New comment rule: any comment that complains that Star Trek is "woke" without a VERY detailed explanation about what you specifically mean and why you think that it's A: bad, and B: different from how Trek has always been, will be deleted without discussion. It's fine to disagree, but lazy, bad faith arguments are a waste of everyone's time.
@@priyonjoni wrong. The term originally meant being aware of injustices in society. Currently, the meaning refers to the entertainment industry shifting from solid storytelling to corporate lip service in order to appear like they're inclusive to the public, but just like with for example greenwashing not actually doing anything
@@monkeyzorr3090 "Currently, the meaning refers to the entertainment industry shifting from..." This is nonsense. Woke is a catch-all phrase that means "liberal in any way I think is bad." In the 90s the term was "politically correct." Same shit, new word. It's not specific to the entertainment industry. It's not specific to anything at all. It's just a pejorative that people who feel threatened by diversity use to signal to their fellow dipshits how awful they are.
It can have all the standard identity politics and be fine. The word woke has evolved to mean identity politics at the detriment of plot and everything else. Though people interpret the word woke to many different things. I dislike greatly saying historical shows like OG Star Trek is woke just because it was progressive for the time nothing was "woke" until only a few years ago, when it was stolen from BLM and evolved in to what it is now. Woke is a strong political statement and a shortcut to say the writing of a show has ignored good writing to inject an overwhelming amount of identity politics whenever possible to further an agenda. And I agree that bringing in characters like Scotty and Kirk lowers the quality of the show, I like the SNW characters.
SNW is amazing. As a Gen Xer I swear that even watching the lead-in feels exactly like, even looks like what I would imagine when I was five and TOS was coming on. It's shocking the show makers could do such an incredible job of capturing the feel of TOS especially contrasting other recent shows failures or disinterest. Yes it's not perfectly consistent with TOS set design but it's completely believable that this is exactly what TOS would've looked like if it was originally made today. I'd rather it hadn't split off DISC but no trek is perfect.
I'm also a GenXer and I totally agree about the ship design (exteriors). The Enterprise looks EXACTLY like the painted covers of those James Blish Star Trek episode novelizations in the 70s. Love it.
Trust me, its best to watch season 2 ( i think) of Discovery for a bit of crew backstory but not necessary. i have seen all trek shows and movies - SNW is my fav. Pike alone makes the show. when this is finished , the new best captain question will be Kirk vs Picard vs Pike.
I don't have a problem with SNW or the callbacks because THEY MAKE SENSE for the supposed timeframe of the show. It has to be between the encounter at Talos IV and the voyages of TOS. It makes sense that a lot of the TOS crew is in both series (with different actors of course). The Gorn are an issue as is the Romulan temporal war, but damn it Jim they're writers not Federation Historians! I really like SNW and your video. I hope you get more subscribers.
I have no issues whatsoever with Fan service, we are the reason it succeeds. That said I agree Fan service should not preclude great new stories and SNW strikes that Ballance.
I agree the Discovery and Picard were just too damn fast and plot driven. When I watched the Strange New Worlds premiere, I was blown away and i loved it! Yhe characters had chances to breathe and everyone was well cast. It was the perfect blend of new and old Trek. It had the best opener and est Season 1 of any Trek.
My personal favorite 'NuTrek' show is Lower Decks, which IMO manages to keep the Trek optimism in a comedy setting (avoiding the 'half the characters are sociopaths' trope that plagues too many 'adult' animated shows ), but it is definitely too fan-service and reference heavy for most who don't have a few decades of media under their belt. Prodigy surprised me. The pilot felt more like one of the Star Wars CG cartoons to me at first, but after a few episodes it matured into a strong Trek show despite its focus on a younger demographic IMO, and I'm disappointed it didn't/ probably won't get the chance to run longer than its completed episodes.
I find it interesting and maybe telling that it's the only one that Kurtzman is heavily involved in thats Very Good. I suspect that it's because it's the only one *intended* to be self-parody instead of being coincidental parody like PIC and DISC.
