It did take a while. The fans of TOS were absolutely savage. But it ran for over twice as long as TOS not because of Roddenberry, but in spite of him. The less involved Roddenberry was, up to his death, the more the fans embraced TNG.
But TNG have solid actors and the writing got better as the show went on. I watched the first episode of Discovery and saw really stupid looking Klingon's, the actors could not act in those costumes and the show has absolutely no continuity with other Trek.
Most of the critics were reacting to it without even seeing it. There are totally legitimate criticisms of early TNG. Patrick Stewart was so sure it would get cancelled he didn’t even fully unpack for I think it was like 2 years and just did his job and collected the check. But the truth is the first criticism of TNG wasn’t it’s own faults, but all the ways it wasn’t TOS despite it intentionally taking place far enough into the future that it would be allowed the chance to be different from TOS.
I attribute the “adult swim show copy cat” aspects of Lower Decks to the general landscape of the medium, graphic and/or gory violence and somewhat simplistic or low brow humor/plot are an extremely prevalent pseudo standard for adult cartoons these days. It’s what’s mainstream for this part of the animation industry, in a similar manner to how a gritty somewhat dark and dramatical vibe is a pseudo standard for mainstream non-comedy live action shows, which is something that is affecting the live action new trek side of new trek. It’s an adherence to the mainstream at the expense of the show itself, perhaps a cowardice to simply stand out and possibly lose viewership, though wether that is coming from the crew or from corporate is up to debate. Lower decks and SNW seem to be the least adherent to this enforced-mainstream phenomena, but they are still very noticeably affected. It’s a problem with the industry as a whole, honestly, in one way or another. Cutting down and flattening their content for mass appeal and ending up with samey, hollow mush, the typical bland schlock that so many studios pump out. And that’s typically down to corporate mandates and meddling but yeah sometimes it’s just simply the fault of the crew, though in those cases you can be sure that corporate is happy with the result much quicker anyway so they’re functionally interchangeable. Lower decks was probably only able to get away with being a Star Treky as it was because corporate didn’t think it’d make all that much money ergo not something to fully care about, which is evident from it only being allotted 10 episodes a season. Moreover the most mainstreamy episode of lower decks is the very first episode, which is typically the one corporate would pay the most attention to when going over stuff.
Or the fact 1st season wasn't actually named "Star Trek: Enterprise" but simply "Enterprise". (and by second (or third) season the opening title music was instrumental only).
I think Sisko painted the picture properly for what Trek has become: ""On Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise. Well, it's easy to be a Saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the Demilitarized Zone, all the problems haven't been solved yet." Star t rek isn't about a perfect world, its about working towards that perfect world and aspiring to be better. When I keep that in mind, it's easier to appreciate all the different variations of Trek.
I don't think I can agree. The paradise concept was Roddenberry's creation. By DS9, the showrunners were already drifting from that image. Here in the time of Picard and Discovery, that concept of paradise is treated as a cynical façade, a cloak hiding complex human behaviors of conflict and treachery. The only difference from the DS9 era is that Rick Berman and Michael Piller depicted the conflict as just beyond the periphery of Starfleet (if you want to ignore Section 31).
@@jdm3072 I don't think I can agree. The Federation still seems as intrinsically moral as it ever did in TNG or DS9. The difference in my opinion is that on TNG and TOS, we saw the Federation through the lens of a crew on a starship who flew into a situation, "solved" all the problems, then flew away. DS9 didn't have that luxury. If TNG did thethe story of Bajor, it would have eneded with the victorious Resistance defeating the heinous Cardassians. Then the Enterprise would have flown away satisfied all was well. Picard would never have seen Bajor slip closer to civil war or the rise of the morally grey Maquis. DS9, Enterprise, Discovery and Picard didn't have the same idea of "we can just fly away from the consequences" and it made the foundations of the Federation seem more fragile than they surely always must have been.
@@UCSWt7l3wXussb3NTGbJDNsA There is a literal TNG episode that rejects this concept . They find three people aboard a 'space seed' like cryogenic ship in space, with patients who were going to die of diseases, but since the Federation in TNG had the capability to cure their diseases, they were brought out of this cryogenic state and healed. Picard mentions that things have changed and that money isn't the basis of what people work towards. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Neutral_Zone_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)
@@johnburns9634 This is one of my fundamental problems with Picard as well - there are so many things that are completely inconsistent with how we understood the setting to be, fundamental plot points and context that are discard as meaningless.
Previous Star Trek shows were more plot focused and had the characters react to the plot around them and learn and evolved from the storyline plot for the better. However, these new Star Trek shows feels more character focused instead of plot focused. Characters are important, but as long as the story is not sacrifice for this…
Bad is relative , every show has it low points. Some more then others. My Mother the car is a prime example of VERY bad . But the new gen of trek is bad on so many FUNDAMENTAL levels as to be beyond Belief. Bad shows Like My Mother , Mister Terrific at the least had a Camp appeal. New trek has Nothing to it's credit. .
Although Steve makes some good points, some of us who have been Star Trek fans for over 50 years see a line separating TOS, TAS and TNG from later Treks: the loss of a utopian future. For the most part, the three earlier Treks were feel-good shows set in a Universe where "things were going to be better." This was important for many of us who were fully aware that a nuclear apocalypse might end human life on earth at any moment during the 1960's, 70's, and 80's. Indeed, the thought that humanity had survived until the 23rd century was comforting in itself. The basic change that started with DS9 was that life in the Trek universe was not necessarily better than that of the current day. Although this allowed excellent storytelling with more drama, making the series more "real" for many people, the optimistic tone was not nearly as strong.
You nailed it. That's the core value of any "real" Star Trek show. The utopian future. DS9 is my least favorite of the 90's shows for that reason, as well as it relying a bit too much on serialization. Voyager was a bit better, and I actually liked Enterprise quite a bit. It had it's own issues, but it really felt like a hopeful show and I enjoyed much of it. Discovery and Picard are absolutely unwatchable to me, I've tried hard. Can't do it. Strange New Worlds has been a surprising turn-around so far. Better than the last two shows anyway.
TOS had the federation be a world that was able to induct in member worlds that literally did slave labor. Perhaps it was never as much an utopian world as you think it was.
@@TubeTAG This to me is the main distinction between DS9 darkness and new trek darkness. It still believes largely in that world. It just takes place on the periphery of it.
Agree. The ironic thing is that classic Trek, which critics call "utopian" is not really utopian. The sociological aspects are a realistic view of the future. The most obvious feature of human history is that civilization gets better. We will solve the problems we have today, poverty, climate change, war, racism, inequality, etc. In the 24th century we will still have problems, but they won't be the current ones. TNG was set 400 years in the future. Well, if you go back 400 years into our past, to 1624, and time-shift some of the inhabitants to the present, they would regard our world as a utopia, same as fans regard Star Trek.
Exactly. SF showing an optimistic future is rare. There are plenty of violent CGI space operas like _The Expanse_ , "ray guns and rocket ships" shows, that just rehash tropes from the 20th century, in a futuristic space setting. There are even larger numbers of dystopian and apocalyptic shows. Whereas a future in which alien races work together, the government is benevolent, there are no more material needs, no huge corporations, no money - that is really radical.
That Nimoy quote, in contrast with Shatner’s “it’s just a TV show, loser” (or whatever it was), is really striking. It’s essentially the same core message but Nimoy expressed it in a thoughtful way, which also just had good advice in general too.
Shatner also did that for a laugh on SNL; he never seriously said it to people. That said, I'm sure there have been times he's wanted to, and frankly it's true. People do get too worked up about an escapist show.
That quote reminds me of a coworker of mine. She was a long time fan and even friend to Leonard. To that point that their relationship got her a job as a gopher for several weeks on the set of The Motion Picture and she was one of many fan club members to serve as an extra during Kirk's speech to the crew. She wasn't certain about the Kelvin reboot and called Nimoy to voice her concerns. He basically asked her to have faith and give it a shot. And she did. She didn't care for it too much. But here's the important part, it wasn't "her" Star Trek, but it was still Star Trek. It wasn't what she had watched for 40+ years. It was a new Trek for a new generation of fans. It had Leonard in it, and just like he passed the torch to the new cast she passed the torch of fandom on to "us kids" (I was almost 30 and a fan for 15 years but the sentiment was genuine and sweet so whatever). And that was good enough for her. Also she thought using time travel to create a reboot was EXTREMELY Star Trek.
The Kelvin timeline just had sloppy writing. It kept putting itself in situations that needed a story breaking solution. Need to get to the ship that is light years away...we just happen to have a new type of teleporting system that makes starships useless. Main character dies...we can just use the blood of our enemy to make everyone deathproof and take all the drama out of the story.
Yeah, Magic blood and magical solutions like it not only cheapen the character death it immediately introduces a long term problem into the universe. I mean you would thing they’d bottle some of khan’s blood somewhere for future resurrections since it can literally resurrect the dead.
Transwarp Beaming is not that much of an Issue. One. Who the hell in their right mind is going to transwarp beam onto an unknown world just willy-nilly and hang out with the Undine or the Borg? No, you take the Enterprise with you, analyze the planet, determine the necessary equipment, and then beam on from the ship. Two, think of Transwarp Beaming as like the Flying Car. We can't make flying cars, not because we lack the Technology, it's existed since the '50s. No, if we actually do use flying cars the situation in New York would be 9/11 times a thousand. Now imagine that with Transwarp Beaming, more people could die or are likely to die. If ONE THING goes wrong, you're in a wall, or over a volcano, or cooked in space. It's more likely that Starfleet would at least shelve or outright dismiss it just because of the danger. Three, Star Trek has ALWAYS had Death-Reversing Miracles since TOS. Khan's blood curing severe radiation poisoning is not at all in the realm of impossibility for Star Trek, (and considering they were Cold War products, it makes sense) and even then, what else can it cure? Can it cure LaForge's genetic blindness? Can it fight off Borg Nanites? Can it regrow lost limbs?
You mean like they did in the original Wrath of Khan movie. While not magic blood, spock was already death proofed. That complaintis one of the ones discussed in this video.
The Discovery for me is the first ship I've ever seen in Star Trek where I didn't immediately go "I want to live on that ship" even DS9 which is supposed to be less sleek and clean was super interesting to me. The Discovery just seemed dark and cold, like someone had designed it to look cool on screen rather than a place to live and work. I want my Star Trek to be aspirational, i love having a diverse group of characters come together and show the world we could build if we got over our petty human differences but it's pretty counter productive if what they create is a world that I don't want to live in, for me that undercuts the message.
Yes could not agree with you more. I was alive at the time the original Star Trek came out and at that time when the world was fighting the Cold War and the US was fighting for civil rights out came a show that showed us what the future could be like. Looking back on it now yes it is dated and as problems but at that time it was revolutionary. The problem I have with Discovery and Picard is these are two versions of the future I would not want to live in.
@@2727rogers totally see that critique. It is somewhere i would want to live so maybe thats part of the goal, to make Star Trek for more people. I also don’t see Disco or Picard as happening in a different way than any of the previous shows. Star fleet seems pretty similarly bad (i think Steve did a video about bad admirals in the past) for example. I didn’t want to live in any of the previous iterations because they had no problems, I wanted to live there because they were trying to fix the problems, DS9 first trying to fix the Bajorian Cardisian (sp) problems, then the Dominion wars, Enterprise tackling a terrorist attack and being out on their own, VOY just being out there on their own, etc. Maybe its my 10th grade English teacher beating into my head that Utopias don’t exist coming out, but i never saw ST as a utopia, just a bunch of people doing their best, sometimes messing up, but generally doing good. That’s why for me it is a good show, because the new ones do that for me. DS9 is still my favorite (named my dog Dax!!) but discovery was another show that I could put myself in and see myself wanting to live there (couldn’t in TNG or TOS but still love em!).
Ditto. With the exception of Lower Decks, new Star Trek is just grim. For me, ST has always been a benchmark to compare to reality. Every step we take away from the ideals of the UFP is a step in the wrong direction.
My big problem with Discovery honestly comes down to hyperfocus on Michael. Every time she is on screen it feels like all the show bows down to her, and, like, I get she is the main character, but Star Trek does well as an ensemble thing. Too often it feels like the writers use her specialness as a crutch to get out of a tough situation rather than letting the cast breathe, making various characters come together to solve problems differently. Even then, I do not think that is a failing of the show persay, so much as the writers needing to tighten things up.
My feeling is that it's clear from the start that Michael should be a captain. And her not being a captain is a problem. More often than not she knows what to do and is pretty much better than everyone else at everything. The show never (OK rarely) seems to take its focus off Michael and that means the rest of the characters struggle to shine. Only TOS came close with its focus mainly on Kirk and Spock and then McCoy elevated above the rest but after that the subsequent incarnations were very much ensemble pieces.
DS9 makes it better. Sisko and his crew were a team. Together solve every problem. You are right. The writers don't know what Star Trek means. I look just Lower Decks. It is the best New Trek show for me.🖖
I couldn't agree more. I remember thinking in one instance, when Michael, as captain or whatever, insisted she must go on some mission or task because "she's the most experienced at X", thinking to myself, "Of course, because you never let anyone else give it a shot." I also feel like Discovery overreached with its seasonal plots, to the point that it struggles to maintain the level of tension from season to season. There's only so many times you can put the entire galaxy in danger before the audience gets bored if it. I'd hoped that season 3 and beyond would allow for some exploration of what the future is like, but aside from some new tech, we've barely seen anything. We haven't even seen the bridge of Voyager J, or its captain, despite the ship's repeated appearance on screen.
@@MichaelStrathmore But I think we have to admid that the first two season sometimes, as we called in Germany, more Vorabendprogramm, it means often really shallow shows, than Primetime.
Strange New Worlds is probably the most nostalgic of the franchise and it maintains the original premise of exploring and discovering. The bridge crew has chemistry and overall the writing is excellent
Absolutely and I love Strange New Worlds. In many ways it is fan service in that they really did try to give us the retro TOS reboot we've all been asking for. While at the same time having some new and interesting things to say. But note, the whingy fan boys still whinged about diversity, gender and wokeness. There really is no making them happy.
My number one gripe about the Kelvin timeline is the cal back moments where they cheapened iconic moments. Instead of giving us truly new material, they gave us fan fiction.
I will always love seeing new Trek being made. Even if I don't personally enjoy it, I will love knowing that it exists. Having been a Trekkie born-and-raised, I spent my adult life lamenting that Trekkies were a dying breed. Star Trek was something I grew up loving with my family, and to know that the next generation will get to grow up doing the same is nothing but wonderful.
Me, too. And I really dislike both Discovery and Picard. But I know what you mean. As long as Star Trek is alive, the dream is alive of getting something *REALLY GOOD* once they get the writing down.
This......this is what I ALWAYS say about Trek... All of it wont be for me (i am a tech head so technology is what i love 1st then story) but it draws new fans in no matter what. I LOVE Kelvin timeline & Lower Decks. Kelvin showed me how bad ass Kirk's crew was from TOS, just the fact that the pulled off that win was just great. Into Darkness had a slight retro feel like it was appealing to vocal base that I didn't know about at the time. By the time Beyond was released I was so tired of the ship being trashed & to have it destroyed really rubbed me wrong because I felt that the OG ship barely got it's legs before being destroyed. That said I can leave all 3 to play in the background doing stuff in the house. Lower Decks.....god I didn't think Trek can do animated comedy but that show hit me so well as a soldier from taking orders to giving them as a 1st line supervisor. God the hilarity & hijinks is so on point...that's why I love Kelvin timeline & Lower Decks more.... It's just good to me
That's only if the new Star Trek is something which people feel is worthy of the intense sort of phenomenon-following that is Trekkieism... and I'm not seeing it atm. Most new Trekkies I know either got pulled in by the video games (!) or watching the old series on Netflix or whatever.
@@Ithirahad Many Trekkies and Wars Kids suffer from the same debilitating condition: thinking they personally own the media they consume. It's beyond your comprehension that not everything is made for you. You can't possibly grok how your 50+ year old space western might have to change and evolve to appeal to an ever-changing viewer base and ever-changing world around them. Isn't there something about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of a few, or the one? Can you really be a fan without understanding that?
Star Trek is one of the few examples of science fiction where things are hopeful for the future. These modern iterations remove that in favor of humanity's future still being full of foul language, substance abuse, class conflict, animal abuse, genocide, slavery & many other things that humanity was already established to have grown beyond. This is not Star Trek. This is a group of indifferent corporate jobbers who won the brand in a divorce then used it to make shallow & generic action at the cost of a beautiful dream for tomorrow.
To add to that, I've been watching season 3 of Picard. I enjoy it, but every episode has that 'title card' of the Star Trek logo like you need to be reminded what franchise it is, and it always reminds me that this is just a brand to these people.
In Star Trek we grew past all that stuff in the '90s, Continuing that exact cannon wouldn't just be imagining a bright future it would be whitewashing a dark past.
ĥùĥĵle? The producers, sure, bit thats true of everything. I don't think that's how the creatives (writers, directors, actors) relate to it. That isn't about Star Trek, that's about how entertainment works our world now unfortunately. There is no room for risk in high budget media anymore. No one goes to the movies hardly ever anymore, and rentals are over. We nearing the end of network and cable TV. Digital subscription to streaming libraries is how most of us watch media. And everything on the web is fighting for our attentionù. What happened in publishing 10-15 yrs ago is happening in film and TV now. Studio used to be able to take risks, the successful blockbusters paid for the bombs or the niche stuff. No more. That's why we ONLY see reboots, remakes, sequels, franchises, nostalgia porn, "fan service". It's the safe bet to make $ under these market conditions. Compounded by a culture of already careening hypercapitalism + the flattening out that happens when nuance is lost to the rise of the memes. Of course they pru shoving logos and product placements at our eyes; everyone is.
@@AvroBellow lol a “righty” would probably say the same thing about themselves. But Star Trek has been liberal in the sense of portraying opposing views. I have loved this and I make up my mind without bieng told what is right or wrong. The new stuff feels a little too preachy. Which just isn’t my style.
My problem with Discovery was just that I was tired of series that went back to older times. I didn't want to go back before TOS, I want to see what happened after the end of the other series.
My thoughts exactly; instead of exploring/creating the future of ST, they fall back endlessly to the past. Boring and intellectually lazy. Discovery and Picard are best forgotten, IMO. There is nothing wrong with trying new stuff, but there has to be some intellectual effort, and it has to be well done. STD and Picard were just not well done and creatively lazy.
My biggest issue with Picard is that I've already played Mass Effect. I appreciate the idea of tropes and cliches in storytelling but Picard is literally the mass effect script with some names swapped out.
Also, I don't know about you, but I am *SO SICK* of the "Robots have gone rogue and are coming to slay us all" schtick. Both Picard *AND* Discovery were about that. With the Borg? That was new and unique and *THIRTY YEARS AGO!* Come *on* , Star Trek, there are other problems than just AI went insane cuz someone programmed em' to. Sheesh.
For me, the issues I have with new Star Trek are mostly aesthetic. The newer content usually goes for a frenetic pace and over the top action set pieces. I prefer the slower more thoughtful pace of the older content but I don’t begrudge others enjoyment of new trek. The only real disappointment I felt was with Picard. If there was ever going to be a show that returned to the slower pacing of the older shows it would be one staring an 80 year old man. When you have to cast a stunt double for your lead actor to run up stairs, maybe don’t make it an action show.
AS to the Klingon redesign when TMP came out we hadn't had well-loved Klingon characters like Worf etc... they'd just been baddies who'd shown up a bunch of times. BY the time of Discovery Klingons were a familiar feature of Trek. Then they made them mealy-mouthed lizards. it still bugs the sh*t out of me.
Also I do think there is an objective metric to say the Discovery klingons are worse. Forcing the actors to talk in a fake language all the time impacts their ability to deliver a good performance. Even ignoring the aesthetic differences, their scenes feel very stiff and their emotional range is limited.
@@matthewbadley5063 It's not just the language. the prosthetics for the teeth and the make-up are apparently way thicker and make it harder for the actors to speak and perform in general. The forehead-alien designs of TNG were simpler, but also easier to act in. But then again, this technology can evolve further and maybe future iterations will be better.
@@benjbk If you’ve seen the behind-the-scenes for WandaVision, you’ll notice that the makeup for the Vision is largely a computer-generated effect. Perhaps in the future, extensive makeup and prosthetics won’t be necessary, and the designs of the races will have greater flexibility.
@@benjbk Also the giant sloped shoulderpads and all being bald made them all look like they had very small heads. If they'd kept the rest of the design the same but given them Big Hair they would have looked fine.
Dear writers of future Star Trek series: There is a principle in design theory called APPEAL. It doesn't mean make everything cute and nice. The holographic doctor in VOY isn't a likeable person, but the writing for his character and the performance of Robert Picardo gave him appeal. Please look into this. Also, no more mystery box storytelling, please and thank you. If you make me wait an entire season for a payoff that never comes, I will quit you.
Because there's no hope for the future in New Star Trek. TOS was about a humanity that got things right, so we sought out new life, since we had something to share. TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT were all in the same universe where viewers saw a place we could aspire to reach.
Yeah I don't want to live in any of these futures and they aren't a hopefully happy place. Apparently we are all racist haters for not wanting another dark, violent gritty, drama that by most measures of quality shows simply isn't that well written or executed and doesn't have enough redeeming qualities to excuse. Why do we keep having to be explained why we should like these shows. I love TNG/VOY/DS9, and their progressive messages of equality and peace (even when tested with war), the focus on science and exploration, how humanity finally gets it shit together and one day maybe we can do that too IRL. Picard and DIS both show humanity at its worst retuning to old ways and prejudices, I am not simply hating on these shows but if I want a depressing space opera I will watch Battlestar Galactica or The Expanse which do it way better.
Each series spends most of its time in a dark place, but it always ends in just such a hopeful way. The Picard finale depends on a huge governmental U-turn on the basis of one final piece of evidence from the man they’ve been ignoring until then. That’s pretty damn optimistic. Over a decade of foreign policy and also human rights dogma overturned when they learn something more troubling.
I found it challenging to get into the very somber tone of Picard. I am glad that I stuck with it, while not my favourite series the conversations between Riker and Picard and Picard and Data were worth it for me, among other moments. Lower Decks on the other hand had me from the first episode. It felt like a love letter to the 90’s trek fan with phasers set to humour. I can’t wait for both series second seasons. I also tend to think Enterprise is under rated and is probably my second favourite series so take my opinion as you will.
The big problem with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek Discovery, and the Kelvin timeline - over-glitzy production and a heavy-handed aesthetic that points at how spectacular everything is at the cost of natural-feeling character development. The lesson Roddenberry taught that some newer shows don't understand: make the sci-fi elements seem everyday to the characters, so they can interact with interesting conflicts and resolutions as a relatable ensemble. That is actually the strength of Below Decks, and I'd consider it to be the best Trek show since DS9. Trek is at its strongest when it's about interesting characters, and its weakest when it's about spectacle.
"over-glitzy production and a heavy-handed aesthetic that points at how spectacular everything is at the cost of natural-feeling character development." Yup. Who the fuck could work on the Kelvin bridge without developing migraines?
The main thing that bothers me about the Kelvin timeline Trek aesthetic are the silly 80s Saturday Morning Cartoon zoop/zap/bwarn SFX whenever there's a combat scene...
