the collective and a tendency to use individuals where appropriate to their plans. It is quite possible that they do this as a means of compensating for their failures - a way of adapting to the human dynamic when they fail to assimilate humanity the first time. Seems consistent to me.
I can buy the preferance of good stories over continuity, but in most cases I can think of easy workarounds for a script which would leave it mostly intact, while respecting canon.
Would it really be so hard for the writers to come up with a script, and then make amendments for the sake of continuity?
Right? It doesn't have to be a choice between the two.
I am 55 years old, and have been a Star Trek fan ever since my teenage years. In all honesty, the franchise has never really been concerned about continuity. Episodes of TOS were written as mini movies independent of each other and with hardly (if any) connection to each other. There were a few exceptions (e.g. The two episodes to feature Harry Mudd).
Great opinions lore I do respectfully disagree on a few points for one I never liked how OP the Borg were in best of both worlds I thought it was silly that one cube could destroy 39 ships. And I dont think TNG did the Borg any favors afterwards either I actually prefer Voyagers portrayal of the Borg overall even with their missteps. 2nd the Orville is comedic but it's so much more than that lately it's been tackling current socials issues just as good as any trek has done before and helping to start a discussion rather than telling us how to think. I've heard the Orville is ideas from Seth's Macfarlane's rejected trek series not 100% sure if that's true or not though. I respect your opinions Lore these are just a few of my thoughts on the topic as always I enjoyed hearing your opinions
The Orville isn't really a comedy. It has comedic bits, but since the second season started..yeah, those were toned down as well.
Season one was..seasom 2 may be better
How stories are told has changed. It changed in part *because* of TNG. Best of Both Worlds - despite the reset button at the end in many respects - was a game changer. If TNG were created today, it would be serialized like Enterprise seasons 3-4. Or like Doctor Who from ten years ago. Individual episodes, but with a seasonal through arc.
I really liked JMS proposed Trek reboot. The Federation discovers an ancient alien race that visited Earth and spread humans across the galaxy. Who are they? What do they want? Are they a threat? To answer these questions, Starfleet assigns the best and brightest to one of their best ships, and gives them a five-year mission - to explore strange new worlds, seek out new life, and new civilizations, to boldly go, where no man has gone before - and get the answers.
The Series' arc would still see first contact with the Gorn and Tholians, first Romulan face to face contact, and regular conflict with the Klingons. But it would also explore the mystery of The Preservers.
That, if the JMS responsible for B5 - not the One More Day JMS - was involved, would have been incredible. And could have supplanted the original. Instead we got JJ and Kurtzman and Bad Reboot.
Personally, I just really don't think Star Trek needs a "reboot". What Star Trek needs is to get back to it's roots of science, exploration, and a hopeful vision of the future - get rid of this "dark and gritty" storytelling and get back to exploring the final frontier.
@@richardludwig3673 That would be the optimal solution yes.
05:38 It aires on Syfy here in the UK all the time and has been going in loop from S1 e1 to S7 ep 26 for years.
He's talking about if it was a new series now and aired like it did back in the 80's. I think.
16 GarrodP LoL it airs on the bbc channel here in the US.
To break down both topics let's talk about Voyager first.
The borg are toned down yes, but 1 ship against the collective. I think You have to. If you see the borg between voyager and tng voyager was fubar the first time they met the borg.
O nthe other hand, voyager is far more advanced then the Enterprise D. She was build for exploration, but also for war. On ther way home Voyager got some upgrades, so they where even more powerfull.
I liked Voyager, but don't forget they where done in a different time, for a different audiance. and that takes me to Discovery.
I think that the had discovery gets from the (old) trekkies is the same as the JJ movies. First they had to look different because of copyright. But also they are made again for a different audiance. Tng wouldn't work now, because of the time difference. They way stories are told, filming etc.
Discovery has its moments, but I think that today with copyrights claims left and right, the writers are held back because of that. One step out of line and they might get sued these days.
The death of the Borg started in the first appearance. They were a one shot character they made soo powerful that they had to wimp out to use when fans loved them. One Borg get shot second one has a force field, next episode four get shot then one has force field. slow death
My thoughts? Brannon and Braga should be ridden out of town on a rail after being tarred and feathered. But I've always been something of a wimpy lily livered moderate when it comes to these things.
Thanks to streaming, Star Trek will live on forever. I don't have to watch STDisco. All that I love about Trek is just a click away. My now 16 year old daughter has enjoyed it over the years and I got to experience her watching these wonderful shows for the first time. That is what Star Trek means to me.
I consider myself a HUGE Trek Fan, and I was not and am not angry in any way shape or form about the Borg. I loved Voyager too.
It is wonderful to see I'm not the only one!
I'm a Star Wars fan, grown up with it all my life, watched the movies and tv series, everything that has come from it so my opinion might not count to some but when it comes to Star Trek, I grew up with that too. It's one of my favorite series after Star Wars, no joke, whether it was from TNG to Enterprise I did enjoy it with shows like DS9, Voyager and Enterprise being my absolute favorites. When it comes to Discovery, I can understand why Trek fans would be insulted and anger, it's being treated the same way Star Wars is being treated by Disney, it's not what it had been in the past and it seems like they just don't care. But unlike Star Wars, who has stories all over the place, not just featuring the Skywalkers when it comes to Legends and was much better than most of the crap that Disney is pumping out, Star Trek has always focused on a singular element: Humanity.