Great analysis. I mostly agree with your points. I do feel like a return to a more episodic format but with some follow-through and story arcs (aka a hybrid) is better for "Trek." There's a lot of danger in devoting a season to One Big Bad, especially if the thing you pick isn't that good. And Discovery managed to do that five seasons in a row. I wanted more serialization after DS9, but they had a fantastic arc. Enterprise showed the danger in a whole season devoted to an arc (Xinidi). Discovery didn't learn the lesson. Neither did "Picard." But SNW could be straight-up serialization and Disco could be totally episodic, and SNW would be better because of all of Disco's other woes you pointed out. The serialization makes it worse but it's probably not the singular reason Disco is so far off-course.
I really tried hard not to paint all of 'new trek' with the same brush. I tried all of it, and most of it just left me cold. I tried Discovery for a whole season (and even longer), but it just never sat right with me - and I think you are right. It was very soap opera-y with a lot of interpersonal conflict and angst. I am sure on TNG, they were "going at it" like rabbits, especially Riker, but we were never told about it much - it was all left to our imagination. Which hits on a HUGE part of Star Trek for me. I don't need the whole story, and I can draw my own inferences; and in fact, I like doing that. I don't want or need first hand experience about who is in an intimate relationship with who. Picard was okay - I actually liked the first season, but I couldn't stay with it. Lower Decks I dislike for the same reason I dislike the Orville - way, way too much 7 year old boy humor - fart jokes, body secretions jokes, etc. I know I am in the minority of this - I have never been a Jim Carey fan either. It's just not my thing. What made me watch this video, though, is the 'Old, Comfy Chair' phrase. This was *exactly* how I felt watching SNW for the first time. I had come home again for the first time in a long, long time. The references to earlier Trek were distracting for a minute, but that was kind of easy to brush away for the most part - this *is* James Kirk's ship, and many characters from the original series are going to be here. There is this kind of attitude with TOS, TNG, Voyager and SNW (and Enterprise a little) - the idea that we have conquered our own issues and problems like poverty, prejudice, etc, and learned tolerance and even acceptance of other cultures. There is hope in that, and I think that hope is why I like a lot of Star Trek. And I know, even in these shows, sometimes the characters maybe aren't as enlightened as this is painting them to be, but that also adds contrast, and indicates that we have a long way to go even still. There is a depth to that idea, a wonder about where we may be heading, and I get to explore that idea on my own, and not have it told to me. Sorry for the long post, and I know it probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I just felt like I was heard for a minute. :)
Makes total sense. Completely agree with the familiar comforting feeling of SNW, even if I may disagree about some of the other shows (I quite like Lower Decks but have a hard time with The Orville for similar reasons as you).
I get what you're saying about callback characters, but SNW is an immediate prequel to the original series, and set on the same ship. With the exception of Spock, all are minor or background characters who did not get a lot of time or development in TOS. Even with Spock, it's fun to see the more emotional stage of his life and dovetails nicely with how he was presented in "The Cage / Menagerie". For the people who keep whining about "woke" Trek, the only reason TOS wasn't this woke was the studio executives who held the purse strings (as stingy as they were). Gene Rodenberry most certainly wanted to go there.
And it went there a whole lot anyway. Go back and actually pay attention to the TOS & TNG: Just as "Woke" as anything now. In the end, all woke really means is someone saying "I don't like that!"