How can you say that TMP doesn't have character development? It has a few issues, yes but TMP is a flawed masterpiece. It is a piece of genuine art to be admired and discussed for all time. NuTrek is just Trek Wars with swearing and smoking. It's junk food and utterly forgettable. There is not a single episode of Disco or Picard that will be remembered alongside City on the Edge of Forever, Balance of Terror, Chain of Command, The Measure of a Man, Cause and Effect, The Way of the Warrior, Far Beyond the Stars or Year of Hell or any number of other iconic episodes from old Trek. NuTrek doesn't even come close
First of all, deep respect for the video and what you wanted to address. Some background about me: TOS was in reruns when I was a kid in the 70s and I was in college when TNG premiered. I remember pushing back and coming around. However, the JJ films have been my jumping off point and I have not tried any of the streaming Trek, I may do that some time in the future. My rebuttal to your video is how you represented the objection of the Kelvin films. So no, I didn’t like the lens flares, the kinetic pacing, or the emo performances. Those problems though, is that is the low hanging fruit of the larger complaint. I believe, and stand by the idea, I’d roll with flares and fast talking and face punching and all the flashy Hollywood blockbuster inserts if JJ Trek were smart. But it’s not. It fundamentally has nothing interesting to say about the human condition, it offers almost nothing it didn’t cobble from its past betters, and (admitting TNG films have their own problems in this respect) not even an attempt to convincingly lie about its bad science by mixing it with good science. That a rap song will be used to block drone signals is presented as anywhere near the same thoughtfulness as Kirk using an access code to lower his enemy’s shields is simply far below minimal quality control. I reject JJs Trek because it did the one thing past Trek had not done... tonally, consistently, oppressively treat its audience like they are stupid. If I felt as if the films wanted to say anything at all smart or interesting, I would have put up with all the flares and fast talk it had to offer with a smile on my face. But those are not really my objections (nor I think the objections of many). It’s that JJ Trek isn’t smart. And that is a deal breaker. I’m not trying to change your mind but I am asking that you address the objections to that iteration without a strawman of those objections. You seem like you get around, I don’t think this view is news to you. Which is why your choice to not address it was disappointing. I want to come back around and say I watched your Snyder / Whedon JLA review and loved it. I’ve not seen many of your videos but you strike me as someone I would agree with more often than disagree, but this aspect of this topic came off as a bit disingenuous. Anyway, hey, it’s just entertainment, and thanks for listening.
I'm not sure if I'm following this criticism well, but I think it was kinda addressed at the start when he said that people don't have to like things. I don't think this video contradicts your personal reasons for not liking it because they are reasonable and thought out. What strawman argument was made and what are you disagreeing with? That the movies are good?
I think you may have missed the thesis of this video, which is addressing only ONE motivation for disliking different iterations of Trek, not attempting a rebuttal of every single possible critique of every new Trek. He uses those specific criticisms - “it doesn’t feel like Trek” - to make a broader point about tone, subjectivity, and who gets to decide what “feels like Trek.”
Yeah he did say multiple times throughout the video that the point isn't that every series or movie is perfect or even good. He wasn't saying that there are no valid criticisms of things like JJ trek or Voyager or STD or Picard or Voyager. He was just pointing out how so many people seemingly don't even give a lot of the shows or movies a legitimate chance because they are judging it purely based on first impressions like the visuals or just something they heard someone else say, instead of actually seeing if they like it for themselves or not. I don't think he's really even defending things like JJ trek all that much, which is why he's not trying to counter any specific argument or criticism, he's just tired of all the shallow complaints instead of seeing actual thoughtful criticism.
There's a decent chance that I'm the one missing the point of "it just doesn't feel like Star Trek," but seeing as that's my main complaint.... I don't get why you're conflating "it doesn't *feel* like Star Trek" with "it doesn't *look* like Star Trek." I mean, beyond that, your point is sound, and I agree - and I actually really love Discovery (and it's aesthetic, except for the Klingon redesign, which is just plain ugly & really hinders the actors' performances)... it just doesn't FEEL like Star Trek. It's not about the look, it's about that relentless, overpowering optimism that this, THIS is a future we and should aim for. Diversity is strength, morality is power. We can do better. We can choose a better world, a better *universe.* I think Discovery is a fantastic show, albeit with some REALLY questionable creative choices that I could argue for hours. It's also very much a product of the current political mood. Not that it's entirely wrong. My favorite Trek is DS9, and that wasn't exactly shy about acknowledging that the Federation was less than perfect in living up to its ideals (much like the USA), but they struck a wonderfully nuanced balance between challenging the naivete that all too easily accompanies idealism and defending the ideals themselves all the more strongly for being willing to acknowledge such dangers. It's easy to be a saint in paradise, indeed. Picard tries to find a similar balance, but I don't think they quite pulled it off. Discovery doesn't even try. It's cynical, very nearly hopeless. It reframes the earlier idealism of the entire franchise as naivete, and Picard just kind of accepts that. And that... just hurt. Our world is ugly & cynical enough right now. And it's not like it's a Star Trek thing - there's a lot to be said for the "Golden Age of television," but there's a whole lot of grimdork involved, too. But Trek always, ALWAYS made optimism & faith in humanity its ultimate foundation, even in its darkest chapters. I'm a pretty cynical, hopeless person in truth, but Star Trek always made me feel like maybe I was wrong, that hope was worth holding onto. That we can do better, build a better world. Discovery says I'm just seeing clearly. That my personal failing isn't the inability to hope anymore, but my stubborn refusal to stop trying. It doesn't FEEL like Star Trek. And that just *hurts.*
The trouble is, “feel” is totally and utterly subjective. EVERY viewer will have their own reasons for why the “feel” is wrong. To even TRY to address this on any but the most superficial level is completely impossible.For ONE person out of hundreds you might get the vision of the performance gelling with their desires and prejudices, but for far MORE people will be offended.....this is inevitable and cannot be avoided.
I would probably enjoy STD if it wasn't called Star Trek. If it was just some dystopian generic sci fi it would be fine. But it isn't Star Trek. The thing about Trek is that it's not just a progressive sci fi show.. to REALLY be Trek it has to have a vital ingredient - hope. Optimism. Even in DS9 which had plenty of darker episodes, there was always the striving towards a better future. Always. With STD and Picard it's just too grim and fucking miserable. Don't get me wrong, as a 40k nerd I love a bit of grimdark but that's not what Trek is.
RE: Nimoy's comment about Star Trek (2009): If memory serves, Nimoy was offered to direct and/or cameo in Star Trek: Generations, and he said "no" because he thought the script sucked and the studio's mandate to have Picard and Kirk work together was fundamentally a dumb idea. So it seems a bit hypocritical for him to tell other fans to just enjoy the ride for 2009's reboot, as if it's OK for him, as an artist to take a principled, artistic stand against participating in a movie he thought was fundamentally flawed, but we audiences should just sit down, shut up, and enjoy the ride with another movie. I know that's not what he meant, but I do feel that this provides some important context. So yes, I will "see where Star Trek wants to take me now". I did. I watched 1st season of Discovery and Picard, and each successive episode made me dislike each show more and more. And I intend to watch Lower Decks at some point when I sign up for a free trial to Paramount+. I also intend to watch Disc season 2 at some point, because people keep telling me it is "less bad". But I've seen where Star Trek is trying to take me, and I've decided that I don't like where CBS/Paramount is going with Star Trek. I'm not going to give them my hard-earned money and pretend to like what I'm seeing. If Nimoy can take a principled stand against participating in Generations because he thought it sucked, then I, as a fan, can take a principled stand against consuming and enabling Discovery and Picard because I think they suck. RE: Steve's following statement that "sometimes STar Trek takes us places we don't like, and that's OK". It was OK in the old shows because they were so episodic. If a particular episode of ToS, TNG, DS9, or VOY is bad, that's fine because the next episode will be at least a medium-ish reset. If I dislike VOY's "Threshold" because I think that achieving warp 10 is a fundamentally dumb idea, and that warp 10 turning someone into a salamander is an even dumber idea, then I can rest easy in the comfort of knowing that the next episode hopefully won't be as stupid. How I feel about "Threshold" is very similar to how I feel about the spore drive of Disc or the Zhad Vash and inter-dimensional robot tentacle monsters of Picard. The difference is that the spore drive, etc. aren't just concepts in throw-away episodes. They are fundamental to the structure and story of the show. They are the whole show. And since CBS seems uninterested in having "planet of the week", or "alien of the week", or "anomaly of the week" stories to distract from those fundamentally dumb ideas, I just can't buy into the series as a whole. Everything that happens in each series is happening because of those ideas that I fundamentally dislike. I guess the closest you can get with older Trek would be if you don't buy into the prophets/wormhole aliens of DS9. If you can't buy into that concept, then you're probably not going to like DS9 because so much of DS9's overarching story is tied to that concept. But even then, you might still be able to enjoy the many stand-alone episodes that don't reference or mention or build upon the prophets.
One thing to consider about Nimoy: Generations was in 1994 while Star Trek was in 2009. That's 15 years. Plenty of time to grow and change his mind and opinions. Perhaps he did.
The problem with New Trek is that with each episode, the stakes are absurdly high ... Not every catastrophe or incident has to be world ending.... Also, enough with the prophecies...It's a sci-fi show, not a fantasy show.. There's nothing wrong with the old Trek episodic format "problem arises, problem intensifies, problem solved"
So... what's a "Data's Day" episode going to look like in Discovery? Are we going to get an iconic Khan character? What nemesis in Discovery is going to be a bridge crew member in the next series? Are we going to explore a possible future where EVERYBODY has spore drive and what that future looks like? THESE are signatures of Star Trek. I don't know what Discovery is except serialized fanfiction.
Oh, good Lord. Nice try Einstein, but most people who "hate" Trek since JJ, particularly now with STD, feel this way primarily because 1) Much of canon has been discarded in a way that suggests those doing the discarding aren't even aware of it; 2) All the incarnations are rife with internal logical inconsistencies, which is pure and simple sloppy writing; 3) STD in particular goes out of its way (internally as well as in press releases) to make it plain they think they are "breaking barriers" and making Trek "inclusive", when any casual examination of Trek since it's inception will show that STD isn't doing anything which hasn't been done before, and better; and 4) it is populated by characters who don't talk, act, or carry themselves in any manner which would indicate that they've been through the rigors of the 23rd century version of Annapolis with a bit of MIT and Stanford thrown in; they are immature, emotionally fragile (as opposed to vulnerable - big difference) and in some cases (thinking Tilly) physically ill suited to be officers any sort of military/scientific service (I can say that about Tilly because I'M someone who couldn't meet the rigorous physical standards which would still apply to such institutions in the future). In a word, people "hate" them because they flat out suck, and the ratings bear this out.
There's one more possibility you overlooked. When confronted with something that's poorly executed, some fans say, "That doesn't feel like Star Trek" because they themselves don't go around practicing nuanced literary criticism. They're just simple folks who are trying to flag that they noticed that something in the production was lacking, even if they weren't able to verbalize exactly what it was. And yes, every new Trek has gotten a lot of criticism because--guess what--the first few seasons of EVERY new Trek were rough ones. In hindsight we glorify TNG and DS9, but there were some pretty shitty episodes of both (he said, regarding both series as the pinnacle of Trek.) This problem becomes particularly acute in modern limited-episode-run serial dramas and movies, where you don't have 50-some chances to get it right in the first two years. It has to be good right out of the gate. IMHO, Lower Decks nailed it, Picard was close, and Discovery blew it too many times for me to give it more than a couple of chances. And asking fans to hang in there until it gets good in Season Three is a big ask nowadays, considering how many great series there are out there for science fiction and fantasy. Why settle for also-ran Discovery when I can binge The Expanse, The Mandalorian/Clone Wars/Rebels, Lovecraft Country, Doom Patrol/Umbrella Academy (a concept so nice they made it twice.) Heck, I'd rather watch Netflix's Lost in Space than Discovery. In the end, quality wins out. Nowhere is this more apparent than what's going on in the Star Wars universe. The Mandalorian, The Clone Wars, and Rebels are all great shows, widely accepted by fans that also respect the continuity and lore while continuing to invent new characters and stories. You don't hear many fans carping about those--or any of the other shows I mentioned. I'm a long time Doom Patrol fan: love what they did with it, give me more. Same for all those other shows. Quality wins out.
I think that criticism works both ways. On the one hand, yes, no one should be asked to sit through a rough first season or two when there are other "better" shows they could watch instead, but conversely because those other shows exist no one really has to either. Anyone who'd rather watch the Expanse or whatever than Discovery can just do that. Discovery wasn't my cup of tea either, but I didn't have to waste my time hating on it because I had Orville to watch instead. Tangentially though, while TNG very much so had a rough first season, I can't really agree that DS9 was anywhere close to the same. I recently started re-watching that this past year, and while admittedly it had a few growing pains to work through, and the pilot was probably the roughest patch, but I was continuously surprised just how much arrived almost fully fully formed. It might have taken TNG the better part of its first two seasons to get "good", but I feel like DS9 managed the same before its first season was even half finished.
The Mandalorian is basically a bad western where the protagonist ought to have done the thing that was obvious to everyone watching but didn't because "suspense". I'm not sure how anyone could call it a great show.
I remember Nimoy's books, I'm Not Spock and I Am Spock. The best example of changing one's mind, coming to terms with the past, and moving forward with cherished memories.
i could be wrong but i think star trek as a whole has lost the ability to make you think about things in way and from points of view that you might otherwise have not. TNG will always have a special place for me because of the many moral and philosophical dilemmas they had to reason through. modern star trek is treated with so much more intensity that its hard to get those thinker episodes in that are maybe not so action oriented. a good example is TNG season 2 episode 9 "The Measure of a Man". this is the episode where Data is put on trial to determine if his is sentient or starfleet property, with picard defending him and riker forced into arguing for the other side. this episode is a masterclass in keeping an audience engaged almost exclusively with dialog. it also contains no ship to ship battles, no phaser fights, no "shields down to 20 percent!", no inverting the polarity of anything. and it made you think long after it is over, possibly about concepts you might never have really thought hard about. i like my actiony star trek as much as anybody else but miss the occasional thinkers. just my opinion tho.
I always saw the kelvin movies to be very similar to superhero films before Marvel happened. They are based on a familiar property and have all the same characters but it’s less a movie in universe, and more just movie with familiar names. I never saw it as actual Star Trek, just a fun action movie with Star Trek painted on it. And that was before I even really got into Star Trek. That feeling hasn’t subsided since getting into Star Trek
Agreed, most Marvel movies are like amusement park rides; they're fun one time but have zero replay value. But I give them credit for making Guardians cool and Avengers cool again. Nobody outside of the UK cared about Guardians before the movie. When Marvel vs. Capcom 3 came out and Rocket Racoon was a playable character, everyone I knew was like "who? Oh he's from some oddball series from the 70s." Avengers were like the 5th most popular Marvel team once Claremont and Byrne revived X-Men. Some of those 80s and early 90s Avengers teams, yeah good luck naming 5 characters (West Coast Avengers > Regular Avengers for a few years).
Three seasons in and Discovery still hasn't been embraced like TNG was. But because DS9 and TNG were not intially loved by fans does not mean Kurtzman Trek will be. The most important question: is new Trek resonating with most of the fan base? That I don't know because CBS doesn't share their ratings.
For any show, you need to get a feel for who the characters are, those characters need to have understandable motives and actions that are plausible. It's here where newer Trek has struggled. Picard spends an episode overcome with regret about leaving Elnor. Then leaves him on a Borg cube surrounded by Romulans, where they've already established it would be Picards worst nightmare. He will change his whole life because of the debt he feels for Data's sacrifice then after a 5 minute chat, kills him. It makes sense that Data wouldn't want to exist that way, but then why has no one switched him off earlier? Wouldn't Picard want to chat for more than 5 minutes before pulling the plug? They both got over 20 years of waiting and survivors guilt far too quickly. I think it's good they willing to go to these strong emotional places, but they aren't fully earned and are quickly discarded for the next thing. As for Discovery, the characters are all over the place from one scene to the next. Burnham has had at least 5 total personality transplants since the start of the show. Raised as a Vulcan, logic above all else, to acting purely on emotional instinct. A whole host of moral contradictory pronouncements. Working together is always the right thing, no working alone is, no we sacrifice for the Federation, no forget the Federation, we sacrifice for each other. If they could just write the characters so they made sense, I think we'd all be a lot more forgiving of other issues. The frustrating thing is, they clearly have these big budgets, fantastic actors and a fan base that actually really wants to love the shows. It's a lost opportunity to create something special.
"Then leaves him on a Borg cube surrounded by Romulans, where they've already established it would be Picards worst nightmare." But this is not only *Elnor's* decision, it's the entire reason he came on this journey - to fight for a lost cause. "It makes sense that Data wouldn't want to exist that way, but then why has no one switched him off earlier?" The fact that they haven't just built data a new body or some way to directly communicate with him speaks to the fact that while they have his mind running, they don't realize he's truly conscious until Picard informs them.
Mostly correct, the shows do have issues. But in some ways they are the most real, down to earth of all the Treks. Why wouldn't Picard chat with Data for more then 5 minutes? Because it hurts. It hurts to lose people, and it hurts even more to be given a chance to be with a friend again because you know it isn't going to last. Burnham and her logical/emotional choices always kind of struck me that raising a human to be a vulcan is damaging. Constantly fighting to be logical just ends up opening the floodgate of emotions, causing her to bounce between the two. She's Logically Bipolar. The rest is spot on.
I don’t like Discovery or Picard or the Kelvin films but I love Lower Decks & I have no issue with people liking the other series & films. Heck, I love your channel after all 😁 You’ve never changed my mind about about new Trek (you did change my mind about Jellico!) but I always enjoy your views on new Trek as thinking critically about work you’re not overly fond of can still be fun if you learn a new perspective.
I like both Picard and Lower Decks. Not that either is perfect. But no season of Trek is perfect. Even DS9 had its bad episodes and odd choices. And well... TNG first season? Do I have to say more? ;) The Kelvin films I find... OK. Not really films I get to much in to. I do not hate them or love them. They were worth a watch. And Discovery I have not watched yet. Not been on any streaming platform I have had easy access to. Personally, I think people should be allowed to like what they want. Pre Kelvin trek is full of poor trek to. With their even being a odd and even rule for movies.(The odd movies are the bad ones. The even are the good ones. Though personal taste might factor in to since I personally like the first movie, admittedly is often known as the least bad of the odd ones. Similarly, Nemesis, the last TNG movie and the 10th one is frequently considered bad. I will admit, I did not watch that to the end when I got the chance to watch it. I lost interest when watching it. In the end trek is full of hits and misses and people will not agree. But at least there seem to be Trek for everyone. ;)
My issues with Disco and to a lesser extent Picard is the WRITING, especially with Disco. I wouldn't even have enough room here to count all my issues with Disco. They took an actress I LOVE from my fav show walking dead and made her totally unlikeable. Why? She serves on a starfleet vessel and conducted a mutiny that I didn't buy into and made her a char who never follows orders. This lessened in season 3 to some extent. I found all 3 seasons uneven. The first season I thought the mirror universe was boring. They killed off the best char, captain lorca, and the klingon arc was just silly imo. The klingons were changed so much that they could barely speak properly. They layered makeup on their faces making it obviously hard for them to speak. Season 2 got off to a good start. I liked that episode with the church that had been moved. They actually gave a new bridge officer some more time on screen! The whole season went downhill eventually. The control story line was just silly. It felt disjointed and poorly written and executed. Season 3 also got off to a strong start. The best yet. Then around the middle it went downhill again. The new vulcan episode with the mother felt forced. The mirror universe, boring. The explanation for the burn was just nonsense with an episode with the creature from haunted hill. The season finale had little robots and a turbo lift scene that was one of the poorest use of CGI I have seen. Disco likes to introduce something, like the little robots, then just drops it without explanation. They have done this dozens of times in 3 seasons. For me that's poor writing.
IMHO TNG and the other more hopeful utopian treks were only a partial truth, one face of the coin of the whole story. Newer Trek is exploring the costs of that Utopia we love so much, and the darknesses the Federation has had to survive and come to terms with as it continued to walk blindly forward into the light. It also focuses on the naked and ugly truths of the risks and costs of those journeys while using our contemporary social issues to highlight the real personal and civilizational sacrifices required #ToGoWhereNoOneHasBefore. Just my take on it all and not a prophecy nor canonical rule. I am a lifelong trekkie but I aint #TheGuardianOfTheUniverse like that. Just enjoy the #LongLivedProsperity of Star Trek I say.
My problem with recent Star Trek is that some of them are too focused on a singular character; Michael Burnham or Jean-Luc Picard. When the focus is a single character they seem to be at the center of every storyline. In the previous series there would be a storyline about Data one week, about Worf the next, and a few times there was even a Geordi story. But if every single story was about Riker it would have seemed ridiculous. Imagine if Discovery were promoted as Michelle Yeoh as the captain but she dies in the second episode and we get to see how the crew reacts. They’ve got to deal with the new mysterious captain Jason Isaacs and him brining back onboard the one responsible for her death. I honestly can’t name some regular crew members of the Discovery and I’ve watched all 3 seasons. They need their own episodes. But when Burnham is the focus of every storyline it feels like her life is cursed. Her mom is a time traveler who drew the attention of Klingons which got her colony killed. She was adopted by Sarek and raised with Spock. Then she started a war with Klingons but her mirror universe counterpart was the daughter of the Terran emperor and the love of mirror universe Lorca. But she then fell in love with a Klingon surgically altered to appear human. Some of that could maybe have happened to someone else. The same thing goes for Picard. Picard is psychic now and had a dream about Data just before an Android comes to him for help. The twin of that android is on a Borg ship being decommissioned by Romulans. Big things in Picard’s past are androids, romulans and borg, are they normally connected? No but they’re going to be here because it’s about Picard. I’m surprised they didn’t put Ferengi or Vash in there. I have no complaints about Lower Decks though. It’s the best Star Trek in 15 years. There’s no singular main character and many secondary characters.
I mean, in Picard, it makes sense. The show is literally named Star Trek PICARD! But dor DSC though, I hope they do some character devalopment on others. We now only have Sary, Mirror Gorgue and Micheal.
Yeah that's my single largest issue w/DSC as well--the over reliance on telling stories about Burnham from every conceivable angle while letting other characters languish. When you don't really care for the main character to begin with, it makes it hard to enjoy the show.
"But when Burnham is the focus of every storyline it feels like her life is cursed. Her mom is a time traveler who drew the attention of Klingons which got her colony killed. She was adopted by Sarek and raised with Spock. Then she started a war with Klingons but her mirror universe counterpart was the daughter of the Terran emperor and the love of mirror universe Lorca. But she then fell in love with a Klingon surgically altered to appear human. " Dafuq? You didn't even mention that she pulled a phaser on her commanding officer and (more or less) got away with it.
I mean, consider this, though: TOS (the series, not the movies) was focused on basically Kirk and Spock and sometimes McCoy, and the rest of the cast got very little focus. Do you complain that TOS focuses too much on Kirk or too much on Spock? TNG made an ensemble cast a thing, and DS9 and Voyager kept that up. It was actually part of some people's complaints that Enterprise tried to go back to the TOS style, where they basically had the power trio of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy replicated in Archer, T'Pol, and Trip. The rest of the Enterprise cast got about as much focus as the rest of the TOS cast. So your problem isn't necessarily with "recent" Star Trek, because you'd have to put TOS into that batch, too.