It focused on the interactions and the betterment of mankind, how they had changed, how they defend their ideals and struggle with moral quandaries which isn't bad and can serve as a lesson to us all on how to be better people. But after five series of that point, the changing political climate and how humanity has started to become worse to itself rather than better; the humans in the show would also change. Like diversity, that isn't a bad word yet it carries a negative connotation, why? Because it's forced and has become a way to circumvent actual good storytelling; Discovery is one of those places where good storytelling has been circumvented for diversity. Though there are some episodes I love from Discovery especially the ones with the Mirror Universe but perhaps that's the problem right there. Star Trek is forced to change because at this point in time, we are changing in a more negative fashion.
The Last Jedi tore the Star Wars fandom in half between those who liked it and those who felt supremely insulted by it. I liked that movie but will honestly say that they could have done MUCH better which concludes the point that Disney really doesn't know how to Star Wars right. Just like this, I believe that CBS has forgotten how to Star Trek.
In order to save Star Trek, it might be time to shift the focus. Keep humanity as the major component but expand more into the other races. Deep Space Nine did this very well showing us the Cardassian side, the Federation side, and Dominion side which other Trek franchises use as a one off or done every now and again. They want to use diversity, well use the other races, have them come more into the forefront like a half-Roluman, half-human captain struggling with his sides but diversity for trek doesn't mean someone having a different skin color or slightly slanted eyes, they are humans, plain and simple. That isn't diverse because we are all humans and trying to think that we are all different from each other just due to our looks or nationalities is why something stupid like diversity is even brought to stage in the first place. That is what CBS and many people need to understand, we are all humans, no matter what we look like so get the hell over it, only by actions should anyone be judged.
Show different, more interesting stories, have the planets exploded further the plot rather than just random exploration which Discovery is doing, even though how they are doing it in season two is rather annoying in and of itself. Keep humanity around but with all the races in the Federation, the other powers and areas of the Alpha/Beta quadrant that have yet to be explored, there is no reason for humans to still be the 100% center of it all. Want diversity, show a vulcan captain, maybe an andorian, a tellarite (ok, maybe not THAT one but you get what I mean). That might help to bring the story back on track when we no longer see ourselves reflected in it and can return to how Trek originally was.
Just my thoughts.
@ Lore Reloaded -
1 - There's a BIG difference between Nerdpick Continuity (in an earlier episode they said THIS, but now they said this... mmm-hey!) and flat outright changing the source material. A LOT of the issues with Discovery, on a very basic level, are visual (especially the Klingons). There was NO Storytelling need to change the appearance of the Klingons, change what the uniforms looked like so drastically, and use technology unavailable to what was around just previous to Kirk.
2 - "Continuity" matters less and less if the stories are GOOD - this is where Discovery fails. They wanted to change everything, but their ability to tell a story fell apart very quickly. The characters (especially Burnham) are a mess, there's an over-reliance on Drama (vs. Science Fiction), and lots of stuff that just makes no sense.
3 - Writers use the "Storytelling trumps all" as an excuse for poor writing, then blame it on the executives and others. It's a lame excuse because trying to fit inside somebody else's vision is too hard. I'm sorry, but the writers of Discovery are just not talented enough to write Star Trek - this was PROVEN in the season finale when it appears they wanted to write for EVERY OTHER SciFi show out there BESIDES Star Trek (seriously... what was up with the Star Wars droids??????).
4 - I think your comment about The Orville proves you wrong about TNG. The Orville is a "comedy" only in that it has more comedic elements and doesn't take itself too seriously. TNG (and Voyager, and Orville for that matter) are a different type of storytelling - one not reliant on false drama, but the speculative questions. The recent episode with the Moclan female resistance brought back some GREAT Star Trek memories - drawing up questions we're supposed to ask (in this case, can we judge another culture by our own moral standards - what point is interference wrong, even if it's for what we think is the right reason?). I don't remember a single episode of Discovery asking these larger questions or inspiring debate on issues, but The Orville continues to do so in a way that often doesn't end the way we think it should.
5 - The Borg actually do have a story comparison to Discovery, but not the one you mentioned - it's a good reason why there should NOT be a Section 31 show. The Borg were great when they were mysterious and we didn't know much about them. The more we found out about them, the less frightening they got and the less we liked them. I think we've already gone WAY past that point with Section 31. Just as DS9 treated the Mirror Universe Poorly (and Discovery just kept stabbing that wound, not realizing it was already dead), so did Discovery with Section 31 (and the show will continue to beat that dead horse). The original Mirror Universe gave us a mirror to see ourselves and what we could be given different circumstances - a way to understand our own morality as situational. DS9 gave us Section 31 as a way to express the self-sacrificing noble for the good of king and country, and the dark underbelly needed to maintain a higher order. Both of these points were lost when they were used like playthings by the writers to give viewers the "kewl" factor.
At the end of the day, given the state of current trek, I couldn't agree with you more about Trek should have died with Enterprise. I refuse to believe Discovery was any kind of "necessary" evolution of the genre vs. a group of people who wanted to write anything but Star Trek and instead used the "Star Trek" name as a cash grab.
I wouldn't call Orville a comedy. There's much more drama than there is comedy.
I find it strange you'd say Trek fans would not be open to a comedy though. I don't mean to sound insulting, but I think that's a pretty baseless statement. Even if you consider the Orville a comedy, aren't Trek fans generally taking a liking to it?
Yes especially seeing that they call themselves a Comedic Parody that's NOT Star Trek they act and seriously tend to Trek a lot more then actual Trek lately. An that's kinda the problem. Trek now don't try and cant tell a good story, or continuity, to do the originals from Voyager back justice
And it seems odd to say "Star Trek fans would not seem open to a comedy" based on the stupid idea of a "Lower Decks" cartoon. Just because fans find one idea stupid, doesn't mean it rejects an entire genre...