@@wlewisiii _"In the end, all woke really means is someone saying "I don't like that!"_ Spreading misinformation there. The term originally meant being aware of injustice in society. The current meaning however pertains to the entertainment industry shifting from solid storytelling to corporate lip service in order to appear inclusive to the public, but just like with greenwashing not actually doing anything
@@monkeyzorr3090 Awkwardly, it has about three different overlapping, related, and opposed/contradictory meanings. 1: The origional awareness of social injustice. 2:The right wing snarl word for anything insufficiently oppressive to people not in the speaker's ingroup (or which they have been convinced is in any way oppressive of those who are), or tangentally adjacent to such because of political tribalism. 3: The media practice of throwing good writing out the window in favour of preaching (badly) about how evil men/white people/heterosexuals/cisgender people (pick any combination) are for... existing... and enjoying the franchise the media in question is supposed to be part of... and when you look at this carefully it shows distinct signs of not being intended, At All, to actually promote the things it is supposedly supporting, but to bait the far right into pitching a fit over it and thereby discrediting the large amount of entirely legitimate criticisem of the fact that the media in question is just... badly made (with a side effect of stroking the egos of certain individuals involved in the process) and allowing those who made money off making the thing badly to convince those whose money they took that the venture failed, not due to the incompitence of those who now have the money, but because of those Evil (insert unfavoured demographic here) in the audience actively sabotaging it for political reasons. A sort of pseudo-equivalent of greenwashing. Unfortunately, by the very nature of 3, it often shows up in the same spaces as 2. This is kind of similar, and related, to 'social justice warrior'. Origionally, this was a (I think christian related?) term for someone actively fighting for positive change and an increase in, well, 'social justice', that is, people not getting screwed over by society for unjust reasons (such as being poor or part of a racial minority), and was used in a more abstract, collective, aspirational manner: "we must become warriors for social justice!" rather than "I'm a social justice warrior". This use Somewhat faded out of public awareness for a while, before popping up again, mostly in the context of Really Obnoxious people using it as an excuse to continue being Really Obnoxious (I'm being polite here) because they were in favour of political positions that were generally considered 'good'. Naturally this made the term a Prime target for becoming a right wing snarl word for 'progressive social change I don't like (usually entirely due to political tribalism)'. Over time this combination of usages evolved, at least online, into more moderate and reasonable types making a distinction between 'activists' and 'SJWs', best illistrated thusly: An activist will see a person in a wheelchair struggling to ascende the stairs into the local public library, offer to assist if doing so would actually help, then set about raising awareness of the problem among the public, and explaining how it can be corrected (and any side benefits), building public support for change, then go to the relevant decision makers and authorities and present them with the plan, proposed solution, and the fact of public support for this change. Baring outside factors, this will generally lead to, in this example, a ramp being built as well as or instead of the existing stairs, allowing those in wheelchairs, and anyone else with mobility issues, and people transporting things into and out of the building, to access the library much more easily and causing little or no inconvenience for anyone else. An SJW, seeing the same situation, will not help the person in the wheelchair, but instead yell at everyone else for daring to be able to use the stairs. They will not start an informatio campaign regarding the problem, but instead asscribe the existence of stairs to an out group they don't like and then set about informing everyone they can that this outgroup is solely responsible for the existence of stairs specifically so that people in wheelchairs cannot access places. They will not gather public support and viable solutions, but instead harass and disrupt those who would make the relevant decisions, making it difficult for them to get on with doing their jobs, berrating them for not having already solved the issue (that they're only just hearing about), and at the end of the day when they eventually browbeat enough people into going along with something to get them to shut up and go away, the result is the removal of the library stairs, so now No One can get in. The SJW sees this as a great success. Meanwhile the public as a whole is now pissed off at what seems, from their point of view, to have been disabled people, or at least public figures supposedly in favour of improving things for disable people, taking away their library access... this over all makes the situation worse for everyone, and increases discrimination against disabled people. Now, obviously, the latter is exagerated in terms of real world effects, largely because it's rare that everyone involved in the dicision making process is both radicalised enough And stupid enough to go along with this Obviously idiotic "solution", (and the both assume that the issue being addressed is minor and local) but it's intended to illistrate the thinking and methods of the type of person being refered to, which it does fairly well.
Agreed, and I'll add one more. Discovery didn't bother giving us reasons why we should root for Burnham. The writers had a checklist , and you can practically see the checklist.