@@MichaelMoore99what? Sure the tos mostly focused on Spock, Kirk and sometimes bones but Uhura, Scotty, Chekov and Sulu all got their own episodes that show cased them I can name pretty much if not all the bridge crew of the TOS, I can't do the same with discovery cuz most if not all of them have gotten nothing
"It just doesn't feel like Trek..." It doesn't! "Stylistically..." No, that's not what I mean at all. I don't care about the aesthetic. Star Trek has always been a medium to examine some pretty deep ethical and philosophical questions. I don't think that the Kelvin films (maybe Beyond) or the first season of Discovery have been doing that. That's what doesn't "feel like Trek," not the lens flares or the redesigned Klingon makeup. I was fine with Picard, and I particularly liked the third season of Discovery. It's not that I feel that New Star Trek is doing that Star Trek *is* doing something that Star Trek *isn't* supposed to do. I'm fine with action in my Star Trek, with comedy in my Star Trek, with sex and swearing and any number of *new* things in my Star Trek. What I'm salty about is what's *missing* from New Star Trek. It's missing its heart. Star Trek was never just about telling a story: it was about painting a vision of the future that we might aspire to, about shining light on the status quo and discussing questions relevant to our current cultural moment (even if they still sometimes get things wrong; looking at you, Riker the clone-murderer). It's getting better. They're starting to actually have thoughtful Trek again. But it seemed touch-and-go for a while there. "Exploring strange new worlds, seeking out and embracing the unfamiliar is at the heart of Star Trek." You said it. You said it perfectly. And that's what's been missing, and what is finally beginning to return to the franchise.
Both Discovery and Picard shone a light on the current status quo and explored it in ethical and philosophical ways: the rise of right wing fascism, for example, was a key theme in season one of both shows. To me, the stories took inspiration from this phenomenon happening in the US and UK over the last few years.
What my biggest issue with the newer Trek shows are (except Lower Decks I guess, haven't seen them yet) how serialised they are. What I think makes Star Trek such a compelling show is the narrative, and in the older shows that narrative could change significantly from week to week. That means if for some reason you weren't into one episode, don't worry because next week's will be completely different and it might become your favourite. That can't happen in the new shows. For example, I thought the story of season 1 Discovery was "meh" at the beginning but picked up after the Terran twist; but I loved the mystery leading to a universe-spanning threat narrative of season 2. Season 3 however hasn't grabbed me at all, in fact I stopped watching after the Romulan/Vulcan episode. If this was TNG, VOY, or even DS9 I could put it down to a dud episode and then try again next week for a new one. But for Discovery, I'm going to have to wait another year to MAYBE get something I like - assuming I even finish season 3. Because of this, I don't think you can have a "favourite" episode. In my eyes a favourite episode is one you can tell your friend to watch alone, without having to watch the entire season before it, etc.
Lower Decks is... semi-serialized? Semi-episodic? Like... you can watch an episode alone and understand it and be just fine... but if you watch it in the series, you pick up on more nuance and call-backs than you did before. If you like episodic Star Trek, I think you'll like Lower Decks (as long as you are OK with it being comedy, though it does have serious moments as well).
There's trend of making every show "cinematic". Sometimes this means cinema level production values but, other times, they try to stretch a single story into 10 or 13 episodes. If I said to you " 'It's Only A Paper Moon' is such a great episode from DS9" or " 'Someone To Watch Over Me' is a gem in Voyager", you can probably remember what happened in that episode. (Note that I didn't include episodes which everyone refers to like The Inner Light or In The Pale Moonlight). If I said " 'Into The Forest I Go' is very bad", your first reaction would be "wait, which one? The fifth or the eighth, maybe? Was it in the 1st or 2nd season?" No episode has an identity of its own. It all blends into one larger story. (The larger story can range from coherent to murky) I saw this with Marvel-Netflix too. They're almost ashamed of having an episode that's just an episode. No, It HAS to be one part of a 155 part story. I'll take one, well-executed, standalone story over poorly-written, hyper-serialized, 13-episode, "prestige" shows any day of the week.
@@MichaelMoore99 which was my favorite thing about DS9 and even voyager, even with voyager... issues... I loved that there was an overarching story, and that you can skip episodes that you're not interested in without missing anything, while watching it anways wouldreward you with an overarching story.
Well you are completely of the mark here... The quality of storywriting, characters and worldbuilding is just bad. We the fans would be more accepting to the shows if they were actualy any good. They are not (Lower decks is fine). Expecting better quality is not hate. And seeing producers in their bubble without any respect to canon and common sense is not making us any more accepting.
What examples do you have of the writing being "bad?" I ask this because I see similar attitudes from Star Wars fans about that franchise's new entries, and when I actually get those folks to lay out their examples for the apparent drop in quality, it still just amounts to something along the lines of, "I wanted this to happen, and it didn't."
@@Progger11 The big plot holes, the rushed and unsatisfying endings to frequent existential threats to all life in the galaxy, the inconsistent character portrayals, nonsensical outcomes to the actions of characters, and the horrendous dialogue are all examples of bad writing. When doing a "mystery box" story as every season of Discovery tends to be, the writing needs to make sure that everything makes logical sense for the audience to follow along and engage in the story. Discovery doesn't do that, and neither did Picard. Take the red bursts, for example. We first meet Pike at the start of Season 2, and he tells us that Starfleet's top priority are 7 red signals that have appeared, but only 1 of those signals is still visible, so he takes command and goes to the red signal. Then over the course of the season, 5 more signals become visible, and then Michael makes another signal at the start of season 3. So how many signals were there in total? What created the 6 signals that Enterprise was originally investigating that disappeared? How did Pike receive orders to take command of Discovery before the Discovery was notified, since they were being sent to Vulcan to get a new captain and Enterprise had no communication ability when Discovery received the distress signal? That's all just from one episode, and the rest of the episodes are just as bad. The characters are terribly inconsistent. Michael Burnham will be portrayed as this steely genius intellect in one scene, then an emotional wreck in the next. She is a model of Starfleet duty and loyalty in one scene, then a rogue maverick in the next. If the scene requires an expert pilot, they'll use Michael Burnham. If the scene needs an expert hand-to-hand combatant, they'll use Michael Burnham. If the scene requires an unexploded torpedo to be disarmed, they'll use a flag officer with a background in psychology. If Stafleet needs a new head of Section 31, they'll use a former Klingon Spy that was so bad at spying that his own spymaster that made him into a spy had to labotomize him. Their solution to tying up these loose ends is to deny everything and never speak of it again. On to season 3, over 900 years in the future, where everyone apparently loves Michael Burnham so much that they all follow her to the future. Why did she go into the future? Her mother died, but not really, so Michael went to be with her, but after finding her, never speaks to her again. Much like Spock did in season 2 after obsessing over the Red Angel to the point of having a psychotic breakdown. He hatches a nonsensical plan to capture the Red Angel using faulty logic, then when it conveniently works out, he is notably absent when it comes time to talk to her. I guess the writers just kinda forgot. Actual dialogue from this terrible show: "This is the Power of Math, People!" "You're sorta like...the bomb, aren't you?" "Some say that in life, there are no second chances. Experience tells me this is true"- Michael Burnham, during a speech in which she is literally being given a second chance. These are just a few brief examples of why the writing is so awful on this show, and not for the silly strawman reasons put forth my Steve in this video. This is the real reason why people actually hate NuTrek.
@@aaronhaywood5007 add that the crying every episode, no body seems to respect command structure, and who are most of them I can only 3 people of main bridge crew
@@Progger11 Here's something about Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, all the damn fake-out deaths, to list them: Chewie, Kylo Ren (3 separate times), C-3P0's memory wipe, Zorii Bliss, Babu Frik, and Rey. I mean that's just ridiculous, no 1 movie should have 8 fake out deaths. Nothing says lazy writing like making the audience think a character died, just to bring them back. It's cheap and it's lame.
@@slyaspie4934 I feel like Discovery had Burnham giving some kind of generic inspirational speech to at least 1 person every. single. episode. Now I could be remembering how many there actually were incorrectly, as I haven't watched it in a good 3 years, but I'm pretty sure there was an unnecessary amount of speeches given by Star Trek female space Jesus.
4:00 Fun Fact: I think it was in "Into Darkness" that J.J. Abrams realized he did overdo the lens flairs in a few places and had visual fx go back and reduce the appearance of the flairs after the fact.
@@gwenking7700 It was awful. Spock was basically Master Splinter who gave them the cheat "well I shouldn't tell you about the future...but I'm gonna tell you about the future". The thing with Kirk dying role reversal was a troll. The super serum blood. Spock yelling Khan. Marcus going to locate a 300 year old dictator that one no could control and build a ship that looked like a prehistoric baby of the Excelsior and Enterprise-E. And what was the whole John Harrison thing for? It was a gimmick to try and outsmart the audience. Why couldn't they actually get an Indian actor this time? If you're going to do Khan the most well known villain or "heel" in the entire Star Trek universe, you don't play this bait and switch crap with the audience, you market him like The Joker. They could of at least gave Khan a Joachim. And those Klingons were crappier than Discovery Klingons. Such a bad movie.
I honestly would love to see some one do a reboot of the entire franchise where all of the classic aliens are actually more alien. Nothing else NEEDS to change really. I've seen a few artists explore this and honestly I really hope we get a star trek that does that some day. I'm pretty sure that would upset a LOT of people but it would be so refreshing.
I do kind of wish Discovery had some stand-alone eps, just to give the characters a chance to develop a little more and for some lower stakes interactions. Kind of like an inverse of DS9 in it's ratio of Actual Plot to Stand-Alone, if that makes sense. EDITING TO SAY: Also while Adult Me accepts that VOY is not a great show, I can't help but love it because 7 year old me loved and always will love Captain Janeway.
Discovery had a FEW stand-alone episodes... I'd consider "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" to be one. But you're right that there really aren't that many.
I kinda get why there aren't though. The show is just way too expensive to waste on a single episode that doesn't drive the overall plot of the season forward. I do agree with you though, it would do a lot for the characters.
Most of season three consisted of stand-alone episodes that were loosely connected to the idea of checking in with known worlds. That looks like it'll be the format for next season as well, if Vance's orders continue, that Burnham will have to distribute safe dilithium to far-flung worlds.
This is the single biggest problem I have with the show. The story arcs just aren't compelling enough to drag out week after week and the stakes are way too high! It gets to the point where you just don't care. Every ship travelling at warp speed blew up...yawn! Oh and last week an AI attempted to kill every living thing in the galaxy!
@@DLZ2000 So maybe spend more time/resources on writing. If this is an example of the writing, Star Trek deserves better. I am constantly amazed how a good story can even shine through bad acting. Jimmy Stewart's entire career can be attributed to great stories.
You explain subjectivity very well, people don’t understand it cuz they got main character syndrome. they think their opinions are facts that apply for everyone else instead of just their own personal thing
There's a difference between fondness for nostalgia and wanting to live in the past. That's where the separation occurs from whether or not one actually dislikes something or whether they were going to give something new a chance in the first place.
That brings to mind a few past experiences. I went in to the rebooted Battlestar Galactica with the mindset of, "Let's see how bad they screw this up." I ended up loving the whole series, even the somewhat divisive ending. Similarly, The Sarah Conner Chronicles. Terminator on television? No way that'll work! I'm still pissed at Fox for leaving us on that cliffhanger after season two. After that, I was cautiously optimistic about V... only to be crushed by what I saw. Similarly, despite misgivings with pre-release promotional material, I wanted to like Discovery. I tried. I couldn't. I wanted to like Picard. Hell, this was a continuation of things past, with a returning cast member with enough clout to see things are done right, right? Apparently not, alas...
Now *that's* an important point. Overall tone is vital, and it's a sadly common practice for sequel shows and series to offer a "darker, grimmer take on the {insert title here} universe." And that's never, ever what I (or many original-series fans), want to see. If you don't want to reproduce the tone and feel of the original, why are you still trying to cash on its name?
Steve: "There is no entry in the franchise that is perfect." Me: "Shhhhh... it's ok, he just forgot about you for a moment Star Trek Enterprise. We all know you're perfect in every way. It's ok. Yes... go blow up the Xindi, it's ok..."
Yeah I think the biggest thing that threw me off about Discovery was the lack of "stand alone" episodes like you had said, I love a good story but DS9 for example did story telling both ways with the whole prophet/Bajor storyline along with lots of fun random episodes not oriented around that
I think another thing that's caused modern Trek to become far more serialized is the modern TV format of only having 10 - 14 episodes in a season. Back during DS9s day, series were still being made with 20+ episodes a season (average was 24)... that's soooo much more time to tell your arc and throw in one-offs. I wonder, if Disco was given 20+ episodes in a season, if they'd be more inclined to have one-off episodes and episodes far more focused on "secondary" characters. (same goes for Picard)
@@ObsidianBlk I don't think there's anything inherent in a shorter season that makes one-off episodes that also contribute to an arc impossible. Russell T Davies certainly pulled it off for the first dozen seasons of the Doctor Who reboot--laying clues about "Bad Wolf" or "Doctor Donna" or "Harold Saxon" in 8-10 apparently standalone episodes that then pay off in a big two-parter. They even moved significantly in that direction for Discovery Season 3. There's no reason they couldn't have done that. Making each season seem like a chunked up 10-hour movie instead of eight standalone episodes that lay clues toward a big finale conflict was a *choice* the producers made.
@@ObsidianBlk DS9 seasons had 26 episodes a season, except for season one, a mid-season replacement season, with 20. So, the average would be higher, more like 25 and change.
This is true. One of the benefits for shows that use modern serialized story telling is that all episodes for a season are available at once. This allows you to watch them in succession at a quicker pace and helps keep you engaged. Discovery doesn't have this benefit. To be frank, the long arcs they've presented so far don't hold my interest long enough from week to week. Revealing who the Red Angel was or what caused The Burn just isn't rewarding enough to wait thirteen weeks for. I think it's a big problem for this show and for Picard. Maybe Paramount will use a different model.
Biggest reason, I think - New trek has lost that shining beacon of hope for what we wish to aspire to be. New Trek characters are now more of what we currently are, and not what we want to become. These new characters can't inspire, because they're not a future ideal. They're too ingrained in our current real world muck. TNG and VOY while I was growing up depicted a future where race, gender, religion, and political affiliation didn't matter. We had transcended these concepts so far that we didn't even care what new species had or did what, as long as they didn't hurt those around them. I want my daughter to grow up with those ideals. Not this new wave of "beat down anyone above you" crap. You want something? You do the work to make it happen, not beat up someone else that has it (or something similar to what you wanted).
I’m confused who beat who up to make things happen on new Trek? It’s funny, when I was growing up watching Trek, I felt like women and especially women of color were written rather crappily that I didn’t feel like people with my gender and skin color really had a true place in the future. And now with new Trek, I do feel like I can be in a better future.
I didn’t hate: The Next Generation. Voyager OR Deep Space Nine WHY? They were extremely well done in every way AND they didn’t violate canon. However... Enterprise? I had mixed feelings. It violated some small canon and I hated the theme song. But overall it was good. JJ’s Kelvin Movies? I could accept them generally because the altered time-line logically explained why everything looked so different. There were some minor things about it that I didn’t like, but overall they were good. The spirit of Trek was there. Picard. Yes! No violation of canon and generally an excellent series. Not perfect yet I enjoyed it. BUT... Discovery???? HELL no. I won’t drone on, but the blatant, obscene violation of canon and its disregard for the legacy of what came before was shockingly heart-breaking. And NOW... Strange New Worlds. NOPE. Same damn reasons. It in now way respects canon and makes no effort to logically explain why everything looks so advanced when it’s supposed to be set in the prime time-line TOS universe. Again- heartbreaking. IF... these series wanted to make things look way more advanced and “cooler” to attract younger audiences, then why not set them decades after Picard’s time, like show runners did for TNG? Then they could redesign it all they wanted without alienating us long time fans. But now? I’m out until someone fixes it.
@@variablegear6133 My understanding is, Discovery does end up in the 31st century. However, the series (the crew, the ship, etc...) begins in the prime universe original series era. So regardless of where it went, it started there and was illogically non-canon to start with. The designs are confusing and incongruous with existing in-universe Trek history. No explanation for this whatsoever. My point was, if the show runners wanted to update the look of the series to appeal to a younger audience, why not just BEGIN the series 50 years after Picard’s time? Why mess with firmly-established canon aesthetics? Just didn’t seem necessary.
I havn't got a issue with lens flare perse, it's just that JJ did use it a heck of alot in his Kelvin Trek movies, so much so to the point it honestly felt like he used them in every goddamn scene. 9:28 The only answer i can give to that is, ANYONE who comes in and has enough respect to honor Gene Rodenberry's vision of "STAR TREK". No it's respectfully believed among most Trek Fans that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga did this, so why can't Alex Kurtzman do the same? Sure, Kurtzman may genuinely believe in his mind that he is honoring Rodenberry's Trek at sametime as bring it into our 2021 sensibility. If you've got a small number of fans who say they hate "New Trek" for whatever reason, then yes you can just dissmiss them as a bunch of picky, hardcore fans who are practically impossible to please. But when you have a very large number of the fanbase that all genuinely feel the same, and they strongly feel New Trek just does'nt feel like "Star Trek" period; then that can only tell you one thing, it simply isn't "STAR TREK". I truly hate (with a passion) the Disney Star Wars Sequels, for so many reasons i care not to get into here, so i'll basically just come to the conclusion that i feel they're not true "Star Wars". That said i love The Mandalorian that has the essence and is "STAR WARS" to me. So i guess when it comes to the Star Trek franchise, i'm just personally waiting for another creative to come in and do something interesting with Trek, that feels like "STAR TREK" (i.e. i'm simply waiting for Alex Kurtzman to leave the franchise for good).
As a soon to be 60 year old, I find the 15-35 thing funny. I'm an early adopter, generally, even now. My exception is most apple products -- I can use them, but they aren't intuitive to someone who's not visually oriented. Bring back the command line!!!! :-D I know some 25 year olds who are much more hidebound about their tech or their stories than I am. But I think it's generally true. My mother says "I don't understand computers" when she introduced me to computers back in the 1970s. What she means is she doesn't want to be bothered to learn something new. For social and story items, many people don't want to think. These stories or customs are comfort food for the mind (or soul), and any change to them, whether it's Angela Carter's take on Red Riding Hood or Discovery not focusing on a captain, means it's _wrong_ on a soul-deep level that can't be reached by reason.
I think the “after 35” part is particularly applicable to popular music, and I think that’s partially because the product is so heavily focused on romance and party culture, which closely ties it to adolescence and young adulthood. This is why artists that avoid that like Weird Al can keep getting new fans decades in their careers. It’s a very different path that has significantly less of a support structure, but it can work.
When you talked about how people find a sense of ownership in a series, I can't help but be reminded of how copyrights, over the years, became longer and longer. Copyrights of IP were of their length not only so creators would constantly have to come up with new and fresh ideas, but so the public could enjoy these creation, adding to the rich lore and history of characters and settings. I grew up with Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd century, scratch that, I grew up with Data being Sherlock Holmes in Star Trek. Fan fictions of today can fill that gap, sure, but we can't be paid for that work, at least not directly for it. If I want to share my idea of what Star Trek is, the Star Trek I own, in my heart, I do so with the peril of the law.
Was watching Red Letter Media's re:View of TNG recently, and they pointed out how the early seasons of TNG tended to put alien planets on sound stages that looked really, really corny. An example of improved visuals across seasons within a single show!
Pretty much right through at least DS9 and VOY, they had a lot of soundstage planets, especially their cave set. ENT was the first show that really looked cinematic.
All I know, personally, is that every series of Trek prior to 09, had something that sat deeply with me. I found nothing profound or memorable about new trek so far. The mystery appears to be gone.
Great vid, but as a Black Trekker, I'd like to register a defense of those of us that really hated the Disco S1 Klingons. The critique (for me anyway) was about way more than the purely aesthetic choices. Disco eviscerated an in show species that many of us felt played a representational role for us. In TNG, Worf was played by a black actor and over 11 seasons, TNG/DS9 established the social order and values of Klingon society, as well as their physicality. This was consistent with the prior TOS movies (one more time, RIP Christopher Plummer) and was cleverly retroactively aligned with the TOS era Klingons via the Enterprise episodes concerned with the Augment Virus. Okay, so Klingons ≠ so-called "blacks" or even all BIPOC. But in the show the species was illustrated as shades of brown, and more importantly portrayed as a society that operated outside of the Federation hegemony, yet nonetheless was a successful empire, a fierce adversary, and still had an honorable and nuanced culture despite all the Shakesperean power grabbing. That was a view that we could identify with. A sort of TNG nod to Afro-Futurism. The Trek Universe is a place we go to see characters and species we allegorically identify with (just ask @Jessie Gender about what the addition of non-binary characters in Disco has meant to her). The Disco Klingons annoyed and disappointed because the aesthetic and story choices around them debased the species some of us saw ourselves in in the name of simplistic good guy/bad guy storytelling. That's not the same in my book as a lens flare or anachronistic holographic workstation...
They used an antique telescope in the first episode of Discovery. Did they seriously build an enterprise without hundreds of monster telescopes on like... everything?
Dont know about anyone else, but Lower Decks is the only new show I actually liked so far. Stays true to original Trek while providing something new and its not afraid to poke fun at itself. It felt like the creators actually "Got" Star Trek.
I think LD had the strongest 1st season of any ST. Part of that was the self-awareness. They know what they are, so they don't need to explore the concept and can get right down to the characters.
I feel like Disco is setting up to be the new DS9. A show I hated and stopped watching after 2 seasons back in the day, but when viewed as a whole is wonderful.
There is an objective standard! The genre / setting / cast can be whatever ... But if it ain’t hopeful. It ain’t Star Trek. Star Trek is ‘meant’ to feel hopeful. Optimistic about mankind’s future. That was it creators vision. Core values matter
I'd love to see a video analysis of the fan projects like "Of Gods and Men" and "Renegades" and Axanar. Because those take different approaches on Star Trek, too!
Hahahah *I* loved Wesley while I was watching! I was younger than him when TNG aired so I didn't at all catch why he'd be annoying to adults. Having rewatched the series later, I do get it now but I still am very fond of him even so. So there Steve, he's beloved by one person at least!
I always thought Wesley was just there to bring in younger viewers like you. In TOS days, kids liked to picture themselves on the Enterprise. Wesley gave them a proxy. I didn't like that he got to be an "acting ensign", which must've taken a spot from someone who EARNED it by going through the ranks. Plus... he was nearly a "Mary Sue", which made him annoying.
@@lawr5764 Wow you must hate every soldier who got a battlefield promotion for doing what must be done under pressure and thus took away the position from some academy trained officer who never been in the field. I imagine you have forgotten the multiple times Wesley saved the ship and thus EARNED his rank in the field. Cause, he was a nerd... and nerds must be hated. And before you make some incorrect assumptions about me: Boomer, Air Force. Oh, and you really need to look up and understand what a Mary Sue is. "Q" is a Mary Sue. Wesley studied a lot, that's why he was good at what he did.
@@lawr5764 My understanding is that Wesley was drawn from Gene's own background, but ironically, Wesley was supposed to be a girl, Leslie. I believe the marketing guys thought that this was likely to turn off younger male fans rather than attract young female fans, and so we got Wesley rather than Leslie. It'd have been interesting to see Leslie in a parallel universe though.
Star Trek has taught me to just let the show take me somewhere and see where it is. It now really helps me enjoy a new show in another franchise I love.
I was watching "Centre Seat: 55 Years of Star Trek" and couldn't help but be reminded of the moment at the beginning of the video where critics said that Nex Gen didn't feel like Star Trek. I was only onto the second episode, the original series was cancelled. So they were coming up with ways to bring it back and they talked about doing an animated series. Even back then fan complaints couldn't be stopped and just the idea of making it animated instead of live action was enough to prompt cries of "It isn't real Star Trek". That tickled me and I had to return and write a comment.