One person opinion I like both shows. If you don’t like it don’t watch it let us that do watch it
I agree with your point, not just for startrek but also for any other established work (starwars, LOTR, Indiana Jones, ect). In my opinion an established work should only be expanded upon with content that improves the work in some way. I will say that the standard should be different for the original creator than anyone else.
As an example I'll use starwars:
The holiday special shouldn't exist(while he claims to have had no role in it, he had the power to keep it from airing). However episode 1 works, even if only for leading to ep 3( a sentiment I understand but disagree with, I like the entire trilogy).
And for others; Splinter of the Minds Eye is a wonderful addition, but Solo should have been canned halfway through production.
I do believe this should applie to all forms of additions. Whether it's in the form of media, or merchandise.
Attack of the Clones was my favorite of the precuels and I think it gets far too much hate.
Star Trek and Star Wars. Are really stories of the past. The rules of these universes are based on a culture that isn’t around today. Being that these universes are fictional they are based on trope and prejudices of the time. That over 40/50 years becomes difficult to explain and hard to believe.
I am ok without new Star Trek and Star Wars. Let the Orville and other shows go on their new take without having to be bogged down by lore, and our nostalgic preconceptions of it. The 1960’s had the idea that man will change to interact with technology so Star Trek had 3rd grade kids learning calculus and could handle complex math in their heads and for the most part manage their emotions. The Orville universe is around the idea that technology will adapt to work for the human animal so the characters are more emotional and have more relatable issues. Now in 2040 this may be considered unrealistic.
Who cares. They're still good series. Don't like it, don't watch them...
People say "The Orville" is a comedy. I've seen enough episodes where I'm willing to say that it it still a mostly serious show, but since it was pitched as a comedy, they sometimes (for better or worse) throw in comedic elements.
With the most recent episode as of this writing ("Sanctuary"), dealt with serious issues of, basically, the rights of Women in society. Yet, it threw in a high comedic moment with a representative of an alien culture liked the "9 to 5" song by Dolly Parton, and started using it as a 'battle hymn' of sorts ^_^
Cut that bit out, and you still have an excellent story that very much felt like some of the best of TNG episodes, at least in my opinion.
Oh my God that sounds hilarious!!!! 9 to 5?! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Come on Lore, while Orville is pitched as a comedy because of its creator it tackles very serious subjects and does contemporary allegory just like TOS and TNG did.
I am rewatching Enterprise right now on Netflix and I rewatched Voyager and first I want to say that DS9 is still my favorite series. But Voyager has its own charm and if you don't have to listen to the Enterprise intro (Netflix let's you skip it) then it's not great but not terrible either. Thing is though I really don't like that they used the name Enterprise but I digress. Thing is though Discovery or STD as I like to call it, is terrible. Sorry I just can't find anything to like about it.
His closing comments reminded me of Pet Semetary.
"They dont come back the same, and sometimes dead is better".
The problem with the Borg is that they were introduced as unstoppable. It's hard to keep the story going and keep that in place. I think what they should have done is limit the Borg to one cube (possibly with billions of assimilated people on it). That way no confrontation ends with the destruction of a Borg cube. Sometimes they trick the cube into going after something else, other time they just lose. Like half of star fleet gets destroyed/assimilated and the cube just leaves after getting what it came for.
Then you could also have stories where the Borg just happen to show up during a conflict and they have to stop fighting and jettison any new technology to not attract their attention. You could have really moving scenes where Picard genuinely trying to save the people he is at war with (f.ex. Romulans) and begging them to just their cloaking technology to not get destroyed, which they of course refuse to do. This incident could then be the groundwork for diplomacy and trust further down the line.
A solution for First Contact (and Voyager) and the concept of the Borg Queen would have been to make Dr Pulaski the new _Locutas of Borg._
*[WARNING, ESSAY]*
The problem was that the filmmakers wanted a *singular protagonist* for the heroes (Picard and Data) to act opposite and for dramatic interaction and dialogue, but the nature of the Borg and what makes them so terrifying is that they are a faceless foe, a force of nature that cannot be argued or engaged with - _"Listen. Understand. That Terminator is out there. It can't be reasoned with, it can't be bargained with. It doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear and it absolutely will not stop. Ever. Until you are dead"._
Giving them a Queen would be like making a Zombie King that ruled all the Walkers on *The Walking Dead.* It completely changes the concept of the walkers and makes them a conventional bad guy, which destroys their essence. Track down and argue, reason, monologue, trick and kill the Zombie King and all the Walkers die, it would jump the shark faster than a zombie sharknado. And at the very basic level the Borg are a horde of Cyberzombies, and should be treated as such for dramatic purposes.
That is the problem with making a film for general audiences and not just the fans (and if you don't like it, then don't expect big budget films to be made), it tends to accommodate the casual viewer and studios are generally very risk adverse so they went for a traditional narrative and a generic bad guy.
But what could they have done differently to make both groups happy and not dilute the purity of the Borg menace? Remember I mentioned Dr Pulaski, that is where the emotional shock and the interaction with an individual comes in.
In The Best of Both Worlds we see Picard get assimilated and turned into *Locutus of Borg,* still a individual, who not only engaged the crew in dramatic dialogue, but did so from the perspective of one of their own turned against them - The bad guy who was a former friend. To continue the Borg are cybernetic undead theme it's like when one of the good guys gets turned into a vampire and now uses their intimacy to hurt the heroes emotionally a well as strategically…
_"Your resistence is hopeless...Number One."_
[It can be seen to great effect in season two of Buffy with Angelus, her true love Angel is now her worst enemy through no fault of his own after losing his soul].