So far, i only watched Season 1 and my conclusion on that is, that it is better than STD, but sometimes still suffers from it's mother series. But my favourite show of all "NuTrek" is Lower Decks. Yes, it has the typical Rick & Morty humor, but it is serious, when it needs to and when something bad happens, it is not ONE crewmember alone, who saves the day.
Enterprise season 4’s structure of lots of 2 and 3 part stories is the model that future Trek series should have followed, IMO. With Enterprise we reliably had back-to-back good Trek episodes. Season 3’s Xindi’s arc was divisive* but almost everyone is very positive about season 4. * But I’m a season 3/Xindi Arc super fan though, myself. It was a genius exploration of how much of their humanity they were willing to sacrifice in order to save humanity.
I didn't love the Xindi stuff and it felt like a desperate attempt to fix the miserable ratings. I definitely think S4 was the strongest and it felt like the writers knew they were canceled and so stopped trying to please anyone but the fans. It's funny you say everyone is positive about S4 being good. I feel like I'm a lone voice in the wind when I say that. :) Enterprise's core problem (as is always the case with mediocre Trek) was character-based. Bakula was never a good fit for Trek, IMO, and the rest of the ensemble was pretty meh (T'Pol and Phlox notwithstanding).
we'll never know what quality we might have had long term if S4 had been the original concept out of the gate. I'm off the opinion that you could probably have put together one full season of pretty good episodes out of the rest (if you avoid all TCW and Xindi stuff) and then what we experience as S4 (except the first and last episodes) as season two, you'd have the start of something very interesting. But, alas...
You know, I love Strange New Worlds but I couldn't figure out why I still had a bit of a problem with it. I feel you hit it on the head with the "callbacks" and the constant revisiting of the past shows, lore, people, etc. This was probably why I liked TNG, they did revisit the past occasionally but there were so many episodes each season, the "callback" episodes just went into the mix. Keep the humor, keep the quiet times between characters between end-of-universe action sequences and tell a good story. The Star Trek model overlayed on top of the "24" model of action series is not my cup of tea. I'm exhausted by the end and I have a sugar high from all the grand speeches and all the rigorous patting of each of the characters on the others backs. Strange New Worlds has become one of my favorites.
Strange New Worlds seems to forget that Starfleet is a military organization. As a Navy retiree, I can honestly state that the only Star Trek shipboard uniforms that make any sense are TOS and Enterprise. They are simple, not tight fitting so that they would impede motion, nor do they feature any elements that can snag on machinery. I could have worn these uniforms in the engine room of an aircraft carrier without difficulty, the other uniforms ... not so much. Space is invariably tight onboard ships, TOS and Enterprise, not to mention Defiant in DS9, reflected this with compact bridges and living quarters. The trend towards large, spacious bridges is merely to invoke a "cool factor". Do you really want a control center where you can't comfortably converse with other team members without raising your voice to speak across the space or look over their shoulder? Close quarters enhance coordination. Then there is crew behavior. I swear, all modern Trek involves talking about feelings, often to the point that it comes off as a junior high school teen drama. Professionals are generally stoic and mission-focused, an emotional coworker is a weak link...you can save it for whenever you are off-duty. Have any of these people ever looked at how Nimoy portrayed Spock? He would not take casual disrespect from subordinates and is hardly naive or emotionally crippled ... the incomprehension of his crewmate's emotions is clearly and obviously sandbagging of one variety or another.
I hear these complaints, and they do make sense to me, and yet they fail to bother me in the least. I'd much rather the show runners focus on getting space physics right (also a perennial problem in Trek, technobabble aside) than proper military decorum or realism. Yes, Star Fleet is modeled after the Navy in terms of rank/hierarchy, but the mission is much closer to NASA's exploration mandate. I don't need Trek to be a military show. I am curious what about SNW uniforms bothers you -- in terms of fit and insignia (shoulder pads aside), they seem very close to the TOS uniforms. Are they not?
When you task a ship with defending your civilization from extinction, and outfit it with weapons capable of destroying life on a planetary scale, you definitely want personnel who obey the chain of command, and standing orders, rather than going with their feelings... i.e., at the least, a paramilitary organization.