The first time we saw the Klingons in TMP, somebody asked, "Why are they dressed like KISS?" And ever since then I've wanted to see Gene Simmons as a Klingon.
I'd have settled for something as simple as consistent characterization with Picard. This legendary leader among men is now a sad old man who just spent the last few decades sitting on his hands feeling sorry for himself and getting chewed out by every female character in the series that survives the first few minutes? Say it ain't so!!! He doesn't even seem phased with having a murderer on his crew at the end. And Seven is even worse that Picard. The super logical and collected ex-borg somehow became a hard-drinking and cynical vigilante who's completely fine with committing murder? Oh, and she's also at least Bi now, which we find out in the final scene with zero setup as she starts a relationship with a woman I think she's only had three lines of dialogue with in the whole season. I don't mind character development (it's kind of important after all) but you have to do the work to show it happening people!!!!!!
@@trekjudas There is many legit reasons to dislike it. It isn't just "new thing, so suck" reaction as Voyager wasn't "new" during TNG Era, but failed attempt to bring old. More relevant example would be Enterprise, in which case I hated it initially but like it now. Though again, it is largely because first two seasons are actually bad, when show become quite good from Xindi Incident. So also bad example.
BTW, there were a lot more redesigns of the Klingons than most fans acknowledge. And there would naturally be a lot of diversity among hybrids in an empire that has conquered countless worlds. Here are the variations of Klingons so far: * TOS dark-skinned Klingons * TOS light-skinned Klingons * TAS pink uniforms * TMP single-ridge Klingons * TSFS/TVH bumpy headed Klingons * TFF much less prominent single-ridge Klingons * TUC diverse array of forehead styles, including bald Klingons * Berman-era house specific foreheads, along with ridged noses, ridged feet, and backs * Into Darkness bald Klingons with forehead jewelry * DSC season one wartime bald Klingons with large heads, talons, recessed ears, and different skin colors * DSC season two the same, but with peacetime hair and smaller heads
I grew up watching Star Trek with my Dad, and for him the biggest detractor is the serialized story line. If he misses an episode he isn't really able to go back and watch one in any practical fashion. He's not exactly up to date with streaming technology and is at the mercy of broadcast airwaves making it difficult to really enjoy the show.
As someone who, to almost quote a man named Steve Shives, likes all of Star Wars, if not all of it equally, these sorts of videos really help when talking to people who feel angry and betrayed by the sequels and the new shows because 'it's not real Star Wars'. I've only just discovered your channel so I suspect I'll be commenting on a bunch of your old videos, but if nothing else let it stand as confirmation that things you said years ago still resonate to this day.
I think prequels are hard. I think Discovery has issues, but by being set around known accepted Star Trek makes it a harder sell when it does things differently. By setting things in the future though people will still have issues with new shows and shows will still have their personal issues, at least people can slowly warm up to the idea that due to the different time periods things have changed.
Very accurate observation and the reason why I haven't watched any of the prequel series (Sorry, Enterprise). I want to move onwards in the timeline. With Discovery having jumped to the future in season 3, I might give it a try. In my opinion, the gaps between shows are the perfect setting for books. You can do whatever you want without messing up canon.
This is definitely the biggest problem with ST: Discovery. Had it been set after the events of TNG/DS9/VOY, then people would be able to much more easily accept it. We could get past the new aesthetics by explaining it away as _"Well, it's in the future after TNG; it should look more hi-tech"._ Ironically, now the USS Discovery is in the distant future, and that's where it should have been all along.
I think this is one of the biggest and most important criticism of Discovery. Being set in such a wonky part of the timeline means that every questionable decision gets magnified a hundred fold. I've said for a while that Discovery should have been set post-Nemesis, maybe explore the Alpha Quadrant post-Dominion war and see how a new generation of characters handle the problems that have arisen after nearly 2 decades of TNG/DS9/VOY. People wouldn't complain about the spore drive as much because it could be explained as experimental tech researched during the Dominion War. People wouldn't complain about the looks as much because it would be set farther in the timeline anyway. Any new alien species could be explained as not being present in previous' series due to the focus of the Dominion war and the amount of resources dedicated to it during that timeframe.
I like the approach taken by the hosts of "The Greatest Generation" podcast: "Star Trek is a place". That is, it's a setting and framework on which you can hang different kinds of storytelling.
That's what's so great about the current crop of shows. DS9 is my favorite Trek show, but this is definitely my favorite era of Trek shows. Each show is so very different from each other. And that started when Discovery decided that its focus was not going to be on the senior staff. That allowed for Short Treks and it allowed for an entirely civilian show like Picard and a show exclusively about the Lower Decks crew, and for Prodigy, which is another civilian-driven show.
Discovery’s very clear disregard continuity is the clearest criticism for me. Klingon’s simply aren’t supposed to have cloaking technology at this point in the timeline (a mistake Enterprise made with the Romulans as well, but at least that wasn’t the entire premise of a whole season of the show), and they’re definitely not meant to have facial ridges either. They could have gone ahead with their own unique take on storytelling and changing the feel of Star Trek all they wanted, whilst still taking the time to check that they weren’t massively retconning decades of canon in the process. The Picard show, at the very least, does a lot less damage in this regard, being set further ahead in time than anything we’d seen before. Small decisions like choosing to depict Romulans both with the TNG-style facial ridges AND the Kelvin-style smooth foreheads and more aggressively pointed ears was a very creative way to acknowledge the continuity of the universe whilst still experimenting with new ideas.
I got 5 episodes in on Picard and I just felt something was awry. I couldn't tell entirely, but my brain was screaming "what the fuck am I watching I dont know what's happening" strictly in the sense of the plot, and that's the day I searched Picard review on youtube hoping to find some clarity in the confusion. Then I found redlettermedia and never looked back. Also I'm a new trek fan I watched ds9 two years ago and fell in love with Star Trek; the only concept of it I had before was through cultural osmosis and that episode of Futurama. Is it possible for me feel what you described throughout this video if my preconceived notions of Star Trek aren't really that concrete? As opposed to someone who's watched trek for 30 years for example.
Not Steve nor an expert, but the very second I get into something, even while I'm not obsessing over it, I start building a pretty clear concept of it. The longer it sits with me, the clearer it becomes, but like, I need five to ten episodes or one re-watch of a movie to have a pretty clear concept afterwards, so, it's not a question of time. If something about the thing speaks to you on some level, you bond to it and your perception of it. If thee thing gets changed and you get confronted with someone elses perception that might differ from yours, and it's not a conflict an eye-level, like with another fan or follower, but with the original creator or owner 'changing' the material, the whole thing gets changed, even in hindsight, to a point. Redefined. And yeah, if there's any part of the thing in question I really click into, that can hurt and make me go 'nuh-uh, that's not right' in a matter of weeks. Doesn't take years with me...
@@annaboes8359 good points, at the time Picard aired I'd only seen ds9 tng and enterprise but by starting with ds9 I think my view of star trek utopia wasn't as optimistic as Gene Roddenberry would have intended. I immediately recognized the differences between tng and ds9, it's one of the aspects about the series I found so fascinating. At the same time I can't get over just how strange Picard is as a show, and I don't understand what the dozens of producers were going for when they were making it. Whatever the purpose was it wasn't planned out thoughtfully enough to keep me watching. I got annoyed at the excessive drinking and swearing it's really uncalled for, and also how people in the show are so bloodthirsty and eager to cut off heads and go on shooting sprees. Other small things like the old lady who called Picard JL, when she complained about Picard having a better house and furniture I was just ??? As in, does she not know about replicators? And the first episode when those Romulans beamed into girls apartment and they put a bag on her head to subdue her, instead of beaming her out or stunning her. I had tons of small questions like that, and the small things add up. That's why I think these writers, kurtzman chabon and the others, shouldn't write star trek, they should write generic action scifi drama show. It's not just bad star trek, it's a bad show written by people who obviously haven't seen as much star trek as the fans who know what replicators are, or know that the Romulans have a star empire and their refugees wouldn't be living on a dusty rusty cowboy planet baking bread and being beheaded. But if thats the new vision of trek, who am I to say others dont get something meaningful out of these shows. In conclusion, I think steve was right I have more feelings about this than I thought I would.
I think the answer is “because it sucks” more than “feel”. It could get better, Voyager improved after adding Jeri Ryan, TNG improved after Riker grew his beard (but I will say I loved, “11001001” and “We’ll always have Paris”) and DS9 improved after they brought in the Dominion War arc (there’s no forgiving “move along home”).
Something I've been struggling with for a while is trying to differentiate legitimate criticism for Discovery with what I acknowledge is my grumpy "muh trek" response. I do think there were some *really dumb* design choices in the show (lookin' at you, backwards bat'leth and ridiculous dental appliances). I did and still do feel like there was a bit of deliberate irreverence to existing concepts within the series by the showrunners. But I'm not sure where legitimate discussion on that stops and where emotional attachment starts. It's a really rough line to tread, but it's also REALLY OBVIOUS when you've crossed it in at least one direction. That being said, I think S3 of Disco was a big improvement and its direction was a great decision by the showrunners to get them out from under the timing and design restrictions of the TOS era.
Too often showrunners spin-offs are obsessed with re-inventing things as a substitution for cleverness. The Klingons were a prime example of this. The re-imagined Battlestar Galactica proves my point, I think. You could show a fan of the old show any bit of that: costumes, Cylons, Raptors, the Galactica, etc., and they would recognize that this was the BSG universe. The showrunners didn't make it look like Trek or Star Wars, or an Apple Store. Instead, they focused on telling good stories. (An even clearer example: The Mandalorian/Rebels/Clone Wars.)
@@stevebruns1833 except for the hu an cylons who were nothing like anything that had come before, and very much took the lead over the more traditional models.
@@Carabas72 I honestly don't hate the Klingon redesign if you ignore the ridiculous cultural changes they made (uh obv all klingons shave their heads in war!) but like...dude the actors should not have had to speak Klingon through those dental appliances. That was legitimately not okay with me. It just sounds like mush. There's no way it was comfortable for them either, and shoot days can be reeeeally long.
I never had any problems with the artstyle choices of Discovery, I actually really loved the new klingons. When I first saw them, I was like "squee, look at thouse quadruple nostrils! Look at those magnificent forehead ridges! They look so cool!". I actually really liked the first season of discovery. It wasn't the best thing I've ever watched, but it did a lot of cool stuff. But the main storylines of each season keep disappointing me more and more. I am still salty about Crying Kelpian Child Destroying All Dilithium. I just find that so dumb and inappropriate to the context and scale of the event. And, I know that Star Trek is full of silly things like that, but I don't think it's equivalent, because we're dealing with season-long storylines here. If I had a single TNG episode that said "oh, this crying bajoran kid MIGHT blow up all dilithium in the galaxy", and then it was resolved in 40 minutes, I would be fine with it. But it's different when the effects of the plotpoint are felt for years both in-universe and to the fans.
On the serialization point, I’d argue that it’s like complaining that a short story collection doesn’t feel like a novel, or that Sweeney Todd doesn’t feel like South Pacific doesn’t feel like Pinafore doesn’t feel like The Tempest doesn’t feel like The Frogs-well bub, the technology/medium has evolved since then. Anyone wanting something more episodic is ignoring the changes that the prestige series of the 90s and 2000s, and then streaming, wrought on the medium. In 20-goddamn-17, we do season-long arcs.
I came to this video expecting to defend my preferences, but your explanation made it clear that it's not for people who just dislike something. In tandem with this, I realized not long ago that I'm a DS9 fan, not a Star Trek fan. Much like games in Nintendo's franchises, the franchise has moved on and isn't for me any longer. 🤷
Art… of any kind, is a singular experience. It’s a reflection of who we are at that moment. It when you go back, after some time and revisit that art, it reflects back to us, our personal growth or lack of it. Your opinion, for the most part is your own
@@Josh_Fredman When I watched TNG, Wesley represented the teenager in puberty I just grew out of being myself, which made his whole role very awkward and a reminder of all the things I wanted to forget.
@Nobody comments are not funny you troglodyte Are you inventing that from what you’ve heard about TNG from other people, or has it just been so long since you watched it that you don’t remember it clearly?
I know I am late to this video, but the big issue, for me, is that the shows are on a streaming service with a season wide storyline that we have to wait weeks to establish, position, then conclude. In a time in which Orange is the New Black gave us the entire season upon initial distribution, we just don't want to see positioning episodes because they are usually really slow and we have to wait until the next week to find out if we are going to pick up the pace or get another...positioning episode. These shows are basically 10 hour movies. Plow through filming the entire season, then give us the whole thing all at once. In Disco we really have 4 10+ hour movies and it looks like Picard is doing the same thing. MAKE US BINGE ALL 10 HOURS so that we don't have to ruminate on the positioning episodes for so long. I also wouldn't mind day-in-the-life episodes peppered in either. I think that is the main mark missed in this current environment of "TV." Especially with the pandemic where a lot of us were confined to our proverbial rooms, only getting an hour each week is just not good enough. Not when Marvel is giving us 3 hours and Netflix is giving us 10.
A couple points I'd like to make. I think one of the biggest flaws in both Discovery and Picard was that loss of single episode stories. I get we live in a world where bingeing a show Is the new norm, but I still prefer the classic Trek stories that took place all in one episode. With the exception of major events along the seasons, you can pretty much watch any episodes in any order and not be lost. Try to imagine if the revival of Twilight Zone was one story from episode one to episode ten. People would say "this doesn't feel like Twilight Zone" so I think that's where this phrase "this doesn't feel like star trek" works for me. Secondly I feel like the lessons we learned in TOS or TNG were subtle, where STD wants to hit you with the lesson like a sledgehammer. If "bigotry is bad" was the message in TOS it would take the entirety of the episode to teach that lesson, as well as it being the overall theme of that episode. In STD "bigotry is bad" is a lesson reduced to a single line or two, and that's it, no character growth or theme in sight, just a matter of fact line or two and then lesson learned.
I think a less episodic approach would have worked just fine if the overall season-long plot had been competently written and executed. Shows like Stranger Things manage to have an overarching season-long plot and still have episodes that feel like self-contained chapters, with some advancement of the central plot or key revelation being earned toward the end. With the CBSTrek shows, there is neither an episode-long arc nor is there a season-long arc to speak of. Things just happen in succession until the episode ends and then eventually the season is over when space jesus somehow wins the day. They're hoping you don't give any aspect of the show a second thought because they sure haven't.
Actually, TOS and TNG were incredibly not subtle about the big lesson of the week, they literally have their main character have speeches over it to which they mostly forget the next episode. It’s Discovery that actually has themes and serialized character growth.
I always felt bad about liking some of the new trek. I grew up with TNG and DS9. And I really like Disco and LD. I liked most of Picard (the ending wasn’t what I wanted). But I’ll be honest seeing people say how much they hate new trek made me feel I wasn’t a true trek fan. But this video put everything I think when I see the hate into words. Thank you.
The folks who shit on Discovery are a small number of fans. They are also the loudest cohort, so it would definitely seem like they are the majority, when they are not.
Thanks for a very reasonable case for why some folks have issues with "new: Trek. I myself am 65 years old and have watched Trek since the original series aired on broadcast TV and I have loved it all. Some series I like a bit better than others but I've never had the thought that something wasn't really Star Trek. I think sometimes people forget to realize that had GR had the tech available now back in the 1960s the original would look not unlike what Discovery looks like today.
I'm actually a little grateful to Discovery. Enterprise was airing when I was a little kid, so because of that it's that first era of instinctual Star Trek that I think of and it's my favorite series. It always annoyed me to see people on the internet complaining about how it broke Star Trek's aesthetic and how the technology was "too advanced". However, nowadays no one singles out Enterprise as the canon-breaking show when Discovery literally right there. In fact, since it was the last show of the TNG-to-Enterprise run, it's even experiencing a wave of goodwill, nostalgia, and it-wasn't-so-bad-after-all thinkpeices. Everyone say thank you, Discovery!
Yeah, I hate it when people try to superimpose their personal politics on to Trek. I mean I hate it when they say they don't like the new stuff solely for political reasons.
Wow! That's an episode idea! 'Yesterday's Politics', in which... What? Yeah, I write. So? Damnit people, I ain't gonna GIVE it away..! Use your imagination 🙂.
@@TechnoLawyer I argued with someone who said, Disney made Star Wars and Marvel too woke and political. I quoted Lucas that he designed the Rebels as Vietnamese while the Empire was the US-Army. He said, "Lucas said that because Hollywood wanted it to be that way." With people with that mindset, it's hard to argue.
@@derorje2035 Discovery isn't even very "woke". It shows diversity, but doesn't make the show about diversity. Gay characters just are, there isn't a big kerfuffle about it to be preachy. When Adira tells Staments they are non-binary, his response is effectively "ok cool" and then he uses the correct pronoun for them. Of the human characters, is ethnicity or skin color mentioned even ONCE? Why is the show woke? Simply for having a black woman as a lead, and for having some characters who are gay? There are many legit complaints about the show (uh, why on earth are they letting the cannibalistic genocidal emperor off the hook and be part of the crew?? She should be in some super max prison for life), but when people complain about wokeness, it comes across as being mad about a black woman as a lead and gay characters.
As a kid, I remember when my parents disliked TNG when it came out because they were used to TOS. People always dislike what is new, and with the internet these days the negative voices are louder, they try to justify their emotions with petty reasons like "it just doesn't feel right" or "trek has lost its way". I still remember the silly Picard vs Kirk forum posts. This is why artists should never listen to their critics.
IMO, Star Trek, serieswise suffers more because of current financial restrains that impact rhythm and length than anything else. Among all the criticism, I rarely see (with exception of Steve himself), people complaining that the trim 10 one hour episode seasons, actually took some good things from Star Trek. When money and expectations allowed those long 20 episodes seasons, there was waaaay more time to develop characters, their relationships, personalities, hobbies and arcs. Many things feel rushed or forced. I.E.: Bashir and O'Riley's relationship is slowly and endearingly developed across multiple seasons, through small gestures. While Discovery actors and writers have barely anytime and situations to do the same, even with core characters. they seemed to be trying harder in the last season, but no one can work miracles. I really wonder with longer and slower paced seasons are dead forever or if streaming could try to successfully bring them back.
I'm something of a late comer to Trek. I was always aware of it, but I never watched anything until mid-run Voyager. However, I've gone back and watched many of the older shows and episodes, and I completely agree some episodes/shows/etc do not resonate with me and that's fine. At the same time, I do think that when creators take on a franchise like Star Trek, they always have to remember part of their job is making the fans happy. New direction is good, different choices are welcome, but without a core respect for the fans, they will never give anything back. Case in point, when Kenneth Brannagh directed Thor, he couldn't say Mjolnir. He asked the writers if they could remove the name, and they said no, the fans will hate us. And Brannagh acquiesced. That's the kind of respect that needs to be shown at all times.
To be fair to those old critics, First season TNG is pretty rough and took a while to find its feet.
It did take a while. The fans of TOS were absolutely savage. But it ran for over twice as long as TOS not because of Roddenberry, but in spite of him. The less involved Roddenberry was, up to his death, the more the fans embraced TNG.
But TNG have solid actors and the writing got better as the show went on. I watched the first episode of Discovery and saw really stupid looking Klingon's, the actors could not act in those costumes and the show has absolutely no continuity with other Trek.
I don't think there are too many who would argue with that. At the time, I was willing to give it a chance and I'm glad I did.
Most of the critics were reacting to it without even seeing it. There are totally legitimate criticisms of early TNG. Patrick Stewart was so sure it would get cancelled he didn’t even fully unpack for I think it was like 2 years and just did his job and collected the check. But the truth is the first criticism of TNG wasn’t it’s own faults, but all the ways it wasn’t TOS despite it intentionally taking place far enough into the future that it would be allowed the chance to be different from TOS.
I attribute the “adult swim show copy cat” aspects of Lower Decks to the general landscape of the medium, graphic and/or gory violence and somewhat simplistic or low brow humor/plot are an extremely prevalent pseudo standard for adult cartoons these days. It’s what’s mainstream for this part of the animation industry, in a similar manner to how a gritty somewhat dark and dramatical vibe is a pseudo standard for mainstream non-comedy live action shows, which is something that is affecting the live action new trek side of new trek. It’s an adherence to the mainstream at the expense of the show itself, perhaps a cowardice to simply stand out and possibly lose viewership, though wether that is coming from the crew or from corporate is up to debate. Lower decks and SNW seem to be the least adherent to this enforced-mainstream phenomena, but they are still very noticeably affected.
It’s a problem with the industry as a whole, honestly, in one way or another. Cutting down and flattening their content for mass appeal and ending up with samey, hollow mush, the typical bland schlock that so many studios pump out. And that’s typically down to corporate mandates and meddling but yeah sometimes it’s just simply the fault of the crew, though in those cases you can be sure that corporate is happy with the result much quicker anyway so they’re functionally interchangeable. Lower decks was probably only able to get away with being a Star Treky as it was because corporate didn’t think it’d make all that much money ergo not something to fully care about, which is evident from it only being allotted 10 episodes a season. Moreover the most mainstreamy episode of lower decks is the very first episode, which is typically the one corporate would pay the most attention to when going over stuff.
I'm surprised you didn't mention the fans who refused to watch Enterprise simply because the opening theme had lyrics.
Not because it had lyrics. Because IT SUCKED!
Maybe he forgot; after all its been a long road, getting from there to here.
Wait, what?! That’s a genuine grievance people had?! 😳
It's been a long time since I heard that.
Or the fact 1st season wasn't actually named "Star Trek: Enterprise" but simply "Enterprise". (and by second (or third) season the opening title music was instrumental only).
I think Sisko painted the picture properly for what Trek has become: ""On Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise. Well, it's easy to be a Saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the Demilitarized Zone, all the problems haven't been solved yet." Star t rek isn't about a perfect world, its about working towards that perfect world and aspiring to be better. When I keep that in mind, it's easier to appreciate all the different variations of Trek.
I don't think I can agree. The paradise concept was Roddenberry's creation. By DS9, the showrunners were already drifting from that image. Here in the time of Picard and Discovery, that concept of paradise is treated as a cynical façade, a cloak hiding complex human behaviors of conflict and treachery. The only difference from the DS9 era is that Rick Berman and Michael Piller depicted the conflict as just beyond the periphery of Starfleet (if you want to ignore Section 31).
@@jdm3072 I don't think I can agree. The Federation still seems as intrinsically moral as it ever did in TNG or DS9. The difference in my opinion is that on TNG and TOS, we saw the Federation through the lens of a crew on a starship who flew into a situation, "solved" all the problems, then flew away. DS9 didn't have that luxury. If TNG did thethe story of Bajor, it would have eneded with the victorious Resistance defeating the heinous Cardassians. Then the Enterprise would have flown away satisfied all was well.
Picard would never have seen Bajor slip closer to civil war or the rise of the morally grey Maquis. DS9, Enterprise, Discovery and Picard didn't have the same idea of "we can just fly away from the consequences" and it made the foundations of the Federation seem more fragile than they surely always must have been.
@@UCSWt7l3wXussb3NTGbJDNsA
There is a literal TNG episode that rejects this concept .
They find three people aboard a 'space seed' like cryogenic ship in space, with patients who were going to die of diseases, but since the Federation in TNG had the capability to cure their diseases, they were brought out of this cryogenic state and healed.