Having the Borg once again chose an *'Emissary'* keeps the concept of the Borg pure but allows for one on one dramatic interaction, but why Dr Pulaski?
Well having a newly introduced character assimilated lacks dramatic and emotional impact, and it gets into the redshirt trope, which has now become the revolving helmsman, I knew Lt Hawk was Borg fodder as soon as I saw him and it wasn't a shock (I was surprised the helmsman survived in Insurrection). So it's best for a series regular to become the new voice of the Borg, but who? Working through the list I realised instead of killing off a regular cast member why not reintroduce someone who was in the series, that fans knew and that casual viewers would go 'yeh, sorta remember' and most importantly would have a backstory with the characters and a casual familiarity that lets viewers know they're one of the gang (and not telegraph that they're going to cop it). At that describes Dr Pulaski, the only other candidates were either committed to DS9 (O'Brien or Keiko) or off discovering new Dimensions _"shut up Wesley"_ (and too contrived to reintroduce him, and if the Borg assimilated his power it's game over). Dr Pulaski was there for 20 episodes, the only other candidates were Guinan (Whoopi's hair under a bald patch?) Also she's too close, losing her would resonate to deeply, and after all she's got another thousand years at least (hasn't aged in half a millennium, and they may have thought she could be required for further movies, she can keep turning up in different time periods including the far future), or Lwaxana Troi, and her problem is she's a comedic character, and a telepath which just makes her overpowered versus Picard (only Data could outwit her) and she's part of DS9. Also neither of these characters are human and the Borg world chose a _human_ to coordinate assimilating Earth.
So near the start of First Contact Dr Pulaski is visiting the new Enterprise and her old friends and that seems perfectly normal to the audience, she's just caught up in the battle, there's some fun doctor versus doctor banter between her and Dr Crusher (who was absent when she was aboard previously because Pulaski was her replacement) about what's happened since she left regarding relationships (two female doctors, they'll gossip about mutual friends and colleagues) and most importantly Dr Pulaski will discuss Data with Dr Crusher.
She was always obsessed with the idea of Data's sapience and had a complicated relationship with him, at times antagonistic but also respectful. The emotion chip would be a topic and also a way to remind the casual viewer of that aspect of Data, since it's something that happened after Dr Pulaski left and through that the audience is reminded she had a connection to the crew.
This would explain the Borgs new obsession with Data, Locutus considered Data irrelevant. _"The android, Data, primitive artificial organism. You will be obsolete in the new world order."_
With Pulaski at the helm, the Borg would change their assessment of Data. He had a daughter who died, he killed his twin brother and he has emotions, all of which happened after Pulaski left, she would be fascinated by this and it could show in some pre assimilation dialogue where she catches up with him and apologises for her previous attitude and mentions how he's grown as a person or individual. ("That's the nicest thing anyone had ever said to me Doctor"). And that allows for some deeply emotional conversations between Borg Pulaski and Data, about his family and development instead of the cringeworthy seduction attempt of the Queen.
The scene where it's revealed that she's the new Borg Emissary has the potential for great drama as well, as they learn that their colleague is now the mastermind against them. And maybe she points out that the Borg are no longer vulnerable to being hacked like they did with Locutus ("We have adapted").
The actress who played Dr Pulaski had a thin face that would look suitably sinister as a Borg, and also her eventual death wouldn't effect series continuity (like bumping off one of the core seven and telling that actor "no more big movies for you, sorry about your career and mortgage").
Her removal from the collective would be just too contrived, being assimilated becomes too casual, give it some resonance, they won, but lost a friend. Also what about the moral implications of the Starfleet Borg they killed if they could've been rescued as well?
The only issue is they would have to come up with some other way to wipe out all the Borg that just 'they die without the Queen'.
But the Borg are not *sullied with individuality,* and it can even become part of their modus operandi - they assimilate an Emissary to lead them in conquering a species, and if it doesn't work, they use a different individual to very their methodology. But it gives them insight into their victims psychology and tactics, and the most appropriate way to assimilate them, and is yet another strength of the Borg.
Also with Picard having insights into the Borg, it shows that the best weapon against the Borg is former Drones that have inside knowledge and can still 'feel' what the Borg is up to. He didn't target a particular weak spot that Cubes have (they have no weak spots, that's the basic idea of their design) he was able to intercept information from the Borg about where their systems were damaged, it's not like "maybe we should write that spot down". Seven of Nine could be played the same way, she understands where they are vulnerable, instead of just having Janeway outwit the Queen at every encounter while the Queen sputters _"JANEWAY (curses, foiled again!)"_
Now onto Voyager…
[*looks at length of this essay as a TH-cam comment and thinks "Frack this, smeghead - May the tl:dr be with you"].
Although briefly (hah!) regarding Voyager, instead of the Borg Queen they could have had a series regular assimilated as the new Borg Emissary, gives it the interaction without the mediocrity. And for that they could have gone with ensign Kim, (instead of having a death match with his agent using a hottest Asian actor listing in a magazine as a TKO to get rid of Kes) as they had planned to get rid of him in Scorpion. Or promote another actor from background (like Seska) planning full well to eventually Borg them.
I personally would have had Harry have a relationship near the start with Seven (her being the aggressor, much to the amusement of Paris and concern of Torres), and then in the episode where the Queen 'returns', (when the steal a transwarp coil, although she's not canon now because she didn't appear in First Contact) instead Harry gets assimilated and becomes _Kimatas of Borg._ That gives the crew a major shock, and sets back Seven's emotional development as blame goes round. It also keeps Kes in the cast, no doubt with some saphic undertones to her friendship and concern for Seven. Perhaps Kes can be given the same age slowing treatment the Oncampa travelers had, or she ages and eventually dies near the end of the series.