@@53kenner yeah, again, I don't disagree with the point, it just doesn't get in the way of my enjoyment of the show as much as other ways the show lacks realism. I wouldn't be mad about it if they hewed closer to a more naval-like military attitude, but that particular bugbear doesn't resonate with me personally. That's all.
Based on watching my Dad's career in the USN during the Cold War, the first thing SNW should do to look 'more military' is change the uniforms every 3 years, and make them less practical and comfortable about every other time, and about every fourth time use a fabric totally inappropriate to the purpose.
@@53kenner _"Strange New Worlds seems to forget that Starfleet is a military organization."_ Which is fine, because Same Old Crap isn't canon to _genuine_ Star Trek, and even if it were, Starfleet is not a military organization but a scientific one that explores the galaxy
Actually I like the nods to the lore, at least the few I pick, the series is not based on them, there is good scifi, the nods are just a nice adornment.
To be honest, I don't *want* to think of SNW as being a "completely new thing," but rather as a kind of modernized continuation of the The Original Series. (The fact that this is actually a *prequel" of TOS notwithstanding.) SNW is the first ST series in a long time that I can remember actually being *excited* about, with its faithfulness to canon and continuity being in what I'd consider good balance with "new stuff," too. The last season of TOS came out the year I was born, so I have lived with Trek my whole life. In fact, one of my very earliest memories (between 1 and 3 years old) was of sitting on our living room floor watching Star Trek. So again, notwithstanding the fact that this is a prequel, I find Strange New Worlds to be a joyfully refreshing "picking up where they left off, all those years ago."
If you want a hopeful Star Trek series without the weight of past lore, may I suggest The Orville. It's got some Seth MacFarlane humor in it, and if that's not your cup of tea, I respect that, but for the most part, it's TNG with the serial numbers filed off.
Indeed. The Orville brings to the screenplay what current Trek under Kurtzman does not... Balance. In NuTrek there are villains who are clearly bad but their reasoning is rarely developed. The Orville on the other hand took seasons to develop the motivations of species that allowed the screenwriters to showcase how the Kaylon were misunderstood and fighting against enslavement, the Krill were following religious doctrine and yet an inroad to peace was forged, and the Union's primary military supplier the Moclans were a divided society that kept it's population ignorant of the truth that they were not as mono gendered as they'd been led to believe and were willing to kill that ultimately led to their leadership coming across as cry bullies and were expelled for trying to kill the daughter of a proud father who came to see that he could love his female child thanks to the story of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer while reconciling with his husband over the issue... I want to enjoy Nu Trek... But the short seasons and direction of the writers seems to make it apparent that they have a different take on how to develop plots that just don't engage. Not in the way Classic Trek did where modern day contemporary issues could be addressed in the sci-fi allegory that blended entertainment with thoughtful consideration. Where NuTrek issues proclamations that highlight a chip on the writers shoulder, the Orville takes a step back and takes a more nuanced and overall look at a bigger picture. Essentially... NuTrek punches up the action/drama while The Orville maintains the intellectual narratives Star Trek was known for before Kurtzman went all Tom Paris on Tuvok's Holo simulations.
St:discovery is more like a cruel horror fest in parts and just crudily cruel in others while also wacky with that fungus drive with limitless range. It's too in your face then dial it up to 2000. It has some nice moments but to suffer through the rest of it is a big ask imo. I think more recent writers don't have much of a vision or some wisdom or insight to share. That makes the storytelling kind of flat, superficial and um.. ignorant.
I actually think this current (final) season of Discovery is a bit of a course correction. Best season of the show so far, I think, though that’s a low bar. But I’m finally starting to care a tiny bit about the characters and stakes.
You literally can't help being self-referential when the whole show is about established characters. Sometimes it's what I like about SNW. Even the musical callback in "Spock Amok". I grew up on TOS so that's part of the appeal for me.