Picard mentions that things have changed and that money isn't the basis of what people work towards.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Neutral_Zone_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)
I totally agree, as long as the new TV shows on CBS All Access are not included because, they are just junk.
@@johnburns9634 This is one of my fundamental problems with Picard as well - there are so many things that are completely inconsistent with how we understood the setting to be, fundamental plot points and context that are discard as meaningless.
Previous Star Trek shows were more plot focused and had the characters react to the plot around them and learn and evolved from the storyline plot for the better. However, these new Star Trek shows feels more character focused instead of plot focused. Characters are important, but as long as the story is not sacrifice for this…
Discovery is way "too in its feelings". It kind of fell apart for me after season 2. It's ok. But it's not great.
Yep. in my day When Star Trek was bad you just tuned in the following week and hoped Janeway and Paris didn't turn into lizards again.
Or the next time Tuvok strangles Neelix isn't just a holo simulation.
This is where I usually link any random TOS scene.
Threshold would have been considered a Top 5 episode if it were a TOS script.
@@bdrago5420 Do not dare to touch MY Neelix!
I thought they were more big amphibians. And the episode was complete shite.
Bad is relative , every show has it low points. Some more then others. My Mother the car is a prime example of VERY bad . But the new gen of trek is bad on so many FUNDAMENTAL levels as to be beyond Belief. Bad shows Like My Mother , Mister Terrific at the least had a Camp appeal. New trek has Nothing to it's credit.
.
Although Steve makes some good points, some of us who have been Star Trek fans for over 50 years see a line separating TOS, TAS and TNG from later Treks: the loss of a utopian future. For the most part, the three earlier Treks were feel-good shows set in a Universe where "things were going to be better." This was important for many of us who were fully aware that a nuclear apocalypse might end human life on earth at any moment during the 1960's, 70's, and 80's. Indeed, the thought that humanity had survived until the 23rd century was comforting in itself.
The basic change that started with DS9 was that life in the Trek universe was not necessarily better than that of the current day. Although this allowed excellent storytelling with more drama, making the series more "real" for many people, the optimistic tone was not nearly as strong.
You nailed it. That's the core value of any "real" Star Trek show. The utopian future. DS9 is my least favorite of the 90's shows for that reason, as well as it relying a bit too much on serialization. Voyager was a bit better, and I actually liked Enterprise quite a bit. It had it's own issues, but it really felt like a hopeful show and I enjoyed much of it.
Discovery and Picard are absolutely unwatchable to me, I've tried hard. Can't do it. Strange New Worlds has been a surprising turn-around so far. Better than the last two shows anyway.
TOS had the federation be a world that was able to induct in member worlds that literally did slave labor. Perhaps it was never as much an utopian world as you think it was.
@@TubeTAG This to me is the main distinction between DS9 darkness and new trek darkness. It still believes largely in that world. It just takes place on the periphery of it.
Agree. The ironic thing is that classic Trek, which critics call "utopian" is not really utopian. The sociological aspects are a realistic view of the future. The most obvious feature of human history is that civilization gets better. We will solve the problems we have today, poverty, climate change, war, racism, inequality, etc. In the 24th century we will still have problems, but they won't be the current ones. TNG was set 400 years in the future. Well, if you go back 400 years into our past, to 1624, and time-shift some of the inhabitants to the present, they would regard our world as a utopia, same as fans regard Star Trek.
Exactly. SF showing an optimistic future is rare. There are plenty of violent CGI space operas like _The Expanse_ , "ray guns and rocket ships" shows, that just rehash tropes from the 20th century, in a futuristic space setting. There are even larger numbers of dystopian and apocalyptic shows. Whereas a future in which alien races work together, the government is benevolent, there are no more material needs, no huge corporations, no money - that is really radical.
That Nimoy quote, in contrast with Shatner’s “it’s just a TV show, loser” (or whatever it was), is really striking. It’s essentially the same core message but Nimoy expressed it in a thoughtful way, which also just had good advice in general too.
Shatner also did that for a laugh on SNL; he never seriously said it to people. That said, I'm sure there have been times he's wanted to, and frankly it's true. People do get too worked up about an escapist show.
@@Canoby Also Shatner is an asshole
@@AndreaTani I'm sure he can be an asshole but he is also pretty damn cool.
That quote reminds me of a coworker of mine. She was a long time fan and even friend to Leonard. To that point that their relationship got her a job as a gopher for several weeks on the set of The Motion Picture and she was one of many fan club members to serve as an extra during Kirk's speech to the crew. She wasn't certain about the Kelvin reboot and called Nimoy to voice her concerns. He basically asked her to have faith and give it a shot. And she did. She didn't care for it too much. But here's the important part, it wasn't "her" Star Trek, but it was still Star Trek. It wasn't what she had watched for 40+ years. It was a new Trek for a new generation of fans. It had Leonard in it, and just like he passed the torch to the new cast she passed the torch of fandom on to "us kids" (I was almost 30 and a fan for 15 years but the sentiment was genuine and sweet so whatever). And that was good enough for her.
Also she thought using time travel to create a reboot was EXTREMELY Star Trek.
That was an SNL skit. He didn’t write it. He’s an asshole about somethings, but this isn’t an example of it.
The Kelvin timeline just had sloppy writing. It kept putting itself in situations that needed a story breaking solution. Need to get to the ship that is light years away...we just happen to have a new type of teleporting system that makes starships useless. Main character dies...we can just use the blood of our enemy to make everyone deathproof and take all the drama out of the story.
Yeah, Magic blood and magical solutions like it not only cheapen the character death it immediately introduces a long term problem into the universe. I mean you would thing they’d bottle some of khan’s blood somewhere for future resurrections since it can literally resurrect the dead.
Transwarp Beaming is not that much of an Issue.
One. Who the hell in their right mind is going to transwarp beam onto an unknown world just willy-nilly and hang out with the Undine or the Borg? No, you take the Enterprise with you, analyze the planet, determine the necessary equipment, and then beam on from the ship.
Two, think of Transwarp Beaming as like the Flying Car. We can't make flying cars, not because we lack the Technology, it's existed since the '50s. No, if we actually do use flying cars the situation in New York would be 9/11 times a thousand. Now imagine that with Transwarp Beaming, more people could die or are likely to die. If ONE THING goes wrong, you're in a wall, or over a volcano, or cooked in space. It's more likely that Starfleet would at least shelve or outright dismiss it just because of the danger.
Three, Star Trek has ALWAYS had Death-Reversing Miracles since TOS. Khan's blood curing severe radiation poisoning is not at all in the realm of impossibility for Star Trek, (and considering they were Cold War products, it makes sense) and even then, what else can it cure? Can it cure LaForge's genetic blindness? Can it fight off Borg Nanites? Can it regrow lost limbs?
@@TheDawnofVanlife, I think they rather not open his capsule, like at all.
Nobody cares about that nerd crap. We just enjoy the movies.
You mean like they did in the original Wrath of Khan movie. While not magic blood, spock was already death proofed. That complaintis one of the ones discussed in this video.
The Discovery for me is the first ship I've ever seen in Star Trek where I didn't immediately go "I want to live on that ship" even DS9 which is supposed to be less sleek and clean was super interesting to me. The Discovery just seemed dark and cold, like someone had designed it to look cool on screen rather than a place to live and work. I want my Star Trek to be aspirational, i love having a diverse group of characters come together and show the world we could build if we got over our petty human differences but it's pretty counter productive if what they create is a world that I don't want to live in, for me that undercuts the message.
People make fun of the D for looking like a hotel, but if you're spending that much time living aboard, that's what'd you want.
Yes could not agree with you more. I was alive at the time the original Star Trek came out and at that time when the world was fighting the Cold War and the US was fighting for civil rights out came a show that showed us what the future could be like. Looking back on it now yes it is dated and as problems but at that time it was revolutionary. The problem I have with Discovery and Picard is these are two versions of the future I would not want to live in.
@@2727rogers totally see that critique. It is somewhere i would want to live so maybe thats part of the goal, to make Star Trek for more people. I also don’t see Disco or Picard as happening in a different way than any of the previous shows. Star fleet seems pretty similarly bad (i think Steve did a video about bad admirals in the past) for example. I didn’t want to live in any of the previous iterations because they had no problems, I wanted to live there because they were trying to fix the problems, DS9 first trying to fix the Bajorian Cardisian (sp) problems, then the Dominion wars, Enterprise tackling a terrorist attack and being out on their own, VOY just being out there on their own, etc. Maybe its my 10th grade English teacher beating into my head that Utopias don’t exist coming out, but i never saw ST as a utopia, just a bunch of people doing their best, sometimes messing up, but generally doing good. That’s why for me it is a good show, because the new ones do that for me. DS9 is still my favorite (named my dog Dax!!) but discovery was another show that I could put myself in and see myself wanting to live there (couldn’t in TNG or TOS but still love em!).
It's basically an homage wink wink tribute to one of the Phase II 1701 refit ideas.
Ditto. With the exception of Lower Decks, new Star Trek is just grim. For me, ST has always been a benchmark to compare to reality. Every step we take away from the ideals of the UFP is a step in the wrong direction.
My big problem with Discovery honestly comes down to hyperfocus on Michael. Every time she is on screen it feels like all the show bows down to her, and, like, I get she is the main character, but Star Trek does well as an ensemble thing. Too often it feels like the writers use her specialness as a crutch to get out of a tough situation rather than letting the cast breathe, making various characters come together to solve problems differently. Even then, I do not think that is a failing of the show persay, so much as the writers needing to tighten things up.
My feeling is that it's clear from the start that Michael should be a captain. And her not being a captain is a problem. More often than not she knows what to do and is pretty much better than everyone else at everything. The show never (OK rarely) seems to take its focus off Michael and that means the rest of the characters struggle to shine. Only TOS came close with its focus mainly on Kirk and Spock and then McCoy elevated above the rest but after that the subsequent incarnations were very much ensemble pieces.
"Even then, I do not think that is a failing of the show persay, so much as the writers needing to tighten things up."
What's the difference?
"Michael's on the bridge. OK, everyone stand down."
DS9 makes it better. Sisko and his crew were a team. Together solve every problem.
You are right. The writers don't know what Star Trek means. I look just Lower Decks. It is the best New Trek show for me.🖖
I couldn't agree more. I remember thinking in one instance, when Michael, as captain or whatever, insisted she must go on some mission or task because "she's the most experienced at X", thinking to myself, "Of course, because you never let anyone else give it a shot."
I also feel like Discovery overreached with its seasonal plots, to the point that it struggles to maintain the level of tension from season to season. There's only so many times you can put the entire galaxy in danger before the audience gets bored if it. I'd hoped that season 3 and beyond would allow for some exploration of what the future is like, but aside from some new tech, we've barely seen anything. We haven't even seen the bridge of Voyager J, or its captain, despite the ship's repeated appearance on screen.
When I was in my early teens I didn't like DS9 it feeled like Soapopera in space. Nowadays it is my favourite StarTrek Show.
Deep space nine is my favorite too.
Same here. In fairness, I was like 7 when it came on so a lot of the more poignant stuff went well over my head.
same
We used to call it 'Coronation Trek' when I was a kid. Now it's my favourite too.
@@MichaelStrathmore But I think we have to admid that the first two season sometimes, as we called in Germany, more Vorabendprogramm, it means often really shallow shows, than Primetime.
Strange New Worlds is probably the most nostalgic of the franchise and it maintains the original premise of exploring and discovering. The bridge crew has chemistry and overall the writing is excellent
Errol, I love Strange New Worlds. ❤
Absolutely and I love Strange New Worlds. In many ways it is fan service in that they really did try to give us the retro TOS reboot we've all been asking for. While at the same time having some new and interesting things to say.
But note, the whingy fan boys still whinged about diversity, gender and wokeness. There really is no making them happy.
"twenty years earlier"!?
Steve, I hate to break it to you, but you're off by a decade.
Was going to write this then thought, oh goodie I’m a decade younger, I’ll take it.
My number one gripe about the Kelvin timeline is the cal back moments where they cheapened iconic moments. Instead of giving us truly new material, they gave us fan fiction.
I agree with that with into darkness, but I don't really see how that criticism applies to the other two.
Fan fiction describes all the modern Star Trek tv series.
I will always love seeing new Trek being made. Even if I don't personally enjoy it, I will love knowing that it exists. Having been a Trekkie born-and-raised, I spent my adult life lamenting that Trekkies were a dying breed. Star Trek was something I grew up loving with my family, and to know that the next generation will get to grow up doing the same is nothing but wonderful.
Me, too. And I really dislike both Discovery and Picard.
But I know what you mean.
As long as Star Trek is alive, the dream is alive of getting something *REALLY GOOD* once they get the writing down.
This......this is what I ALWAYS say about Trek...
All of it wont be for me (i am a tech head so technology is what i love 1st then story) but it draws new fans in no matter what.
I LOVE Kelvin timeline & Lower Decks.
Kelvin showed me how bad ass Kirk's crew was from TOS, just the fact that the pulled off that win was just great.
Into Darkness had a slight retro feel like it was appealing to vocal base that I didn't know about at the time.
By the time Beyond was released I was so tired of the ship being trashed & to have it destroyed really rubbed me wrong because I felt that the OG ship barely got it's legs before being destroyed.
That said I can leave all 3 to play in the background doing stuff in the house.
Lower Decks.....god I didn't think Trek can do animated comedy but that show hit me so well as a soldier from taking orders to giving them as a 1st line supervisor.
God the hilarity & hijinks is so on point...that's why I love Kelvin timeline & Lower Decks more....
It's just good to me
If only anybody were watching the shite being made today.
That's only if the new Star Trek is something which people feel is worthy of the intense sort of phenomenon-following that is Trekkieism... and I'm not seeing it atm. Most new Trekkies I know either got pulled in by the video games (!) or watching the old series on Netflix or whatever.
@@Ithirahad Many Trekkies and Wars Kids suffer from the same debilitating condition: thinking they personally own the media they consume. It's beyond your comprehension that not everything is made for you. You can't possibly grok how your 50+ year old space western might have to change and evolve to appeal to an ever-changing viewer base and ever-changing world around them. Isn't there something about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of a few, or the one? Can you really be a fan without understanding that?
Star Trek is one of the few examples of science fiction where things are hopeful for the future. These modern iterations remove that in favor of humanity's future still being full of foul language, substance abuse, class conflict, animal abuse, genocide, slavery & many other things that humanity was already established to have grown beyond. This is not Star Trek. This is a group of indifferent corporate jobbers who won the brand in a divorce then used it to make shallow & generic action at the cost of a beautiful dream for tomorrow.
To add to that, I've been watching season 3 of Picard. I enjoy it, but every episode has that 'title card' of the Star Trek logo like you need to be reminded what franchise it is, and it always reminds me that this is just a brand to these people.
In Star Trek we grew past all that stuff in the '90s,
Continuing that exact cannon wouldn't just be imagining a bright future it would be whitewashing a dark past.
Very well put.
Whaaaa....Did you sleep through the 90s or something?
ĥùĥĵle? The producers, sure, bit thats true of everything. I don't think that's how the creatives (writers, directors, actors) relate to it. That isn't about Star Trek, that's about how entertainment works our world now unfortunately. There is no room for risk in high budget media anymore.
No one goes to the movies hardly ever anymore, and rentals are over. We nearing the end of network and cable TV. Digital subscription to streaming libraries is how most of us watch media. And everything on the web is fighting for our attentionù.
What happened in publishing 10-15 yrs ago is happening in film and TV now. Studio used to be able to take risks, the successful blockbusters paid for the bombs or the niche stuff. No more.
That's why we ONLY see reboots, remakes, sequels, franchises, nostalgia porn, "fan service". It's the safe bet to make $ under these market conditions. Compounded by a culture of already careening hypercapitalism + the flattening out that happens when nuance is lost to the rise of the memes. Of course they pru shoving logos and product placements at our eyes; everyone is.
I am a Trekkie. I have always criticized Star Trek. I LOVE it but when it’s bad I have always said so. Now is no different.
@@AvroBellow lol a “righty” would probably say the same thing about themselves. But Star Trek has been liberal in the sense of portraying opposing views. I have loved this and I make up my mind without bieng told what is right or wrong. The new stuff feels a little too preachy. Which just isn’t my style.
True
My problem with Discovery was just that I was tired of series that went back to older times. I didn't want to go back before TOS, I want to see what happened after the end of the other series.
😁Well now it's at the forefront.
My thoughts exactly; instead of exploring/creating the future of ST, they fall back endlessly to the past. Boring and intellectually lazy. Discovery and Picard are best forgotten, IMO. There is nothing wrong with trying new stuff, but there has to be some intellectual effort, and it has to be well done. STD and Picard were just not well done and creatively lazy.
@@Catch22-k8dI did like the technology and characters in discovery though, that was unique and exciting
My biggest issue with Picard is that I've already played Mass Effect. I appreciate the idea of tropes and cliches in storytelling but Picard is literally the mass effect script with some names swapped out.
There is nothing in Mass Effect that hasn't been very common in science fiction since at least the 1960s.
I suspect many thought the same of Mass Effect had they read Revelation Space first too.
I agree.
Also, I don't know about you, but I am *SO SICK* of the "Robots have gone rogue and are coming to slay us all" schtick. Both Picard *AND* Discovery were about that.
With the Borg? That was new and unique and *THIRTY YEARS AGO!*
Come *on* , Star Trek, there are other problems than just AI went insane cuz someone programmed em' to. Sheesh.
@@GoodAvatar THIS!…👆🏻
*PREACH* @GoodAvatar 🙌🏻
For me, the issues I have with new Star Trek are mostly aesthetic. The newer content usually goes for a frenetic pace and over the top action set pieces. I prefer the slower more thoughtful pace of the older content but I don’t begrudge others enjoyment of new trek. The only real disappointment I felt was with Picard. If there was ever going to be a show that returned to the slower pacing of the older shows it would be one staring an 80 year old man. When you have to cast a stunt double for your lead actor to run up stairs, maybe don’t make it an action show.
AS to the Klingon redesign when TMP came out we hadn't had well-loved Klingon characters like Worf etc... they'd just been baddies who'd shown up a bunch of times. BY the time of Discovery Klingons were a familiar feature of Trek. Then they made them mealy-mouthed lizards. it still bugs the sh*t out of me.
Also I do think there is an objective metric to say the Discovery klingons are worse. Forcing the actors to talk in a fake language all the time impacts their ability to deliver a good performance. Even ignoring the aesthetic differences, their scenes feel very stiff and their emotional range is limited.
@@matthewbadley5063 It's not just the language. the prosthetics for the teeth and the make-up are apparently way thicker and make it harder for the actors to speak and perform in general. The forehead-alien designs of TNG were simpler, but also easier to act in. But then again, this technology can evolve further and maybe future iterations will be better.
@@benjbk Well it can't get any worst.
@@benjbk If you’ve seen the behind-the-scenes for WandaVision, you’ll notice that the makeup for the Vision is largely a computer-generated effect. Perhaps in the future, extensive makeup and prosthetics won’t be necessary, and the designs of the races will have greater flexibility.
@@benjbk Also the giant sloped shoulderpads and all being bald made them all look like they had very small heads. If they'd kept the rest of the design the same but given them Big Hair they would have looked fine.
Dear writers of future Star Trek series: There is a principle in design theory called APPEAL. It doesn't mean make everything cute and nice. The holographic doctor in VOY isn't a likeable person, but the writing for his character and the performance of Robert Picardo gave him appeal.
Please look into this. Also, no more mystery box storytelling, please and thank you. If you make me wait an entire season for a payoff that never comes, I will quit you.
APPEAL to WHOM?
Because there's no hope for the future in New Star Trek. TOS was about a humanity that got things right, so we sought out new life, since we had something to share.
TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT were all in the same universe where viewers saw a place we could aspire to reach.
But if you watch TOS there's humans screwing it up and needing to be addressed again and again... It's not utopia porn, it's a framework for allegory.
Bingo. Old Trek is a world you'd actually want to live in. New Trek for the most part, isnt. The worlds of Disco and Picard are grim AF.
Yeah I don't want to live in any of these futures and they aren't a hopefully happy place. Apparently we are all racist haters for not wanting another dark, violent gritty, drama that by most measures of quality shows simply isn't that well written or executed and doesn't have enough redeeming qualities to excuse. Why do we keep having to be explained why we should like these shows. I love TNG/VOY/DS9, and their progressive messages of equality and peace (even when tested with war), the focus on science and exploration, how humanity finally gets it shit together and one day maybe we can do that too IRL. Picard and DIS both show humanity at its worst retuning to old ways and prejudices, I am not simply hating on these shows but if I want a depressing space opera I will watch Battlestar Galactica or The Expanse which do it way better.
Each series spends most of its time in a dark place, but it always ends in just such a hopeful way. The Picard finale depends on a huge governmental U-turn on the basis of one final piece of evidence from the man they’ve been ignoring until then. That’s pretty damn optimistic. Over a decade of foreign policy and also human rights dogma overturned when they learn something more troubling.
Could you elaborate on your first statement? The four series I've watched so far seem to spend the majority of their time in a "brighter toned" world.
I found it challenging to get into the very somber tone of Picard. I am glad that I stuck with it, while not my favourite series the conversations between Riker and Picard and Picard and Data were worth it for me, among other moments.
Lower Decks on the other hand had me from the first episode. It felt like a love letter to the 90’s trek fan with phasers set to humour.
I can’t wait for both series second seasons.
I also tend to think Enterprise is under rated and is probably my second favourite series so take my opinion as you will.
The big problem with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek Discovery, and the Kelvin timeline - over-glitzy production and a heavy-handed aesthetic that points at how spectacular everything is at the cost of natural-feeling character development. The lesson Roddenberry taught that some newer shows don't understand: make the sci-fi elements seem everyday to the characters, so they can interact with interesting conflicts and resolutions as a relatable ensemble. That is actually the strength of Below Decks, and I'd consider it to be the best Trek show since DS9. Trek is at its strongest when it's about interesting characters, and its weakest when it's about spectacle.
"over-glitzy production and a heavy-handed aesthetic that points at how spectacular everything is at the cost of natural-feeling character development."
Yup. Who the fuck could work on the Kelvin bridge without developing migraines?
The main thing that bothers me about the Kelvin timeline Trek aesthetic are the silly 80s Saturday Morning Cartoon zoop/zap/bwarn SFX whenever there's a combat scene...
I completely agree! And I think that Steve has made some great videos highlighting the amazing acting and writing done to make DS9 an amazing show.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture wasn't dumb as rocks which is the main sin of Discovery and most Kelvin movies (I actually like Beyond).
How can you say that TMP doesn't have character development? It has a few issues, yes but TMP is a flawed masterpiece. It is a piece of genuine art to be admired and discussed for all time. NuTrek is just Trek Wars with swearing and smoking. It's junk food and utterly forgettable.
There is not a single episode of Disco or Picard that will be remembered alongside City on the Edge of Forever, Balance of Terror, Chain of Command, The Measure of a Man, Cause and Effect, The Way of the Warrior, Far Beyond the Stars or Year of Hell or any number of other iconic episodes from old Trek. NuTrek doesn't even come close
First of all, deep respect for the video and what you wanted to address. Some background about me: TOS was in reruns when I was a kid in the 70s and I was in college when TNG premiered. I remember pushing back and coming around. However, the JJ films have been my jumping off point and I have not tried any of the streaming Trek, I may do that some time in the future.
My rebuttal to your video is how you represented the objection of the Kelvin films. So no, I didn’t like the lens flares, the kinetic pacing, or the emo performances. Those problems though, is that is the low hanging fruit of the larger complaint.