And it could explain why Janeway can beat the Borg, she (and Paris) knows Harry so well and can predict Kimatas's plans and tactics, using the Borg's strength of adopting an Emissary against them.
As a final question, what should Pulaski's Borg name be?
9 of 10
DS9 is one of my favourites now that I am older, Voyager had its issues but it was fairly ok. I enjoyed enterprise and TNG, cant stand the first one anymore. I'd have been fine with it ending before or after enterprise. And i'd have Really loved for them to push forward rather than backwards and mess up the lore as they have. But this is what they've done so here we are.
I actually grew up enjoying Voyager.
I wonder what Voyager would look like if it had to face the Borg of Wolf 359 by the end of Season 3. Would it be a "Year of Hell" type of 2 - 3 parter (Something that would have replaced Scorpion 1&2 + The Gift) and Voyager never encounters the Borg again?
Or would it be 3 seasons of Voyager constantly on the run? With no viable allies save for maybe Species 8472?
I think the main problem with the Borg as well as why they were "watered down" is that in their original portrayal they were so staggeringly powerful they would have just mopped the floor with the Federation and anyone else until the entire galaxy was borg. Even the Q prefer to stay clear of them. Then they proved very popular, and were brought back for further encounters. Which needed their power cut down to more managable levels or that would have been it. Then, with Voyager having to travel back from the other side of the delta quadrant completely on its own, which was already known to be their home turf, the Borg had to be nerfed once again. Otherwise Voyager wouldnt have made it 5 lightyears once they ran into them.
Claiming a Star Trek franchise is utterly unredeemable and worthy of cancellation because you cannot forgive certain particular things about it is basically the argument every embittered fanboy has been harping about since DS9. How many "fans" would have been happy to see Star Trek dropped from black-sheep Deep Space Nine? Honestly if the showrunners of TNG in S1 heeded the fandom after being outranked in Nielson ratings by _Jeopardy!_ there would be no TNG. They wouldn't have syndicated and used that as their launching point into S2.
I get that you want to make the argument that all Star Trek messes with continuity for ratings, and somehow "past trek" just does it better because they "build up" from boring, cheesy crappiness into gold through weakened executive control. But from a show business perspective, not a fandom perspective, you cannot "build upon" on a show that is cancelled regardless of who is in control. Its a moot point.
To be competitive commercially Star Trek has to not only stand out, but get people talking again -- and yes, that general interest good or bad translates into market share and that is a good thing.
Very interested to see what's going on with the Borg in Picard (as I'm sure everyone who cares the smallest bit about Trek is as well). That last scene in the 1st episode was pretty interesting! And as we've all seen in the trailers Seven has a big role to play. SO it's pretty much a given we will be seeing a lot of them this season. Will they be watered down, or will they be the monstrous, almost insurmountable enemy that they could have been? I just hope they're interesting, no matter how they're portrayed.
I felt the same about Star Wars. Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher lived happily ever after in 1983 and had three beautiful kids (not one swole douche). Leave it alone, Disney.
Voyager destroyed the Borg as DS9 destroyed the Mirror Universe.
The problem with Voyager is that the made the Borg Queen too individualistic rather than just the voice of the collective. I understand that the movie First Contact started this trend but it did not have to go to the extent that it did. The Borg became a nuisance to Janeway rather than the ultimate threat that the Alpha Quadrant faced at Wolf 359. I had no problem with Seven of Nine regaining her humanity (as she was assimilated as a child) but to turn the Collective and the Borg Queen into sissies was an injustice.
The problem with DS9 is that they destroyed the Mirror Universe. The series itself was amazing but I have nothing but disdain for what they did with the Mirror Universe. What fans enjoyed about the Mirror Universe in TOS was that it was exactly the opposite of the almighty Utopian United Federation of Planets. DS9 took that away. It lost its enjoyable aspects by making the Terran empire a softer version of the prime universe. Quite pathetic. Star Trek Enterprise did a wonderful job of tying in the true Mirror Universe and was one of the most enjoyable episodes in the Star Trek universe.
The shows today do have different styles compared to STTOS. They're faster paced for one, but I could see Anson Mount doing something similar to a STOS series. He's very good when they give him a chance.
Would I watch a show that is light hearted today? Yes. In fact, I stopped watching television because they started taking everything way too goddamn seriously. I watch more TNG reruns than I watch modern programming, and I rarely watch TNG reruns. The issue isn't that there isn't an audience for light hearted programming today, it's that producers don't want to take a chance that there is. Dark, serious and angry works these days, and that is what producers will stick to.
I loved Voyager as a kid. I watched it with my dad cuz it was the only New star trek show at the time and hes a big trekkie and I feel like if that show hadn't aired I would've never got to bond with my dad or understand star trek for what it was.
People say Discovery isn't any good however I disagree. I'm new to the show and I personally enjoy it, after watching I it's got me hooked into the franchise and i know others that feel the same. Please keep up the vids, loving them!
As far the Borg being the "bad guy of the week" the Borg presence in the alpha and beta quadrants is minimal, so having Voyager in the Delta quadrant where the Borg originated the Borg presence is substantially greater meaning that Voyager is more likely to encounter the Borg at any given time. Also the Borg technology being so much more advanced made a great opportunity to get Voyager home. TNG did to the Klingons what Voyager did to the Borg. Also the Borg weakened themselves by messing with species 8472, a classic ' the bigger they are the harder they fall'.