This is spot on.. Strange New Worlds have that Trek feeling that others lack.. It's all about respect of the source ideas and ideologies. Trek represents a post scarcity society with lots of optimism. That's it.. Star Wars is space opera about dictatorship and it's opposition... Lord of The Rings is a fantasy world with good vs evil, where the stakes are set pretty much at the beginning of time, and all have their fixed roles.. Your ancestor did something bad, you carry the stain etc...Fate rules completely.
"fan service" is *engaging* . When I showed a co-worker from India, who didn't know anything about Star Trek, the new Pikard series opener, we first had to watch "Measure of a Man". After watching an episode in general, the discussion is "which classic episode do you re-watch first?" Besides the actual episode of whichever Trek, there's the official aftershow and at least one third-party commentator, so the hour-long watch is amplified by 2 to 3x. For a look at completely original characters and stories, look into the fan fiction. They have a new ship, new original characters, and novel stories yet reference the overall worldbuilding background.
I know fan service is popular, and I acknowledge that in the video, but there was a reason Star Trek was popular to begin with, before the current fan culture existed to appease in the first place. It's great your friend had a Trek fan to guide them to earlier episodes and a deeper experience, but it's also telling that you felt you had to watch a classic episode in order to enjoy the Picard opener. That actually sounds like a problem to me. TNG and DS9 (and to a lesser extent Voyager and Enterprise) existed in a post-TOS world but still managed to have completely original characters and stories set in-universe without constant easter eggs and call backs. It's not just Trek, Star Wars is guilty of this same thing. It's not a deal breaker, I love SNW, but the larger fan-service-before-story thing is a real problem and, I think, a big part of why Picard was so bad.
@@suezcontours6653 It's probable that at least some of the improved audience score on Rotten Tomatoes over Discovery's score is because SNW foregrounds a white cis hetero dude instead of a woman of color, but that's not why I think SNW is better. Representation isn't Discovery's problem, tone is (among other scripting issues). But yeah, part of the show's success is likely down to Pike being a traditional white guy, no question.
@think_thing I'm not worried at all. Women who look like Burnham are more focused on being mothers. Discovery and all Tech TV shows and movies with diverse leading casts were basically recruitment Adverts.
@@think_thing It wasn't _necessary_ for the plot or the enjoyment. It was *deeper* that it's about someone I know, who had his own redemption cycle. What would be unfair is if an "easter egg" was actually necessary to follow the plot; e.g. Novice: "Why did he do that? His actions and apparent motives make no sense! Why would he do that out of the blue?" Trekkie: "Didn't you see his insignia?"
SNW and LD are my favorite NuTrek, and I think you've nailed why - The fact that these characters live in world of hope. That's something I've always loved about Star Trek. Besides that overall opportunistic world view, I like that the characters are likeable and feel like their on the same team. Too many of the characters in STD are obnoxious, full of strife, self-hatred, and/or have ulterior motives, that they're a bunch of jerks. I've really tied to watch that show, forced myself through S1 to "give it a chance", and S2 was tolerable because of Pike, but I just can't get through S3. I just don't *CARE* about these characters and the stories are poorly written. I'm guess it's for other fans, and that's fine. I'll be content w/SNW and LD.
I think what Strange New Worlds achieved was the balance between serialization and standalone storytelling. We knew from the start that it wouldn't be a return to the "Reset Button of the Week" storytelling, as we were told that the stories themselves would be standalone, but the character development and world building would carry forward. In retrospect, I would liken SNW's structure to Deep Space Nine, where the Dominion War story was always there, if only in the background, while the story being told had taken a different tangent, and I think the end result benefits from it. In my opinion, Discovery's problem has tended to be the pacing of its arcs, often padding and stretching out the story to cover the episode count, while doing a disservice to the payoff.
Hemmer’s less impressive antenna vs. how good Andorians looked in Enterprise 20 years ago was distracting for me. Surely special effects should have got better, not worse, in that time?