I believe, and stand by the idea, I’d roll with flares and fast talking and face punching and all the flashy Hollywood blockbuster inserts if JJ Trek were smart. But it’s not. It fundamentally has nothing interesting to say about the human condition, it offers almost nothing it didn’t cobble from its past betters, and (admitting TNG films have their own problems in this respect) not even an attempt to convincingly lie about its bad science by mixing it with good science. That a rap song will be used to block drone signals is presented as anywhere near the same thoughtfulness as Kirk using an access code to lower his enemy’s shields is simply far below minimal quality control. I reject JJs Trek because it did the one thing past Trek had not done... tonally, consistently, oppressively treat its audience like they are stupid. If I felt as if the films wanted to say anything at all smart or interesting, I would have put up with all the flares and fast talk it had to offer with a smile on my face. But those are not really my objections (nor I think the objections of many). It’s that JJ Trek isn’t smart. And that is a deal breaker.
I’m not trying to change your mind but I am asking that you address the objections to that iteration without a strawman of those objections. You seem like you get around, I don’t think this view is news to you. Which is why your choice to not address it was disappointing.
I want to come back around and say I watched your Snyder / Whedon JLA review and loved it. I’ve not seen many of your videos but you strike me as someone I would agree with more often than disagree, but this aspect of this topic came off as a bit disingenuous. Anyway, hey, it’s just entertainment, and thanks for listening.
I'm not sure if I'm following this criticism well, but I think it was kinda addressed at the start when he said that people don't have to like things. I don't think this video contradicts your personal reasons for not liking it because they are reasonable and thought out. What strawman argument was made and what are you disagreeing with? That the movies are good?
I think you may have missed the thesis of this video, which is addressing only ONE motivation for disliking different iterations of Trek, not attempting a rebuttal of every single possible critique of every new Trek. He uses those specific criticisms - “it doesn’t feel like Trek” - to make a broader point about tone, subjectivity, and who gets to decide what “feels like Trek.”
Thank you. It didn't feel like Trek because it had neither intellect nor idealism.
Yeah he did say multiple times throughout the video that the point isn't that every series or movie is perfect or even good. He wasn't saying that there are no valid criticisms of things like JJ trek or Voyager or STD or Picard or Voyager. He was just pointing out how so many people seemingly don't even give a lot of the shows or movies a legitimate chance because they are judging it purely based on first impressions like the visuals or just something they heard someone else say, instead of actually seeing if they like it for themselves or not. I don't think he's really even defending things like JJ trek all that much, which is why he's not trying to counter any specific argument or criticism, he's just tired of all the shallow complaints instead of seeing actual thoughtful criticism.
There's a decent chance that I'm the one missing the point of "it just doesn't feel like Star Trek," but seeing as that's my main complaint....
I don't get why you're conflating "it doesn't *feel* like Star Trek" with "it doesn't *look* like Star Trek." I mean, beyond that, your point is sound, and I agree - and I actually really love Discovery (and it's aesthetic, except for the Klingon redesign, which is just plain ugly & really hinders the actors' performances)... it just doesn't FEEL like Star Trek. It's not about the look, it's about that relentless, overpowering optimism that this, THIS is a future we and should aim for. Diversity is strength, morality is power. We can do better. We can choose a better world, a better *universe.* I think Discovery is a fantastic show, albeit with some REALLY questionable creative choices that I could argue for hours. It's also very much a product of the current political mood.
Not that it's entirely wrong. My favorite Trek is DS9, and that wasn't exactly shy about acknowledging that the Federation was less than perfect in living up to its ideals (much like the USA), but they struck a wonderfully nuanced balance between challenging the naivete that all too easily accompanies idealism and defending the ideals themselves all the more strongly for being willing to acknowledge such dangers. It's easy to be a saint in paradise, indeed.
Picard tries to find a similar balance, but I don't think they quite pulled it off. Discovery doesn't even try. It's cynical, very nearly hopeless. It reframes the earlier idealism of the entire franchise as naivete, and Picard just kind of accepts that. And that... just hurt. Our world is ugly & cynical enough right now. And it's not like it's a Star Trek thing - there's a lot to be said for the "Golden Age of television," but there's a whole lot of grimdork involved, too. But Trek always, ALWAYS made optimism & faith in humanity its ultimate foundation, even in its darkest chapters.
I'm a pretty cynical, hopeless person in truth, but Star Trek always made me feel like maybe I was wrong, that hope was worth holding onto. That we can do better, build a better world. Discovery says I'm just seeing clearly. That my personal failing isn't the inability to hope anymore, but my stubborn refusal to stop trying. It doesn't FEEL like Star Trek. And that just *hurts.*
The trouble is, “feel” is totally and utterly subjective. EVERY viewer will have their own reasons for why the “feel” is wrong. To even TRY to address this on any but the most superficial level is completely impossible.For ONE person out of hundreds you might get the vision of the performance gelling with their desires and prejudices, but for far MORE people will be offended.....this is inevitable and cannot be avoided.
I would probably enjoy STD if it wasn't called Star Trek. If it was just some dystopian generic sci fi it would be fine. But it isn't Star Trek.
The thing about Trek is that it's not just a progressive sci fi show.. to REALLY be Trek it has to have a vital ingredient - hope. Optimism. Even in DS9 which had plenty of darker episodes, there was always the striving towards a better future. Always. With STD and Picard it's just too grim and fucking miserable. Don't get me wrong, as a 40k nerd I love a bit of grimdark but that's not what Trek is.
RE: Nimoy's comment about Star Trek (2009):
If memory serves, Nimoy was offered to direct and/or cameo in Star Trek: Generations, and he said "no" because he thought the script sucked and the studio's mandate to have Picard and Kirk work together was fundamentally a dumb idea. So it seems a bit hypocritical for him to tell other fans to just enjoy the ride for 2009's reboot, as if it's OK for him, as an artist to take a principled, artistic stand against participating in a movie he thought was fundamentally flawed, but we audiences should just sit down, shut up, and enjoy the ride with another movie. I know that's not what he meant, but I do feel that this provides some important context.
So yes, I will "see where Star Trek wants to take me now". I did. I watched 1st season of Discovery and Picard, and each successive episode made me dislike each show more and more. And I intend to watch Lower Decks at some point when I sign up for a free trial to Paramount+. I also intend to watch Disc season 2 at some point, because people keep telling me it is "less bad". But I've seen where Star Trek is trying to take me, and I've decided that I don't like where CBS/Paramount is going with Star Trek. I'm not going to give them my hard-earned money and pretend to like what I'm seeing. If Nimoy can take a principled stand against participating in Generations because he thought it sucked, then I, as a fan, can take a principled stand against consuming and enabling Discovery and Picard because I think they suck.
RE: Steve's following statement that "sometimes STar Trek takes us places we don't like, and that's OK".
It was OK in the old shows because they were so episodic. If a particular episode of ToS, TNG, DS9, or VOY is bad, that's fine because the next episode will be at least a medium-ish reset. If I dislike VOY's "Threshold" because I think that achieving warp 10 is a fundamentally dumb idea, and that warp 10 turning someone into a salamander is an even dumber idea, then I can rest easy in the comfort of knowing that the next episode hopefully won't be as stupid.
How I feel about "Threshold" is very similar to how I feel about the spore drive of Disc or the Zhad Vash and inter-dimensional robot tentacle monsters of Picard. The difference is that the spore drive, etc. aren't just concepts in throw-away episodes. They are fundamental to the structure and story of the show. They are the whole show. And since CBS seems uninterested in having "planet of the week", or "alien of the week", or "anomaly of the week" stories to distract from those fundamentally dumb ideas, I just can't buy into the series as a whole. Everything that happens in each series is happening because of those ideas that I fundamentally dislike.
I guess the closest you can get with older Trek would be if you don't buy into the prophets/wormhole aliens of DS9. If you can't buy into that concept, then you're probably not going to like DS9 because so much of DS9's overarching story is tied to that concept. But even then, you might still be able to enjoy the many stand-alone episodes that don't reference or mention or build upon the prophets.
One thing to consider about Nimoy: Generations was in 1994 while Star Trek was in 2009. That's 15 years. Plenty of time to grow and change his mind and opinions. Perhaps he did.
Generations had a bad script and the 1701-D destruction was awful.....only to be recycled in Star Trek: Beyond Burger in almost the same way.
The problem with New Trek is that with each episode, the stakes are absurdly high ... Not every catastrophe or incident has to be world ending.... Also, enough with the prophecies...It's a sci-fi show, not a fantasy show.. There's nothing wrong with the old Trek episodic format "problem arises, problem intensifies, problem solved"
@@adamlevine6700 why is them expressing something they feel is in error for the show an indication of their fault?
There's nothing wrong with the old format, but there's nothing wrong with the new format, either.
Everyone cries non stop lol
@@adamlevine6700 cool. Well some of us do....
So... what's a "Data's Day" episode going to look like in Discovery? Are we going to get an iconic Khan character? What nemesis in Discovery is going to be a bridge crew member in the next series? Are we going to explore a possible future where EVERYBODY has spore drive and what that future looks like?
THESE are signatures of Star Trek. I don't know what Discovery is except serialized fanfiction.
Oh, good Lord. Nice try Einstein, but most people who "hate" Trek since JJ, particularly now with STD, feel this way primarily because 1) Much of canon has been discarded in a way that suggests those doing the discarding aren't even aware of it; 2) All the incarnations are rife with internal logical inconsistencies, which is pure and simple sloppy writing; 3) STD in particular goes out of its way (internally as well as in press releases) to make it plain they think they are "breaking barriers" and making Trek "inclusive", when any casual examination of Trek since it's inception will show that STD isn't doing anything which hasn't been done before, and better; and 4) it is populated by characters who don't talk, act, or carry themselves in any manner which would indicate that they've been through the rigors of the 23rd century version of Annapolis with a bit of MIT and Stanford thrown in; they are immature, emotionally fragile (as opposed to vulnerable - big difference) and in some cases (thinking Tilly) physically ill suited to be officers any sort of military/scientific service (I can say that about Tilly because I'M someone who couldn't meet the rigorous physical standards which would still apply to such institutions in the future).
In a word, people "hate" them because they flat out suck, and the ratings bear this out.
There's one more possibility you overlooked. When confronted with something that's poorly executed, some fans say, "That doesn't feel like Star Trek" because they themselves don't go around practicing nuanced literary criticism. They're just simple folks who are trying to flag that they noticed that something in the production was lacking, even if they weren't able to verbalize exactly what it was.
And yes, every new Trek has gotten a lot of criticism because--guess what--the first few seasons of EVERY new Trek were rough ones. In hindsight we glorify TNG and DS9, but there were some pretty shitty episodes of both (he said, regarding both series as the pinnacle of Trek.)
This problem becomes particularly acute in modern limited-episode-run serial dramas and movies, where you don't have 50-some chances to get it right in the first two years. It has to be good right out of the gate. IMHO, Lower Decks nailed it, Picard was close, and Discovery blew it too many times for me to give it more than a couple of chances.
And asking fans to hang in there until it gets good in Season Three is a big ask nowadays, considering how many great series there are out there for science fiction and fantasy. Why settle for also-ran Discovery when I can binge The Expanse, The Mandalorian/Clone Wars/Rebels, Lovecraft Country, Doom Patrol/Umbrella Academy (a concept so nice they made it twice.) Heck, I'd rather watch Netflix's Lost in Space than Discovery.
In the end, quality wins out.
Nowhere is this more apparent than what's going on in the Star Wars universe. The Mandalorian, The Clone Wars, and Rebels are all great shows, widely accepted by fans that also respect the continuity and lore while continuing to invent new characters and stories. You don't hear many fans carping about those--or any of the other shows I mentioned. I'm a long time Doom Patrol fan: love what they did with it, give me more. Same for all those other shows.
Quality wins out.
I think that criticism works both ways. On the one hand, yes, no one should be asked to sit through a rough first season or two when there are other "better" shows they could watch instead, but conversely because those other shows exist no one really has to either. Anyone who'd rather watch the Expanse or whatever than Discovery can just do that. Discovery wasn't my cup of tea either, but I didn't have to waste my time hating on it because I had Orville to watch instead.
Tangentially though, while TNG very much so had a rough first season, I can't really agree that DS9 was anywhere close to the same. I recently started re-watching that this past year, and while admittedly it had a few growing pains to work through, and the pilot was probably the roughest patch, but I was continuously surprised just how much arrived almost fully fully formed. It might have taken TNG the better part of its first two seasons to get "good", but I feel like DS9 managed the same before its first season was even half finished.
The Mandalorian is basically a bad western where the protagonist ought to have done the thing that was obvious to everyone watching but didn't because "suspense". I'm not sure how anyone could call it a great show.
I remember Nimoy's books, I'm Not Spock and I Am Spock. The best example of changing one's mind, coming to terms with the past, and moving forward with cherished memories.
I will never forgive them for killing Data. Twice.
@@리주민 Alternate timeline.
I will never forgive them for not killing Wesley a second time.
Or for Star Trek Nemesis in general.
i could be wrong but i think star trek as a whole has lost the ability to make you think about things in way and from points of view that you might otherwise have not. TNG will always have a special place for me because of the many moral and philosophical dilemmas they had to reason through. modern star trek is treated with so much more intensity that its hard to get those thinker episodes in that are maybe not so action oriented. a good example is TNG season 2 episode 9 "The Measure of a Man". this is the episode where Data is put on trial to determine if his is sentient or starfleet property, with picard defending him and riker forced into arguing for the other side. this episode is a masterclass in keeping an audience engaged almost exclusively with dialog. it also contains no ship to ship battles, no phaser fights, no "shields down to 20 percent!", no inverting the polarity of anything. and it made you think long after it is over, possibly about concepts you might never have really thought hard about. i like my actiony star trek as much as anybody else but miss the occasional thinkers. just my opinion tho.
I always saw the kelvin movies to be very similar to superhero films before Marvel happened. They are based on a familiar property and have all the same characters but it’s less a movie in universe, and more just movie with familiar names. I never saw it as actual Star Trek, just a fun action movie with Star Trek painted on it. And that was before I even really got into Star Trek. That feeling hasn’t subsided since getting into Star Trek
Agreed, most Marvel movies are like amusement park rides; they're fun one time but have zero replay value. But I give them credit for making Guardians cool and Avengers cool again. Nobody outside of the UK cared about Guardians before the movie. When Marvel vs. Capcom 3 came out and Rocket Racoon was a playable character, everyone I knew was like "who? Oh he's from some oddball series from the 70s." Avengers were like the 5th most popular Marvel team once Claremont and Byrne revived X-Men. Some of those 80s and early 90s Avengers teams, yeah good luck naming 5 characters (West Coast Avengers > Regular Avengers for a few years).
Three seasons in and Discovery still hasn't been embraced like TNG was. But because DS9 and TNG were not intially loved by fans does not mean Kurtzman Trek will be. The most important question: is new Trek resonating with most of the fan base? That I don't know because CBS doesn't share their ratings.
For any show, you need to get a feel for who the characters are, those characters need to have understandable motives and actions that are plausible. It's here where newer Trek has struggled. Picard spends an episode overcome with regret about leaving Elnor. Then leaves him on a Borg cube surrounded by Romulans, where they've already established it would be Picards worst nightmare. He will change his whole life because of the debt he feels for Data's sacrifice then after a 5 minute chat, kills him. It makes sense that Data wouldn't want to exist that way, but then why has no one switched him off earlier? Wouldn't Picard want to chat for more than 5 minutes before pulling the plug? They both got over 20 years of waiting and survivors guilt far too quickly. I think it's good they willing to go to these strong emotional places, but they aren't fully earned and are quickly discarded for the next thing. As for Discovery, the characters are all over the place from one scene to the next. Burnham has had at least 5 total personality transplants since the start of the show. Raised as a Vulcan, logic above all else, to acting purely on emotional instinct. A whole host of moral contradictory pronouncements. Working together is always the right thing, no working alone is, no we sacrifice for the Federation, no forget the Federation, we sacrifice for each other. If they could just write the characters so they made sense, I think we'd all be a lot more forgiving of other issues. The frustrating thing is, they clearly have these big budgets, fantastic actors and a fan base that actually really wants to love the shows. It's a lost opportunity to create something special.
Picard has pacing and structural problems. I think it's OK to say that it does.
"Then leaves him on a Borg cube surrounded by Romulans, where they've already established it would be Picards worst nightmare."
But this is not only *Elnor's* decision, it's the entire reason he came on this journey - to fight for a lost cause.
"It makes sense that Data wouldn't want to exist that way, but then why has no one switched him off earlier?"
The fact that they haven't just built data a new body or some way to directly communicate with him speaks to the fact that while they have his mind running, they don't realize he's truly conscious until Picard informs them.
Mostly correct, the shows do have issues. But in some ways they are the most real, down to earth of all the Treks. Why wouldn't Picard chat with Data for more then 5 minutes? Because it hurts. It hurts to lose people, and it hurts even more to be given a chance to be with a friend again because you know it isn't going to last.
Burnham and her logical/emotional choices always kind of struck me that raising a human to be a vulcan is damaging. Constantly fighting to be logical just ends up opening the floodgate of emotions, causing her to bounce between the two. She's Logically Bipolar.
The rest is spot on.
I don’t like Discovery or Picard or the Kelvin films but I love Lower Decks & I have no issue with people liking the other series & films. Heck, I love your channel after all 😁 You’ve never changed my mind about about new Trek (you did change my mind about Jellico!) but I always enjoy your views on new Trek as thinking critically about work you’re not overly fond of can still be fun if you learn a new perspective.
Lower decks ❤❤ fuck Bridge crew
I like both Picard and Lower Decks. Not that either is perfect. But no season of Trek is perfect. Even DS9 had its bad episodes and odd choices. And well... TNG first season? Do I have to say more? ;)
The Kelvin films I find... OK. Not really films I get to much in to. I do not hate them or love them. They were worth a watch. And Discovery I have not watched yet. Not been on any streaming platform I have had easy access to.
Personally, I think people should be allowed to like what they want. Pre Kelvin trek is full of poor trek to. With their even being a odd and even rule for movies.(The odd movies are the bad ones. The even are the good ones. Though personal taste might factor in to since I personally like the first movie, admittedly is often known as the least bad of the odd ones. Similarly, Nemesis, the last TNG movie and the 10th one is frequently considered bad. I will admit, I did not watch that to the end when I got the chance to watch it. I lost interest when watching it.
In the end trek is full of hits and misses and people will not agree. But at least there seem to be Trek for everyone. ;)
@@CythilI'd argue ds9 has no Bad episodes but mid ones? There's a few and there pretty much all in the first two seasons
My issues with Disco and to a lesser extent Picard is the WRITING, especially with Disco. I wouldn't even have enough room here to count all my issues with Disco. They took an actress I LOVE from my fav show walking dead and made her totally unlikeable. Why? She serves on a starfleet vessel and conducted a mutiny that I didn't buy into and made her a char who never follows orders. This lessened in season 3 to some extent.
I found all 3 seasons uneven. The first season I thought the mirror universe was boring. They killed off the best char, captain lorca, and the klingon arc was just silly imo. The klingons were changed so much that they could barely speak properly. They layered makeup on their faces making it obviously hard for them to speak.
Season 2 got off to a good start. I liked that episode with the church that had been moved. They actually gave a new bridge officer some more time on screen! The whole season went downhill eventually. The control story line was just silly. It felt disjointed and poorly written and executed.
Season 3 also got off to a strong start. The best yet. Then around the middle it went downhill again. The new vulcan episode with the mother felt forced. The mirror universe, boring. The explanation for the burn was just nonsense with an episode with the creature from haunted hill. The season finale had little robots and a turbo lift scene that was one of the poorest use of CGI I have seen.
Disco likes to introduce something, like the little robots, then just drops it without explanation. They have done this dozens of times in 3 seasons. For me that's poor writing.
The newest star trek versions are so negative and dark. I want the future Gene Roddenberry envisioned. Picard made me feel like TNG was a lie.
IMHO TNG and the other more hopeful utopian treks were only a partial truth, one face of the coin of the whole story.
Newer Trek is exploring the costs of that Utopia we love so much, and the darknesses the Federation has had to survive and come to terms with as it continued to walk blindly forward into the light.
It also focuses on the naked and ugly truths of the risks and costs of those journeys while using our contemporary social issues to highlight the real personal and civilizational sacrifices required #ToGoWhereNoOneHasBefore.
Just my take on it all and not a prophecy nor canonical rule. I am a lifelong trekkie but I aint #TheGuardianOfTheUniverse like that.
Just enjoy the #LongLivedProsperity of Star Trek I say.
My problem with recent Star Trek is that some of them are too focused on a singular character; Michael Burnham or Jean-Luc Picard. When the focus is a single character they seem to be at the center of every storyline. In the previous series there would be a storyline about Data one week, about Worf the next, and a few times there was even a Geordi story. But if every single story was about Riker it would have seemed ridiculous.
Imagine if Discovery were promoted as Michelle Yeoh as the captain but she dies in the second episode and we get to see how the crew reacts. They’ve got to deal with the new mysterious captain Jason Isaacs and him brining back onboard the one responsible for her death. I honestly can’t name some regular crew members of the Discovery and I’ve watched all 3 seasons. They need their own episodes. But when Burnham is the focus of every storyline it feels like her life is cursed. Her mom is a time traveler who drew the attention of Klingons which got her colony killed. She was adopted by Sarek and raised with Spock. Then she started a war with Klingons but her mirror universe counterpart was the daughter of the Terran emperor and the love of mirror universe Lorca. But she then fell in love with a Klingon surgically altered to appear human. Some of that could maybe have happened to someone else.
The same thing goes for Picard. Picard is psychic now and had a dream about Data just before an Android comes to him for help. The twin of that android is on a Borg ship being decommissioned by Romulans. Big things in Picard’s past are androids, romulans and borg, are they normally connected? No but they’re going to be here because it’s about Picard. I’m surprised they didn’t put Ferengi or Vash in there.
I have no complaints about Lower Decks though. It’s the best Star Trek in 15 years. There’s no singular main character and many secondary characters.
I mean, in Picard, it makes sense. The show is literally named Star Trek PICARD! But dor DSC though, I hope they do some character devalopment on others. We now only have Sary, Mirror Gorgue and Micheal.
Yeah that's my single largest issue w/DSC as well--the over reliance on telling stories about Burnham from every conceivable angle while letting other characters languish. When you don't really care for the main character to begin with, it makes it hard to enjoy the show.
"But when Burnham is the focus of every storyline it feels like her life is cursed. Her mom is a time traveler who drew the attention of Klingons which got her colony killed. She was adopted by Sarek and raised with Spock. Then she started a war with Klingons but her mirror universe counterpart was the daughter of the Terran emperor and the love of mirror universe Lorca. But she then fell in love with a Klingon surgically altered to appear human. "
Dafuq?
You didn't even mention that she pulled a phaser on her commanding officer and (more or less) got away with it.
I mean, consider this, though: TOS (the series, not the movies) was focused on basically Kirk and Spock and sometimes McCoy, and the rest of the cast got very little focus. Do you complain that TOS focuses too much on Kirk or too much on Spock? TNG made an ensemble cast a thing, and DS9 and Voyager kept that up. It was actually part of some people's complaints that Enterprise tried to go back to the TOS style, where they basically had the power trio of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy replicated in Archer, T'Pol, and Trip. The rest of the Enterprise cast got about as much focus as the rest of the TOS cast.