The borg aren't definitely in discovery, as control is basically like zamasu from dragonball super and a certain robot species that nearly made an appearance in star trek enterprise from a famous british sci fi show, what i mean is that control is genocidal, NOT assimilate all life, which means control doesn't equal borg
I figured Control is similar, but not the same. Control can manipulate holograms while the Borg have yet to demonstrate this ability.
If Control has access to all of Federation technology and knowledge, then it should have access to EMH-style holo-technology by time it eradicates the Federation, thus negating any need for flesh blood and nanite drones. If it needs to send a boarding party somewhere, all it has to do is drop a few holo-emitters and you have a bunch of Holo-Lelands running around your ship.......
I'm satisfied with the borg mythos. But I disliked how they created 7 or 9. They took a borg zombie and turned her into a blonde super model. It would be much more intriguing if 7 kept all her borg implants and scared the crap out of the voyager crew. The crew was far too accepting of 7. She assimilated millions of people and that's OK? But like you said it's all about business. A blonde bombshell in a slinky outfit puts food on the tables of writers and keeps them from getting cancelled.
I'm a Trek fan, yet I love The Orville. Sure, Season 1 had some dumb episodes and episodes with a good plot but handled poorly; but Season 2 is quite awesome! The 2-parter with Isaac was a little bad but that epic space battle was INSANE and I'd watch that again over and over. Kind of the reason why I liked the Dominion War arc of DS9 so much, so many epic battles!
Lore Reloaded I Grew Up Watching Voyager So I am Going To Be Biased But It Holds A Special Place in My Heart Is That Okay
Voyager is way better in comparison with discovery and they change everything of the borgs
I do appreciate continuity but I am glad that we do sometimes get some amazing stories from Voyager, Enterprise and Discovery. Pretty much seasons 3 and 4 of Enterprise ignored some canon and embraced others but almost every episode was great. For Voyager they adapted canon and we also got a few good episodes like Shattered. And with Discovery, while mostly bad imo, we got an amazing episode in Magic to make the sanest man to go mad which was a story that could've worked in any Star Trek series and was just joyful, Then we see an episode like Memory serves which appeals to the TOS canon everywhere and it kind of lacks as an episode because of it.
Good vid, thanks. A shame to mainly consider Orville a comedy though; season 2 especially has done wonders in establishing their setting and offering good developments/drama within that. It's making me care for what happens, something Discovery neved managed to do.
I hate to say it, but you raise very good points. Star Trek isn't Tolkien. Its showbiz, not an epic story for the sake thereof. Personally, I think each series had its strengths and weaknesses. I loved them all, if for somewhat different reasons. I would have had Star Trek end with Enterprise. Enterprise having come from the same era as TNG, DS9, and STV. The old guard will always be critical of the new, and the old guard will always be left behind for the new. That's just the way the world works. Happily, I can still watch the five series on Netflix, so there is that.
The irony is the best Trek all the way back to TOS is not the flashy lights or big battles, but episodes that had to be bottle shows due to season budget constraints. For me, I hoped Discovery would be again around the time of Kirk, but on the other side of the Federation. About worlds, societies only mentioned or created new ones for the first time. The reasoning could be very simple, the Galaxy is a big place and so is the Federation itself. Just because you didn't hear about them in the other shows didn't mean they don't exist. So you could create whole new races and situations that are a threat to UFP or better threats to people. Be they local planets or the main characters themselves. The reason you didn't hear about them in TOS is because they were busy with their own threats like Klingons, Romulans, and Unicron Jr. that was shaped like a funnel that ate planets.
From what I'm seeing about star trek and reading, that Star trek online stayed true to the canon and continuity cause it took years of trek story telling to make it fit all together with throwback episodes or mirror versions of the same lore, if they really wanted to make a really good trek they should've done it like online instead of throwing in a series that re-wrote the history of trek
Fun fact, that animated series is a comedy and apparently has been received VERY well by all accounts that I have seen.
if trek had to end with enterprise or continue like discovery I would say end it at ENT.
Playing loose with continuity and the rest can work, when the stories that come from it are good enough to justify it. From a business standpoint, better ratings and more profitable merchandising is that justification. I believe the defense of Voyager fails on both of those accounts. The powers that be might have felt that a more classic Trek formula wouldn't work in that modern age, but Voyager didn't work either. The writing wasn't just bad as a "Star Trek" series, it was weak even if you take away the "Star Trek" branding. As a Star Trek series, Voyager became viewed as a joke, or the butt of jokes, for multiple reasons. Even the initial dislike for Enterprise didn't redeem Voyager with an "at least it is better than Enterprise", and that is before we get into Enterprise's own eventual rocky path to redemption. (It is also worth noting that, despite the powers that be arguments of classic Trek/TNG not working in modern times, the retoolings of ailing Star Trek series is to make them appear to be more like classic Trek/TNG.)
Can someone explain to me why Voyager was the least liked before Enterprise? I love TNG and Voyager and resently rewatched both 2yrs ago and Voyager is still my Favorite even if it wasnt ambitions enough in its premis! Id like to hear opinions
Maybe Im an average viewer but let me say that I have watched all of the star trek movies and have spent the last 2 years binge watching star trek starting with TNG. There is a complex continuity with the borg story and the borg as characters have evolved from thier first appearance until now. I think Discovery is trying to incorporate the borg into the temporal cold war. Dont forget that their are federation timeships out there that are constantly influence current events. I think season 3 of Discovery is gonna put tge discovery in a future where Starfleet still exists and may explain some of the science behind Timeships based on Discovery's spore drive time travel technology. Star trek has been really good so far at writing holes in its plot that leaves possibilities open. I enjoy the new series and though voyager may have lost ratings in the past, it still stands strong as a series. TNG made the borg out to be mindless drones until they caught 1 and taught him individuality. Borg have used time travel to attack Earth so Discovery may be telling a very interesting and complex origin story. Just like how Jean luc nearly destroyed the past in his future, we may be witnessing a similar event with section 31 and the Borg.