So your problem isn't necessarily with "recent" Star Trek, because you'd have to put TOS into that batch, too.
@@MichaelMoore99what? Sure the tos mostly focused on Spock, Kirk and sometimes bones but Uhura, Scotty, Chekov and Sulu all got their own episodes that show cased them I can name pretty much if not all the bridge crew of the TOS, I can't do the same with discovery cuz most if not all of them have gotten nothing
"It just doesn't feel like Trek..."
It doesn't!
"Stylistically..."
No, that's not what I mean at all. I don't care about the aesthetic.
Star Trek has always been a medium to examine some pretty deep ethical and philosophical questions. I don't think that the Kelvin films (maybe Beyond) or the first season of Discovery have been doing that. That's what doesn't "feel like Trek," not the lens flares or the redesigned Klingon makeup.
I was fine with Picard, and I particularly liked the third season of Discovery.
It's not that I feel that New Star Trek is doing that Star Trek *is* doing something that Star Trek *isn't* supposed to do. I'm fine with action in my Star Trek, with comedy in my Star Trek, with sex and swearing and any number of *new* things in my Star Trek.
What I'm salty about is what's *missing* from New Star Trek. It's missing its heart. Star Trek was never just about telling a story: it was about painting a vision of the future that we might aspire to, about shining light on the status quo and discussing questions relevant to our current cultural moment (even if they still sometimes get things wrong; looking at you, Riker the clone-murderer).
It's getting better. They're starting to actually have thoughtful Trek again. But it seemed touch-and-go for a while there.
"Exploring strange new worlds, seeking out and embracing the unfamiliar is at the heart of Star Trek."
You said it. You said it perfectly. And that's what's been missing, and what is finally beginning to return to the franchise.
Agreed.
I can't give the lense flare a pass though.
Both Discovery and Picard shone a light on the current status quo and explored it in ethical and philosophical ways: the rise of right wing fascism, for example, was a key theme in season one of both shows. To me, the stories took inspiration from this phenomenon happening in the US and UK over the last few years.
What my biggest issue with the newer Trek shows are (except Lower Decks I guess, haven't seen them yet) how serialised they are. What I think makes Star Trek such a compelling show is the narrative, and in the older shows that narrative could change significantly from week to week. That means if for some reason you weren't into one episode, don't worry because next week's will be completely different and it might become your favourite. That can't happen in the new shows. For example, I thought the story of season 1 Discovery was "meh" at the beginning but picked up after the Terran twist; but I loved the mystery leading to a universe-spanning threat narrative of season 2. Season 3 however hasn't grabbed me at all, in fact I stopped watching after the Romulan/Vulcan episode.
If this was TNG, VOY, or even DS9 I could put it down to a dud episode and then try again next week for a new one. But for Discovery, I'm going to have to wait another year to MAYBE get something I like - assuming I even finish season 3.
Because of this, I don't think you can have a "favourite" episode. In my eyes a favourite episode is one you can tell your friend to watch alone, without having to watch the entire season before it, etc.
Lower Decks is... semi-serialized? Semi-episodic? Like... you can watch an episode alone and understand it and be just fine... but if you watch it in the series, you pick up on more nuance and call-backs than you did before.
If you like episodic Star Trek, I think you'll like Lower Decks (as long as you are OK with it being comedy, though it does have serious moments as well).
Eh, two of my favorite episodes of Discovery are Lethe and Forget Me Not. They're still pretty stand-alone.
There's trend of making every show "cinematic". Sometimes this means cinema level production values but, other times, they try to stretch a single story into 10 or 13 episodes.
If I said to you " 'It's Only A Paper Moon' is such a great episode from DS9" or " 'Someone To Watch Over Me' is a gem in Voyager", you can probably remember what happened in that episode. (Note that I didn't include episodes which everyone refers to like The Inner Light or In The Pale Moonlight).
If I said " 'Into The Forest I Go' is very bad", your first reaction would be "wait, which one? The fifth or the eighth, maybe? Was it in the 1st or 2nd season?"
No episode has an identity of its own. It all blends into one larger story. (The larger story can range from coherent to murky)
I saw this with Marvel-Netflix too. They're almost ashamed of having an episode that's just an episode. No, It HAS to be one part of a 155 part story.
I'll take one, well-executed, standalone story over poorly-written, hyper-serialized, 13-episode, "prestige" shows any day of the week.
@@MichaelMoore99 which was my favorite thing about DS9 and even voyager, even with voyager... issues...
I loved that there was an overarching story, and that you can skip episodes that you're not interested in without missing anything, while watching it anways wouldreward you with an overarching story.
Well you are completely of the mark here... The quality of storywriting, characters and worldbuilding is just bad. We the fans would be more accepting to the shows if they were actualy any good. They are not (Lower decks is fine). Expecting better quality is not hate. And seeing producers in their bubble without any respect to canon and common sense is not making us any more accepting.
What examples do you have of the writing being "bad?" I ask this because I see similar attitudes from Star Wars fans about that franchise's new entries, and when I actually get those folks to lay out their examples for the apparent drop in quality, it still just amounts to something along the lines of, "I wanted this to happen, and it didn't."
@@Progger11 The big plot holes, the rushed and unsatisfying endings to frequent existential threats to all life in the galaxy, the inconsistent character portrayals, nonsensical outcomes to the actions of characters, and the horrendous dialogue are all examples of bad writing.
When doing a "mystery box" story as every season of Discovery tends to be, the writing needs to make sure that everything makes logical sense for the audience to follow along and engage in the story. Discovery doesn't do that, and neither did Picard. Take the red bursts, for example. We first meet Pike at the start of Season 2, and he tells us that Starfleet's top priority are 7 red signals that have appeared, but only 1 of those signals is still visible, so he takes command and goes to the red signal. Then over the course of the season, 5 more signals become visible, and then Michael makes another signal at the start of season 3. So how many signals were there in total? What created the 6 signals that Enterprise was originally investigating that disappeared? How did Pike receive orders to take command of Discovery before the Discovery was notified, since they were being sent to Vulcan to get a new captain and Enterprise had no communication ability when Discovery received the distress signal? That's all just from one episode, and the rest of the episodes are just as bad.
The characters are terribly inconsistent. Michael Burnham will be portrayed as this steely genius intellect in one scene, then an emotional wreck in the next. She is a model of Starfleet duty and loyalty in one scene, then a rogue maverick in the next. If the scene requires an expert pilot, they'll use Michael Burnham. If the scene needs an expert hand-to-hand combatant, they'll use Michael Burnham. If the scene requires an unexploded torpedo to be disarmed, they'll use a flag officer with a background in psychology. If Stafleet needs a new head of Section 31, they'll use a former Klingon Spy that was so bad at spying that his own spymaster that made him into a spy had to labotomize him. Their solution to tying up these loose ends is to deny everything and never speak of it again. On to season 3, over 900 years in the future, where everyone apparently loves Michael Burnham so much that they all follow her to the future. Why did she go into the future? Her mother died, but not really, so Michael went to be with her, but after finding her, never speaks to her again. Much like Spock did in season 2 after obsessing over the Red Angel to the point of having a psychotic breakdown. He hatches a nonsensical plan to capture the Red Angel using faulty logic, then when it conveniently works out, he is notably absent when it comes time to talk to her. I guess the writers just kinda forgot.
Actual dialogue from this terrible show:
"This is the Power of Math, People!"
"You're sorta like...the bomb, aren't you?"
"Some say that in life, there are no second chances. Experience tells me this is true"- Michael Burnham, during a speech in which she is literally being given a second chance.
These are just a few brief examples of why the writing is so awful on this show, and not for the silly strawman reasons put forth my Steve in this video. This is the real reason why people actually hate NuTrek.
@@aaronhaywood5007 add that the crying every episode, no body seems to respect command structure, and who are most of them I can only 3 people of main bridge crew
@@Progger11 Here's something about Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, all the damn fake-out deaths, to list them: Chewie, Kylo Ren (3 separate times), C-3P0's memory wipe, Zorii Bliss, Babu Frik, and Rey. I mean that's just ridiculous, no 1 movie should have 8 fake out deaths. Nothing says lazy writing like making the audience think a character died, just to bring them back. It's cheap and it's lame.
@@slyaspie4934 I feel like Discovery had Burnham giving some kind of generic inspirational speech to at least 1 person every. single. episode. Now I could be remembering how many there actually were incorrectly, as I haven't watched it in a good 3 years, but I'm pretty sure there was an unnecessary amount of speeches given by Star Trek female space Jesus.
4:00 Fun Fact: I think it was in "Into Darkness" that J.J. Abrams realized he did overdo the lens flairs in a few places and had visual fx go back and reduce the appearance of the flairs after the fact.
I would have liked to see Spock's character more Spock-like and Khans character more fleshed out but it wasn't a bad film
@@gwenking7700 It was awful. Spock was basically Master Splinter who gave them the cheat "well I shouldn't tell you about the future...but I'm gonna tell you about the future". The thing with Kirk dying role reversal was a troll. The super serum blood. Spock yelling Khan. Marcus going to locate a 300 year old dictator that one no could control and build a ship that looked like a prehistoric baby of the Excelsior and Enterprise-E. And what was the whole John Harrison thing for? It was a gimmick to try and outsmart the audience. Why couldn't they actually get an Indian actor this time? If you're going to do Khan the most well known villain or "heel" in the entire Star Trek universe, you don't play this bait and switch crap with the audience, you market him like The Joker. They could of at least gave Khan a Joachim. And those Klingons were crappier than Discovery Klingons. Such a bad movie.
I honestly would love to see some one do a reboot of the entire franchise where all of the classic aliens are actually more alien. Nothing else NEEDS to change really.
I've seen a few artists explore this and honestly I really hope we get a star trek that does that some day.
I'm pretty sure that would upset a LOT of people but it would be so refreshing.
I do kind of wish Discovery had some stand-alone eps, just to give the characters a chance to develop a little more and for some lower stakes interactions. Kind of like an inverse of DS9 in it's ratio of Actual Plot to Stand-Alone, if that makes sense.
EDITING TO SAY: Also while Adult Me accepts that VOY is not a great show, I can't help but love it because 7 year old me loved and always will love Captain Janeway.
Discovery had a FEW stand-alone episodes... I'd consider "Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad" to be one. But you're right that there really aren't that many.
I kinda get why there aren't though. The show is just way too expensive to waste on a single episode that doesn't drive the overall plot of the season forward. I do agree with you though, it would do a lot for the characters.
Most of season three consisted of stand-alone episodes that were loosely connected to the idea of checking in with known worlds. That looks like it'll be the format for next season as well, if Vance's orders continue, that Burnham will have to distribute safe dilithium to far-flung worlds.
This is the single biggest problem I have with the show. The story arcs just aren't compelling enough to drag out week after week and the stakes are way too high! It gets to the point where you just don't care. Every ship travelling at warp speed blew up...yawn! Oh and last week an AI attempted to kill every living thing in the galaxy!
@@DLZ2000 So maybe spend more time/resources on writing. If this is an example of the writing, Star Trek deserves better. I am constantly amazed how a good story can even shine through bad acting. Jimmy Stewart's entire career can be attributed to great stories.
You explain subjectivity very well, people don’t understand it cuz they got main character syndrome. they think their opinions are facts that apply for everyone else instead of just their own personal thing
There's a difference between fondness for nostalgia and wanting to live in the past. That's where the separation occurs from whether or not one actually dislikes something or whether they were going to give something new a chance in the first place.
That brings to mind a few past experiences. I went in to the rebooted Battlestar Galactica with the mindset of, "Let's see how bad they screw this up." I ended up loving the whole series, even the somewhat divisive ending. Similarly, The Sarah Conner Chronicles. Terminator on television? No way that'll work! I'm still pissed at Fox for leaving us on that cliffhanger after season two. After that, I was cautiously optimistic about V... only to be crushed by what I saw. Similarly, despite misgivings with pre-release promotional material, I wanted to like Discovery. I tried. I couldn't. I wanted to like Picard. Hell, this was a continuation of things past, with a returning cast member with enough clout to see things are done right, right? Apparently not, alas...
Answer: is not optimistic Trek. Hateful characters, bad stories and bad writing. New Trek is not the same as the original Trek
Now *that's* an important point. Overall tone is vital, and it's a sadly common practice for sequel shows and series to offer a "darker, grimmer take on the {insert title here} universe." And that's never, ever what I (or many original-series fans), want to see. If you don't want to reproduce the tone and feel of the original, why are you still trying to cash on its name?
Steve: "There is no entry in the franchise that is perfect."
Me: "Shhhhh... it's ok, he just forgot about you for a moment Star Trek Enterprise. We all know you're perfect in every way. It's ok. Yes... go blow up the Xindi, it's ok..."
NEEDED MORE BAKULA
@@SteveShives THE MAN IS A GIFT TO THIS WORLD AND WE SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR ALL HE GIVES TO US
@@JessieGender1 Hahaha! Indeed as a child, I loved watching him in those old Quantum Leap episodes and later on in Chuck.
@@SteveShives And less Diane Warren
There's a reason that Star Trek is a franchise. That universe is far bigger in scope than a single show.
Yeah I think the biggest thing that threw me off about Discovery was the lack of "stand alone" episodes like you had said, I love a good story but DS9 for example did story telling both ways with the whole prophet/Bajor storyline along with lots of fun random episodes not oriented around that
I think another thing that's caused modern Trek to become far more serialized is the modern TV format of only having 10 - 14 episodes in a season. Back during DS9s day, series were still being made with 20+ episodes a season (average was 24)... that's soooo much more time to tell your arc and throw in one-offs. I wonder, if Disco was given 20+ episodes in a season, if they'd be more inclined to have one-off episodes and episodes far more focused on "secondary" characters. (same goes for Picard)
@@ObsidianBlk
I think this is true.
@@ObsidianBlk I don't think there's anything inherent in a shorter season that makes one-off episodes that also contribute to an arc impossible. Russell T Davies certainly pulled it off for the first dozen seasons of the Doctor Who reboot--laying clues about "Bad Wolf" or "Doctor Donna" or "Harold Saxon" in 8-10 apparently standalone episodes that then pay off in a big two-parter. They even moved significantly in that direction for Discovery Season 3.
There's no reason they couldn't have done that. Making each season seem like a chunked up 10-hour movie instead of eight standalone episodes that lay clues toward a big finale conflict was a *choice* the producers made.
@@ObsidianBlk DS9 seasons had 26 episodes a season, except for season one, a mid-season replacement season, with 20. So, the average would be higher, more like 25 and change.
This is true. One of the benefits for shows that use modern serialized story telling is that all episodes for a season are available at once. This allows you to watch them in succession at a quicker pace and helps keep you engaged. Discovery doesn't have this benefit. To be frank, the long arcs they've presented so far don't hold my interest long enough from week to week. Revealing who the Red Angel was or what caused The Burn just isn't rewarding enough to wait thirteen weeks for. I think it's a big problem for this show and for Picard. Maybe Paramount will use a different model.
"The Orville" is doing (my) StarTrek
And without transporters.
Star Trek folk: "Why don't people like the new shows? It's still Star Trek!"
Star Wars folk: ... no comment ...
SW folks: First time?
The Mandalorian has entered the chat.
@@coeusdarksoul2855 Gina Carano was banned from the chat...
Wow Star Trek now know how Star Wars feels and now they’re in the same boat as Star Wars
Biggest reason, I think - New trek has lost that shining beacon of hope for what we wish to aspire to be.
New Trek characters are now more of what we currently are, and not what we want to become. These new characters can't inspire, because they're not a future ideal. They're too ingrained in our current real world muck.
TNG and VOY while I was growing up depicted a future where race, gender, religion, and political affiliation didn't matter. We had transcended these concepts so far that we didn't even care what new species had or did what, as long as they didn't hurt those around them.
I want my daughter to grow up with those ideals. Not this new wave of "beat down anyone above you" crap. You want something? You do the work to make it happen, not beat up someone else that has it (or something similar to what you wanted).
I’m confused who beat who up to make things happen on new Trek? It’s funny, when I was growing up watching Trek, I felt like women and especially women of color were written rather crappily that I didn’t feel like people with my gender and skin color really had a true place in the future. And now with new Trek, I do feel like I can be in a better future.
I didn’t hate:
The Next Generation.
Voyager OR
Deep Space Nine WHY?
They were extremely well done in every way AND they didn’t violate canon. However...
Enterprise? I had mixed feelings. It violated some small canon and I hated the theme song. But overall it was good.
JJ’s Kelvin Movies?
I could accept them generally because the altered time-line logically explained why everything looked so different. There were some minor things about it that I didn’t like, but overall they were good. The spirit of Trek was there.
Picard. Yes! No violation of canon and generally an excellent series. Not perfect yet I enjoyed it. BUT...
Discovery????
HELL no. I won’t drone on, but the blatant, obscene violation of canon and its disregard for the legacy of what came before was shockingly heart-breaking.
And NOW...
Strange New Worlds.
NOPE. Same damn reasons. It in now way respects canon and makes no effort to logically explain why everything looks so advanced when it’s supposed to be set in the prime time-line TOS universe. Again- heartbreaking. IF...
these series wanted to make things look way more advanced and “cooler” to attract younger audiences, then why not set them decades after Picard’s time, like show runners did for TNG? Then they could redesign it all they wanted without alienating us long time fans. But now?
I’m out until someone fixes it.
" then why not set them decades after Picard’s time, " so did you not watch season 2 or 3 of DIS??
@@variablegear6133 No I didn’t. Explain please.
@@variablegear6133 My understanding is, Discovery does end up in the 31st century. However, the series (the crew, the ship, etc...) begins in the prime universe original series era. So regardless of where it went, it started there and was illogically non-canon to start with. The designs are confusing and incongruous with existing in-universe Trek history. No explanation for this whatsoever.
My point was, if the show runners wanted to update the look of the series to appeal to a younger audience, why not just BEGIN the series 50 years after Picard’s time? Why mess with firmly-established canon aesthetics? Just didn’t seem necessary.
I havn't got a issue with lens flare perse, it's just that JJ did use it a heck of alot in his Kelvin Trek movies, so much so to the point it honestly felt like he used them in every goddamn scene.
9:28 The only answer i can give to that is, ANYONE who comes in and has enough respect to honor Gene Rodenberry's vision of "STAR TREK".
No it's respectfully believed among most Trek Fans that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga did this, so why can't Alex Kurtzman do the same? Sure, Kurtzman may genuinely believe in his mind that he is honoring Rodenberry's Trek at sametime as bring it into our 2021 sensibility.
If you've got a small number of fans who say they hate "New Trek" for whatever reason, then yes you can just dissmiss them as a bunch of picky, hardcore fans who are practically impossible to please. But when you have a very large number of the fanbase that all genuinely feel the same, and they strongly feel New Trek just does'nt feel like "Star Trek" period; then that can only tell you one thing, it simply isn't "STAR TREK".
I truly hate (with a passion) the Disney Star Wars Sequels, for so many reasons i care not to get into here, so i'll basically just come to the conclusion that i feel they're not true "Star Wars". That said i love The Mandalorian that has the essence and is "STAR WARS" to me. So i guess when it comes to the Star Trek franchise, i'm just personally waiting for another creative to come in and do something interesting with Trek, that feels like "STAR TREK" (i.e. i'm simply waiting for Alex Kurtzman to leave the franchise for good).
As a soon to be 60 year old, I find the 15-35 thing funny. I'm an early adopter, generally, even now. My exception is most apple products -- I can use them, but they aren't intuitive to someone who's not visually oriented. Bring back the command line!!!! :-D
I know some 25 year olds who are much more hidebound about their tech or their stories than I am. But I think it's generally true. My mother says "I don't understand computers" when she introduced me to computers back in the 1970s. What she means is she doesn't want to be bothered to learn something new.
For social and story items, many people don't want to think. These stories or customs are comfort food for the mind (or soul), and any change to them, whether it's Angela Carter's take on Red Riding Hood or Discovery not focusing on a captain, means it's _wrong_ on a soul-deep level that can't be reached by reason.
The command line never went away. Switch to Linux ;)
The posatronic android becoming a slave race after how much of datas arc was about avoiding such a future is frustrating.
I think the “after 35” part is particularly applicable to popular music, and I think that’s partially because the product is so heavily focused on romance and party culture, which closely ties it to adolescence and young adulthood. This is why artists that avoid that like Weird Al can keep getting new fans decades in their careers. It’s a very different path that has significantly less of a support structure, but it can work.
When you talked about how people find a sense of ownership in a series, I can't help but be reminded of how copyrights, over the years, became longer and longer. Copyrights of IP were of their length not only so creators would constantly have to come up with new and fresh ideas, but so the public could enjoy these creation, adding to the rich lore and history of characters and settings. I grew up with Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd century, scratch that, I grew up with Data being Sherlock Holmes in Star Trek. Fan fictions of today can fill that gap, sure, but we can't be paid for that work, at least not directly for it. If I want to share my idea of what Star Trek is, the Star Trek I own, in my heart, I do so with the peril of the law.
Was watching Red Letter Media's re:View of TNG recently, and they pointed out how the early seasons of TNG tended to put alien planets on sound stages that looked really, really corny. An example of improved visuals across seasons within a single show!
That was an interesting review.
They also said many of the stories were originally going to be in the two lost seasons of TOS.
Pretty much right through at least DS9 and VOY, they had a lot of soundstage planets, especially their cave set. ENT was the first show that really looked cinematic.
All I know, personally, is that every series of Trek prior to 09, had something that sat deeply with me. I found nothing profound or memorable about new trek so far. The mystery appears to be gone.
Great vid, but as a Black Trekker, I'd like to register a defense of those of us that really hated the Disco S1 Klingons. The critique (for me anyway) was about way more than the purely aesthetic choices. Disco eviscerated an in show species that many of us felt played a representational role for us. In TNG, Worf was played by a black actor and over 11 seasons, TNG/DS9 established the social order and values of Klingon society, as well as their physicality. This was consistent with the prior TOS movies (one more time, RIP Christopher Plummer) and was cleverly retroactively aligned with the TOS era Klingons via the Enterprise episodes concerned with the Augment Virus.
Okay, so Klingons ≠ so-called "blacks" or even all BIPOC. But in the show the species was illustrated as shades of brown, and more importantly portrayed as a society that operated outside of the Federation hegemony, yet nonetheless was a successful empire, a fierce adversary, and still had an honorable and nuanced culture despite all the Shakesperean power grabbing. That was a view that we could identify with. A sort of TNG nod to Afro-Futurism.
The Trek Universe is a place we go to see characters and species we allegorically identify with (just ask @Jessie Gender about what the addition of non-binary characters in Disco has meant to her). The Disco Klingons annoyed and disappointed because the aesthetic and story choices around them debased the species some of us saw ourselves in in the name of simplistic good guy/bad guy storytelling. That's not the same in my book as a lens flare or anachronistic holographic workstation...
They used an antique telescope in the first episode of Discovery. Did they seriously build an enterprise without hundreds of monster telescopes on like... everything?
Dont know about anyone else, but Lower Decks is the only new show I actually liked so far. Stays true to original Trek while providing something new and its not afraid to poke fun at itself.
It felt like the creators actually "Got" Star Trek.
Lower Decks is nice & also predictable - it's clear what it's going to be and you get what it says on the tin. Futurama-Trek? Great!
I think LD had the strongest 1st season of any ST. Part of that was the self-awareness. They know what they are, so they don't need to explore the concept and can get right down to the characters.
I feel like Disco is setting up to be the new DS9. A show I hated and stopped watching after 2 seasons back in the day, but when viewed as a whole is wonderful.
I like Lower Decks but not because it stays true to original Trek but because it took the time to develop actual characters.
It actually doesn't stay true to original trek in any meaningful way though.
There is an objective standard!
The genre / setting / cast can be whatever ...
But if it ain’t hopeful. It ain’t Star Trek.
Star Trek is ‘meant’ to feel hopeful.
Optimistic about mankind’s future. That was it creators vision.
Core values matter
The Orville is Star Trek Lite, and funny too.
ITS WONDERFUL!!
Agreed. Surprised Steve never touched on the Orville. In my opinion, it feels more like trek than STD or Picard.
It’s a little too Adam Sandler esque for my taste but I’m glad you enjoy it
Seth Mcfarlane runs it and he's a garbage human. No thanks.
It has more of the classic vibe and soul.
I'd love to see a video analysis of the fan projects like "Of Gods and Men" and "Renegades" and Axanar. Because those take different approaches on Star Trek, too!
Hahahah *I* loved Wesley while I was watching! I was younger than him when TNG aired so I didn't at all catch why he'd be annoying to adults. Having rewatched the series later, I do get it now but I still am very fond of him even so. So there Steve, he's beloved by one person at least!
@@리주민 Quite right! I would have gone kirkying with the native females too! 😁
I always thought Wesley was just there to bring in younger viewers like you. In TOS days, kids liked to picture themselves on the Enterprise. Wesley gave them a proxy. I didn't like that he got to be an "acting ensign", which must've taken a spot from someone who EARNED it by going through the ranks. Plus... he was nearly a "Mary Sue", which made him annoying.
@@lawr5764 Wow you must hate every soldier who got a battlefield promotion for doing what must be done under pressure and thus took away the position from some academy trained officer who never been in the field. I imagine you have forgotten the multiple times Wesley saved the ship and thus EARNED his rank in the field. Cause, he was a nerd... and nerds must be hated. And before you make some incorrect assumptions about me: Boomer, Air Force. Oh, and you really need to look up and understand what a Mary Sue is. "Q" is a Mary Sue. Wesley studied a lot, that's why he was good at what he did.
@@lawr5764 My understanding is that Wesley was drawn from Gene's own background, but ironically, Wesley was supposed to be a girl, Leslie. I believe the marketing guys thought that this was likely to turn off younger male fans rather than attract young female fans, and so we got Wesley rather than Leslie. It'd have been interesting to see Leslie in a parallel universe though.
I was younger than Wesley when TNG aired. Even then I found Wesley bothersome.
19:00 when Steve puffed his chest it remembered me when Oliver puffs his chest when he meets Clark and Barry calls him out for that lol
Star Trek has taught me to just let the show take me somewhere and see where it is. It now really helps me enjoy a new show in another franchise I love.
I agree, and I apply the same thing to my logic. I like both the old and the new, and I am going to leave it at that.
I was watching "Centre Seat: 55 Years of Star Trek" and couldn't help but be reminded of the moment at the beginning of the video where critics said that Nex Gen didn't feel like Star Trek. I was only onto the second episode, the original series was cancelled. So they were coming up with ways to bring it back and they talked about doing an animated series. Even back then fan complaints couldn't be stopped and just the idea of making it animated instead of live action was enough to prompt cries of "It isn't real Star Trek". That tickled me and I had to return and write a comment.
Disco Klingons! I love that idea. "May the boogie bring honor to your house!"
Coming up next week in Star Trek: Lower Decks!
Today IS a good day to do the hustle! Wait, are they Klingons or Ferrengi?
The first time we saw the Klingons in TMP, somebody asked, "Why are they dressed like KISS?"
And ever since then I've wanted to see Gene Simmons as a Klingon.
Now I'm thinking of paraphrasing a line from the original TV movie for The Stand for this: "NO P'TACH TURNS OFF MY DISCO!!!!"
I'd have settled for something as simple as consistent characterization with Picard. This legendary leader among men is now a sad old man who just spent the last few decades sitting on his hands feeling sorry for himself and getting chewed out by every female character in the series that survives the first few minutes? Say it ain't so!!! He doesn't even seem phased with having a murderer on his crew at the end.
And Seven is even worse that Picard. The super logical and collected ex-borg somehow became a hard-drinking and cynical vigilante who's completely fine with committing murder? Oh, and she's also at least Bi now, which we find out in the final scene with zero setup as she starts a relationship with a woman I think she's only had three lines of dialogue with in the whole season. I don't mind character development (it's kind of important after all) but you have to do the work to show it happening people!!!!!!
Half expected Janeway to appear behind you when you mentioned the problems with every Star Trek series.
I also noticed how he didn't mention Voyager and how he's not the biggest fan of it!
@@trekjudas There is many legit reasons to dislike it. It isn't just "new thing, so suck" reaction as Voyager wasn't "new" during TNG Era, but failed attempt to bring old. More relevant example would be Enterprise, in which case I hated it initially but like it now. Though again, it is largely because first two seasons are actually bad, when show become quite good from Xindi Incident. So also bad example.
@@countluke2334 Your loss.
skip straight to season 4. Trust me
BTW, there were a lot more redesigns of the Klingons than most fans acknowledge. And there would naturally be a lot of diversity among hybrids in an empire that has conquered countless worlds. Here are the variations of Klingons so far:
* TOS dark-skinned Klingons
* TOS light-skinned Klingons
* TAS pink uniforms
* TMP single-ridge Klingons
* TSFS/TVH bumpy headed Klingons
* TFF much less prominent single-ridge Klingons
* TUC diverse array of forehead styles, including bald Klingons
* Berman-era house specific foreheads, along with ridged noses, ridged feet, and backs
* Into Darkness bald Klingons with forehead jewelry
* DSC season one wartime bald Klingons with large heads, talons, recessed ears, and different skin colors
* DSC season two the same, but with peacetime hair and smaller heads
I grew up watching Star Trek with my Dad, and for him the biggest detractor is the serialized story line. If he misses an episode he isn't really able to go back and watch one in any practical fashion. He's not exactly up to date with streaming technology and is at the mercy of broadcast airwaves making it difficult to really enjoy the show.
As someone who, to almost quote a man named Steve Shives, likes all of Star Wars, if not all of it equally, these sorts of videos really help when talking to people who feel angry and betrayed by the sequels and the new shows because 'it's not real Star Wars'.
I've only just discovered your channel so I suspect I'll be commenting on a bunch of your old videos, but if nothing else let it stand as confirmation that things you said years ago still resonate to this day.
I think prequels are hard. I think Discovery has issues, but by being set around known accepted Star Trek makes it a harder sell when it does things differently. By setting things in the future though people will still have issues with new shows and shows will still have their personal issues, at least people can slowly warm up to the idea that due to the different time periods things have changed.
I agree. Enterprise was hard to warm up to... this is a different kettle of fish though.
Very accurate observation and the reason why I haven't watched any of the prequel series (Sorry, Enterprise). I want to move onwards in the timeline. With Discovery having jumped to the future in season 3, I might give it a try. In my opinion, the gaps between shows are the perfect setting for books. You can do whatever you want without messing up canon.
This is definitely the biggest problem with ST: Discovery. Had it been set after the events of TNG/DS9/VOY, then people would be able to much more easily accept it. We could get past the new aesthetics by explaining it away as _"Well, it's in the future after TNG; it should look more hi-tech"._
Ironically, now the USS Discovery is in the distant future, and that's where it should have been all along.
I think this is one of the biggest and most important criticism of Discovery. Being set in such a wonky part of the timeline means that every questionable decision gets magnified a hundred fold. I've said for a while that Discovery should have been set post-Nemesis, maybe explore the Alpha Quadrant post-Dominion war and see how a new generation of characters handle the problems that have arisen after nearly 2 decades of TNG/DS9/VOY.
People wouldn't complain about the spore drive as much because it could be explained as experimental tech researched during the Dominion War. People wouldn't complain about the looks as much because it would be set farther in the timeline anyway. Any new alien species could be explained as not being present in previous' series due to the focus of the Dominion war and the amount of resources dedicated to it during that timeframe.
The one thing Discovery does not have that the other Treks do is an ensemble cast. Discovery is just the Burnham show.
I like the approach taken by the hosts of "The Greatest Generation" podcast: "Star Trek is a place". That is, it's a setting and framework on which you can hang different kinds of storytelling.
That's what's so great about the current crop of shows. DS9 is my favorite Trek show, but this is definitely my favorite era of Trek shows. Each show is so very different from each other. And that started when Discovery decided that its focus was not going to be on the senior staff. That allowed for Short Treks and it allowed for an entirely civilian show like Picard and a show exclusively about the Lower Decks crew, and for Prodigy, which is another civilian-driven show.
Discovery’s very clear disregard continuity is the clearest criticism for me. Klingon’s simply aren’t supposed to have cloaking technology at this point in the timeline (a mistake Enterprise made with the Romulans as well, but at least that wasn’t the entire premise of a whole season of the show), and they’re definitely not meant to have facial ridges either. They could have gone ahead with their own unique take on storytelling and changing the feel of Star Trek all they wanted, whilst still taking the time to check that they weren’t massively retconning decades of canon in the process.
The Picard show, at the very least, does a lot less damage in this regard, being set further ahead in time than anything we’d seen before. Small decisions like choosing to depict Romulans both with the TNG-style facial ridges AND the Kelvin-style smooth foreheads and more aggressively pointed ears was a very creative way to acknowledge the continuity of the universe whilst still experimenting with new ideas.
I got 5 episodes in on Picard and I just felt something was awry. I couldn't tell entirely, but my brain was screaming "what the fuck am I watching I dont know what's happening" strictly in the sense of the plot, and that's the day I searched Picard review on youtube hoping to find some clarity in the confusion. Then I found redlettermedia and never looked back. Also I'm a new trek fan I watched ds9 two years ago and fell in love with Star Trek; the only concept of it I had before was through cultural osmosis and that episode of Futurama. Is it possible for me feel what you described throughout this video if my preconceived notions of Star Trek aren't really that concrete? As opposed to someone who's watched trek for 30 years for example.
Not Steve nor an expert, but the very second I get into something, even while I'm not obsessing over it, I start building a pretty clear concept of it. The longer it sits with me, the clearer it becomes, but like, I need five to ten episodes or one re-watch of a movie to have a pretty clear concept afterwards, so, it's not a question of time. If something about the thing speaks to you on some level, you bond to it and your perception of it. If thee thing gets changed and you get confronted with someone elses perception that might differ from yours, and it's not a conflict an eye-level, like with another fan or follower, but with the original creator or owner 'changing' the material, the whole thing gets changed, even in hindsight, to a point. Redefined. And yeah, if there's any part of the thing in question I really click into, that can hurt and make me go 'nuh-uh, that's not right' in a matter of weeks. Doesn't take years with me...
@@annaboes8359 good points, at the time Picard aired I'd only seen ds9 tng and enterprise but by starting with ds9 I think my view of star trek utopia wasn't as optimistic as Gene Roddenberry would have intended. I immediately recognized the differences between tng and ds9, it's one of the aspects about the series I found so fascinating. At the same time I can't get over just how strange Picard is as a show, and I don't understand what the dozens of producers were going for when they were making it. Whatever the purpose was it wasn't planned out thoughtfully enough to keep me watching. I got annoyed at the excessive drinking and swearing it's really uncalled for, and also how people in the show are so bloodthirsty and eager to cut off heads and go on shooting sprees. Other small things like the old lady who called Picard JL, when she complained about Picard having a better house and furniture I was just ??? As in, does she not know about replicators? And the first episode when those Romulans beamed into girls apartment and they put a bag on her head to subdue her, instead of beaming her out or stunning her. I had tons of small questions like that, and the small things add up. That's why I think these writers, kurtzman chabon and the others, shouldn't write star trek, they should write generic action scifi drama show. It's not just bad star trek, it's a bad show written by people who obviously haven't seen as much star trek as the fans who know what replicators are, or know that the Romulans have a star empire and their refugees wouldn't be living on a dusty rusty cowboy planet baking bread and being beheaded. But if thats the new vision of trek, who am I to say others dont get something meaningful out of these shows. In conclusion, I think steve was right I have more feelings about this than I thought I would.
I think the answer is “because it sucks” more than “feel”. It could get better, Voyager improved after adding Jeri Ryan, TNG improved after Riker grew his beard (but I will say I loved, “11001001” and “We’ll always have Paris”) and DS9 improved after they brought in the Dominion War arc (there’s no forgiving “move along home”).
Something I've been struggling with for a while is trying to differentiate legitimate criticism for Discovery with what I acknowledge is my grumpy "muh trek" response. I do think there were some *really dumb* design choices in the show (lookin' at you, backwards bat'leth and ridiculous dental appliances). I did and still do feel like there was a bit of deliberate irreverence to existing concepts within the series by the showrunners. But I'm not sure where legitimate discussion on that stops and where emotional attachment starts. It's a really rough line to tread, but it's also REALLY OBVIOUS when you've crossed it in at least one direction.
That being said, I think S3 of Disco was a big improvement and its direction was a great decision by the showrunners to get them out from under the timing and design restrictions of the TOS era.
I find Disco Klingons to be a lot closer to TNG Klingons than TNG Klingons were to TOS Klingons.
Too often showrunners spin-offs are obsessed with re-inventing things as a substitution for cleverness. The Klingons were a prime example of this. The re-imagined Battlestar Galactica proves my point, I think. You could show a fan of the old show any bit of that: costumes, Cylons, Raptors, the Galactica, etc., and they would recognize that this was the BSG universe. The showrunners didn't make it look like Trek or Star Wars, or an Apple Store. Instead, they focused on telling good stories. (An even clearer example: The Mandalorian/Rebels/Clone Wars.)
@@stevebruns1833 except for the hu an cylons who were nothing like anything that had come before, and very much took the lead over the more traditional models.
@@Carabas72 I honestly don't hate the Klingon redesign if you ignore the ridiculous cultural changes they made (uh obv all klingons shave their heads in war!) but like...dude the actors should not have had to speak Klingon through those dental appliances. That was legitimately not okay with me. It just sounds like mush. There's no way it was comfortable for them either, and shoot days can be reeeeally long.
I never had any problems with the artstyle choices of Discovery, I actually really loved the new klingons. When I first saw them, I was like "squee, look at thouse quadruple nostrils! Look at those magnificent forehead ridges! They look so cool!". I actually really liked the first season of discovery. It wasn't the best thing I've ever watched, but it did a lot of cool stuff.
But the main storylines of each season keep disappointing me more and more. I am still salty about Crying Kelpian Child Destroying All Dilithium. I just find that so dumb and inappropriate to the context and scale of the event.
And, I know that Star Trek is full of silly things like that, but I don't think it's equivalent, because we're dealing with season-long storylines here. If I had a single TNG episode that said "oh, this crying bajoran kid MIGHT blow up all dilithium in the galaxy", and then it was resolved in 40 minutes, I would be fine with it. But it's different when the effects of the plotpoint are felt for years both in-universe and to the fans.
On the serialization point, I’d argue that it’s like complaining that a short story collection doesn’t feel like a novel, or that Sweeney Todd doesn’t feel like South Pacific doesn’t feel like Pinafore doesn’t feel like The Tempest doesn’t feel like The Frogs-well bub, the technology/medium has evolved since then. Anyone wanting something more episodic is ignoring the changes that the prestige series of the 90s and 2000s, and then streaming, wrought on the medium. In 20-goddamn-17, we do season-long arcs.
I came to this video expecting to defend my preferences, but your explanation made it clear that it's not for people who just dislike something. In tandem with this, I realized not long ago that I'm a DS9 fan, not a Star Trek fan. Much like games in Nintendo's franchises, the franchise has moved on and isn't for me any longer. 🤷
Art… of any kind, is a singular experience. It’s a reflection of who we are at that moment. It when you go back, after some time and revisit that art, it reflects back to us, our personal growth or lack of it. Your opinion, for the most part is your own
I shall not stand by and hear such slander against Wesley. He was awesome and I always watched the opening credits hoping to see Wil Wheaton's credit.
Shut up, Wesley.
@@Josh_Fredman When I watched TNG, Wesley represented the teenager in puberty I just grew out of being myself, which made his whole role very awkward and a reminder of all the things I wanted to forget.
@Nobody comments are not funny you troglodyte Are you inventing that from what you’ve heard about TNG from other people, or has it just been so long since you watched it that you don’t remember it clearly?
I know I am late to this video, but the big issue, for me, is that the shows are on a streaming service with a season wide storyline that we have to wait weeks to establish, position, then conclude. In a time in which Orange is the New Black gave us the entire season upon initial distribution, we just don't want to see positioning episodes because they are usually really slow and we have to wait until the next week to find out if we are going to pick up the pace or get another...positioning episode. These shows are basically 10 hour movies. Plow through filming the entire season, then give us the whole thing all at once. In Disco we really have 4 10+ hour movies and it looks like Picard is doing the same thing. MAKE US BINGE ALL 10 HOURS so that we don't have to ruminate on the positioning episodes for so long. I also wouldn't mind day-in-the-life episodes peppered in either. I think that is the main mark missed in this current environment of "TV." Especially with the pandemic where a lot of us were confined to our proverbial rooms, only getting an hour each week is just not good enough. Not when Marvel is giving us 3 hours and Netflix is giving us 10.
A couple points I'd like to make. I think one of the biggest flaws in both Discovery and Picard was that loss of single episode stories. I get we live in a world where bingeing a show Is the new norm, but I still prefer the classic Trek stories that took place all in one episode. With the exception of major events along the seasons, you can pretty much watch any episodes in any order and not be lost. Try to imagine if the revival of Twilight Zone was one story from episode one to episode ten. People would say "this doesn't feel like Twilight Zone" so I think that's where this phrase "this doesn't feel like star trek" works for me. Secondly I feel like the lessons we learned in TOS or TNG were subtle, where STD wants to hit you with the lesson like a sledgehammer. If "bigotry is bad" was the message in TOS it would take the entirety of the episode to teach that lesson, as well as it being the overall theme of that episode. In STD "bigotry is bad" is a lesson reduced to a single line or two, and that's it, no character growth or theme in sight, just a matter of fact line or two and then lesson learned.
The art of stand alone episodes, while keeping the storyline of the season or series together, is a lost art.
I think a less episodic approach would have worked just fine if the overall season-long plot had been competently written and executed. Shows like Stranger Things manage to have an overarching season-long plot and still have episodes that feel like self-contained chapters, with some advancement of the central plot or key revelation being earned toward the end. With the CBSTrek shows, there is neither an episode-long arc nor is there a season-long arc to speak of. Things just happen in succession until the episode ends and then eventually the season is over when space jesus somehow wins the day.
They're hoping you don't give any aspect of the show a second thought because they sure haven't.
Actually, TOS and TNG were incredibly not subtle about the big lesson of the week, they literally have their main character have speeches over it to which they mostly forget the next episode. It’s Discovery that actually has themes and serialized character growth.
I always felt bad about liking some of the new trek. I grew up with TNG and DS9. And I really like Disco and LD. I liked most of Picard (the ending wasn’t what I wanted). But I’ll be honest seeing people say how much they hate new trek made me feel I wasn’t a true trek fan. But this video put everything I think when I see the hate into words. Thank you.
The folks who shit on Discovery are a small number of fans. They are also the loudest cohort, so it would definitely seem like they are the majority, when they are not.
Thanks for a very reasonable case for why some folks have issues with "new: Trek. I myself am 65 years old and have watched Trek since the original series aired on broadcast TV and I have loved it all. Some series I like a bit better than others but I've never had the thought that something wasn't really Star Trek. I think sometimes people forget to realize that had GR had the tech available now back in the 1960s the original would look not unlike what Discovery looks like today.
I'm actually a little grateful to Discovery. Enterprise was airing when I was a little kid, so because of that it's that first era of instinctual Star Trek that I think of and it's my favorite series. It always annoyed me to see people on the internet complaining about how it broke Star Trek's aesthetic and how the technology was "too advanced". However, nowadays no one singles out Enterprise as the canon-breaking show when Discovery literally right there. In fact, since it was the last show of the TNG-to-Enterprise run, it's even experiencing a wave of goodwill, nostalgia, and it-wasn't-so-bad-after-all thinkpeices. Everyone say thank you, Discovery!
Modern politics in Star Trek? NOT ON MY WATCH! - People, probably.
Yeah, I hate it when people try to superimpose their personal politics on to Trek. I mean I hate it when they say they don't like the new stuff solely for political reasons.
People complaining about politics in Trek are hilarious. It's like they have zero knowledge of the 60s and how "woke" TOS actually was for that era.
Wow! That's an episode idea! 'Yesterday's Politics', in which...
What? Yeah, I write.
So? Damnit people, I ain't gonna GIVE it away..! Use your imagination 🙂.
@@TechnoLawyer I argued with someone who said, Disney made Star Wars and Marvel too woke and political. I quoted Lucas that he designed the Rebels as Vietnamese while the Empire was the US-Army. He said, "Lucas said that because Hollywood wanted it to be that way."
With people with that mindset, it's hard to argue.
@@derorje2035 Discovery isn't even very "woke". It shows diversity, but doesn't make the show about diversity. Gay characters just are, there isn't a big kerfuffle about it to be preachy. When Adira tells Staments they are non-binary, his response is effectively "ok cool" and then he uses the correct pronoun for them.
Of the human characters, is ethnicity or skin color mentioned even ONCE?
Why is the show woke? Simply for having a black woman as a lead, and for having some characters who are gay?
There are many legit complaints about the show (uh, why on earth are they letting the cannibalistic genocidal emperor off the hook and be part of the crew?? She should be in some super max prison for life), but when people complain about wokeness, it comes across as being mad about a black woman as a lead and gay characters.
As a kid, I remember when my parents disliked TNG when it came out because they were used to TOS. People always dislike what is new, and with the internet these days the negative voices are louder, they try to justify their emotions with petty reasons like "it just doesn't feel right" or "trek has lost its way". I still remember the silly Picard vs Kirk forum posts. This is why artists should never listen to their critics.
IMO, Star Trek, serieswise suffers more because of current financial restrains that impact rhythm and length than anything else. Among all the criticism, I rarely see (with exception of Steve himself), people complaining that the trim 10 one hour episode seasons, actually took some good things from Star Trek. When money and expectations allowed those long 20 episodes seasons, there was waaaay more time to develop characters, their relationships, personalities, hobbies and arcs. Many things feel rushed or forced. I.E.: Bashir and O'Riley's relationship is slowly and endearingly developed across multiple seasons, through small gestures. While Discovery actors and writers have barely anytime and situations to do the same, even with core characters. they seemed to be trying harder in the last season, but no one can work miracles. I really wonder with longer and slower paced seasons are dead forever or if streaming could try to successfully bring them back.
I dunno if the budgets on current trek are smaller, or if they just spend more money on sfx and larger supporting casts.
I'm something of a late comer to Trek. I was always aware of it, but I never watched anything until mid-run Voyager. However, I've gone back and watched many of the older shows and episodes, and I completely agree some episodes/shows/etc do not resonate with me and that's fine. At the same time, I do think that when creators take on a franchise like Star Trek, they always have to remember part of their job is making the fans happy. New direction is good, different choices are welcome, but without a core respect for the fans, they will never give anything back. Case in point, when Kenneth Brannagh directed Thor, he couldn't say Mjolnir. He asked the writers if they could remove the name, and they said no, the fans will hate us. And Brannagh acquiesced. That's the kind of respect that needs to be shown at all times.