What specifically did UPN false advertise about Voyager? I watched the whole series from 95-01 on UPN, and don’t remember them doing so. To be fair 18 years have passed since I watched a Voyager on UPN, and was only an adult for season 7 of the series.
Continuity is part of immersion. "We suspend our disbelief and we are entertained." - Neil Peart : As for the Borg they were the one enemy that was genuinely scary. TNG Parallels has one of the most disturbing scenes, when Worf is looking for his Enterprise, one of the Enterprise is from a universe where the Borg are dominating the galaxy. This alternate Enterprise, Riker is disheveled and mentally/ emotionally frayed to wits end does what he can to leave his universe cuz the Borg are too much.. This was a very disturbing glimpse into the level of threat that the Borg could be.. And then there's Voyager, unparallel plot armour and a poor Operations Officer who in seven years never got promoted, whose biggest character change was he went from playing clarinet to sax.. Yuck.
This was dope bruh!!
Hmm, so on Voyager the writers were on a very loose leash while on Discovery the Execs are calling all the shots. That actually explains a lot about what happened with both shows.
Hey Lore,
Love your work. Just one question: what is your theme music? The section in the description for that is blank.
Authoritarian? Have you heard the story about Bill Mumy making a cameo in DS9? He added 1 word to his line (reflexively, the word 'Well' ) and the directors freaked out... Had to authorize the change... And was denied... Bill was incredulous...
If you think TNG is the pinnacle of Trek, then I don't know what to say to you. TNG was NEVER great, and quite possibly the nadir of the series, followed up by its apex, DS9. And she's right, the story and the characters always take precedent, even if continuity should be followed as a general rule.
Give me a time stamp where i say i thought that
If there would have been an internet, when TNG aired... well, let's just say there wouldn't be a discussion these days... or anymone who knows Star Trek.
But really, could the TNG-Recipe work today, I honestly don't know. But I would agree with Disco's executives, that a greater storyarc s the best way, to keep the audience interessted, especially in the time of streaming, when you can so easy switch to something else. But maybe they should do it more like DS9 at its end or ENT with their 3-Episode arcs in the final season. The other thing is, what you said in another video: they should have done it later, fist gave us some single episodes with character developement, so we, as the audience and fans, know who we should care about. So I still think, Disco wanted too much to fast, like to be DS9 in the Dominion-War-Arc instandly.
The other thing with continuity is: Well Voyager had the luxury to be set in the Delta-Quadrant, so they got their freedom. ENT and Disco as prequels have restricted themselfes. Not in reallity, but in expectations. The name "Star Trek" brings expectaions withit, like "Lord of the Rings" or "Walking Dead", so with the name are always some basic rules set. And every outbreak of these rules have to be made very carefully and after some time of acclimatisation, I think. Disco just crashed with the head thorgh the door with it changes in tone, designs and storytelling, that noone really could adapt.
But to the serious writing: I can only respect those who gave us these stories, bad or good, because, danm if I would make them, they would be the worst fanfiction you have seen in years and I don't want to be in the shoes of those guys who actually work for CBS and Disco, getting strict orders from executives and harsh critics from the "fans".
Different people different times, could you imagine if Star Trek was made back in the 1930's? It would be like Flash Gordon their main Frienemy would be a Snobby Q who tests them.
Their ship would be a little rocket ship and everyone would speak with a posh American or British Accent, Charlie Chaplin would be the Captain of course.
I'd watch that
I am a huge Trekkie but I agree with everything you said about Voyager and Discovery and I was always annoyed with how they treated the Borg in Voyager and the weird as hell version of the Klingons in Discovery
End with the penultimate episode of Enterprise is what I think you meant to say.
I would not give a crap if they just said this is a new continuity, yes there would be moaning. With the exception of the very very small minority that wont let anything go, the drama would die down. STD would get its viewership from the casuals would build, and those who want Star Trek even if its just in name would go over. It would not stress the community like how CBS has handled it. ultimately, my issue with continuity is a marketing one, CBS needed a solid base line for all access, so Star Trek was the brand to do it, but they expected the name alone to hold weight, the viewers of ST are typically smarter then that, so in marketing as classic trek they damaged the viewer base and lost money. STD is a tragedy because it was marketed extremely poorly and damaged both parties, the community that grew around the story of ST and the Executives baseline. Its all because the classic crutch of execative thinking, that a name alone will make them all the money when they need to put in that extra penny of effort.
Crews wait for attack orders. They don't wait for dodging the bullet orders.
Do you have links to any U.S ST:VOY trailers? I'd love to see the difference between the U.K advertisements.
I wanted a fifth season of Enterprise and I think you are being entirely too harsh. Beach iteration of Star trek is different unto itself.that includes TV shows movies animation even the short treks. I don't think that is a bad thing. I took the first season of Discovery with a grain of salt.Once the big reveal of the first season happened I got pretty excited. Overall I was not disappointed. The second season has as criticisms as wellbut I would much rather see it and have it then to not have anything at all.
I think that Star Trek could work with modern story telling methods. TNG was not told the same was as TOS, and DS9 not the same way as TNG. VOY and ENT made the mistakes of trying to be TNG, and it was only when ENT decided to do its own thing that show actually garner more attention. Yet, Enterprise went out of its way also to ensure that the overall continuity stayed in tack. Section 31 existed, but they had no name, Earth met the Klingons, but while it wasn't a disaster like Picard states, its still wasn't all that great considering they almost go to war with them 2 years after they meet. The Xindi incident was obviously huge, but its not mentioned in any series going forward, but even then, its easily rationalized why it wouldn't be. My point is the writers found that balance between good writing and continuity. Now, the main reason why Voyage and then Entperrise's ratings dropped (besides writing) was also competition. All network TV ratings were down, and UPN was one of the lowest at the time. They were suffering from competition from cable. Heck, I remember a TV Guide cover stating Stargate SG-1 had passed Enterprise in ratings. And SG-1 would be joined by Atlantis and BSG before Enterprise would be canceled.
I am a writer, and it is hard as hell to keep continuity in tact. But you can and still make a good story, its just hard. TNG changed things about the Federation and Starfleet that TOS set into motion, but at no time did it feel unnatural and really nether did VOY, even when it came to the Borg. The problem? VOY never really tried to rectify the changes, mainly because of First Contact. They were too close in time to do so the way they did. If they were going to focus so much on changing the Borg, they should have just gone all the way, and had a full season dedicated to Voyager navigating the collective as a whole, but that's a modern TV mentality not one from even VOY's time. Even DS9 skipped around with the Dominion. Discovery is just a mess, its a prime example of executive interference. It had every chance in the world to be a great series. Hell, if Discovery took place after DS9/VOY everyone would like it far more (it would still need to be seriously cleaned up, but still). Hopefully they take a look at the Picard Series, and do this. Right now, Discovery is the type of show that get's reconned out of existence at some point in time.
@Lore Reloaded Have you seen the 2nd season of the Orville yet? Yes there are comedic moments but the tone has become more like Star Trek TNG.
they couldn't do the same storytelling of TNG S1-2 by the time of S3! Or even S3 by the time of S5
When I watch Star Trek, I say does this entertain me, yes it does, including Discovery. I hear people complain about everything about Star Trek doesn't mean I going to stop watching. I hear the story and think it their story. Some of the story are right but at the end of the day you need to ask one question, does this piece of work entertain me?
i guess the problem started after gene died..
Picard defeated a Borg cube in TNG, by telling the borg to sleep. Apparently, they adapted.... but the waste disposal system was their next largest weakness. Seven of Nine's parents' studied a vessel up close without it causing any alarms. Furthermore, one can almost safely board a Borg vessel, and they are docile? Try just beaming onto the Voyager for a picnic. They repeatedly fell for the trick on Icheb's planet with the fake warp signature lure. Sure the last two were explained away by the show, However, it just reeks of incompetence. With the exception of Wolf 359, which could be argued as Picard unknowingly giving away all of Star Fleet's secrets, the Borg were just boogie men that the audience gave too much credit. Sure they had billions, if not trillions of drones, and massive ships, huge swaths of territories, extremely technologically advanced in many ways, but what Star Trek Villian isn't really? Maybe the Son'a with their daddy issues with the Baku, but I digress. I love the universe don't get me wrong, but the continuity issues are all over the place. For example, the Eugenics war in alpha cannon is stated to have happened in 1992, and the Voyager crew is on Earth in a very normal looking 1996. This is weird because Memory Alpha states "Eugenics Wars had a devastating impact on Earth, as entire populations were bombed out of existence". Alternatively, they may have happened in 2026 as well, so I'm really not sure which to believe. However, You can always make a new timeline, blame time travel and screw continuity.
I like what Voyager did with the Borg, they were never unstoppable juggernauts, yes they destroyed a lot of ships but they were defeated by hacking into their systems and telling them to go to sleep, the way voyager did it was similar in that they took advantage of built in weakness just because the writers said they wanted then to be unstoppable, doesn't mean they wrote them that way, like for Pete's sake data used Picard to put the Borg to sleep, how is that different from what Voyager would do
My thoughts are if Trek had to stay like it was, there should not be any more Trek. The Roddenberry tropes and antiquated story telling of Trek was already played out and cliche by the time TNG came around. It was at the root of why all the TNG era Trek shows initially suffered. It simply did not work then and it most certainly will not work now.
Culture is an evolving thing. If Trek does not evolve with it, it has no reason to exist. Trek is not at its core about "hope". It is about examining what humanities future will be. How can it examine what our future will be if it is stuck dwelling on the past and defiantly ignoring our present.
Gotta be honest I've watch everything from Tos to Ent and everything in between and it all kinda just works. DS9 specially was a wonderful change up to TNG. As for Voyager Id be lying if I said I didn't love the show then and even now. Both shows in my view held strong to continuity while making something new. STD is the only Trek Iteration I've ever seen that really doesn't care and or doesn't understand the continuity it wanted to play in. It just comes across like the writers rooms snorts meth (yes snort) before writing an episode. This is the only way I can see the horrendous dialog and forced character moments being things that have actually happened in the world.
Also for the Orville it isn't just a comedy its a blend of both comedy and drama.....and if im being honest I would except the Orville as trek its a new dynamic and they don't feel the need to force an agenda on me as a viewer they comment on topics in manner that you get what the message is but dont have to be drowned in what the writers room political beliefs are.
I don't count myself a filthy normie. However I think Voyager did a great job with the Borg. They weren't a mcguffin. You could beat them but they would most certainly burn down your entire solar system in the process. It says a lot as a life long Trek fan who likes just about everything they put out (insurrection is my favorite movie) has to stop and say "wow thats really really inept childish and incompetent writing" It think any writers on the show would say they love trek I wouldn't neccesarily take them at their word seeing what they've let air.
Star Trek should be a fan based project that rises from Crowd Sourcing.