@@johnassal5838 That is like saying Romulans are Vulcans... While an argument can be made both sets are definitely related..... They are different and as such have different societies and characteristics. Did the Aenar in Enterprise look and act like the Andorians from Enterprise?
I watched your analysis as I was celebrating the long-awaited final episode of Discovery, feeling even less satisfied than I thought possible. But I do agree with your assessment of Strange New Worlds, a Star Trek that returns to the mores of traditional trek, rather than the conflict of Zap!-Bonk!-Pow!-driven science fiction. It is noteworthy that Discovery, while still quite serialized, adopted a much more episodic feel for it's final season. An attempt perhaps, to repair bad showrunner decisions by focusing on a single fan criticism. (and not the right one) You did say you were not going to refer to season 2, but I would have liked a mention of the brilliant addition of Carol Kane as new-character 'Pelia", the most delightful sci-fi character since Farscape's Utu-Noranti Pralatong. I look very forward to Scotty working under her in season 3!
I agree S5 of Discovery made a course correction and I thought it was a little better -- I haven't seen the finale yet. Making it a scavenger hunt was an improvement over the exhausting whiplash-inducing narrative excesses of earlier seasons. I like Carol Kane too and I wonder if she'll stick around for S3 or if they will just bring Scotty in and be done.
@@think_thing She mentioned that she had trained him, so I'm hoping to watch her train him further on exaggerating repair times and changing the laws of physics. 😉
I've loved Strange New Worlds since its inception. My biggest issue with Discovery is that its initial premise called for a show that would revolve around a starship's First Officer rather than its Captain, which never occurred. I could go into other issues (like canon), however, nobody wants to discuss that.
The point of the callbacks is that the story is a prequel and is leading up to the original series. Kirk did not walk onto the bridge and fire everybody, bringing on a new crew. Gradually adding the crew members that were in the original series is a valid way to go. The stories are what is important, and they are good.
A number of commenters have made this same point, but it's actually missing the central complaint. My deal with callbacks is not that they are unrealistic. Sure, it's a prequel, so some crew are likely to be the same between Pike's Enterprise and Kirk's a few years later. But every member of the main ensemble is a legacy call back (ok, Ortegas isn't really, but the rest are). That's a choice that the show runners made and given how incredibly pandering both Lower Decks and Picard are in terms of fan service, it really feels like there's a reticence to write new characters and tell new stories -- even the choice to make it a prequel feels that way, though I am obviously happy they did it. Even Discovery is guilty of the fan service, making Burnham Spock's sister. I mean, come on. TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise gave us new characters and new adventures (a few direct call backs like "The Naked Now" notwithstanding) and built an entire new mythos (and fan base in the process). Why can't that happen now? Must everything feed the nostalgia machine? I obviously agree the stories are good and that is definitely more important than my fan service complaint, but my complaint stands.
I have only one issue with M'Benga being the Chief Medical Officer on SNW. It means that in order for McCoy to be CMO, something has to happen to M'Benga. Whether it be him stepping down for some reason, or getting demoted by Kirk, it means he gets a bad rap. I don't want this to happen as I really like the character. My hope is that it turns out this isn't the M'Benga we know from TOS, but his father, who steps down to care for Pike after the accident. This can then give a good transition to Piper, as a temp CMO, until McCoy comes on board. M'Benga shouldn't be screwed over plot-wise just to get to TOS.
I love DS9. Until SNW I’d have said DS9 was, episode for episode, the best Trek show. TNG had some truly transcendently great episodes, but also some really, really terrible ones. DS9 didn’t have bad eps. There were lots of mediocre eps and a few great ones, but no bad ones. I can’t say that about any of the other shows.
@@think_thing Let's be honest the first 2.5 seasons of TNG were as a whole mediocre. With just as many, if not more, poor ones than decent ones. The irony is it wasn't until Gene stepped down as lead is when TNG got good more consistently. While Gene had MANY faults and people like to give him credit when it was his writers, producers who should get said credit (if it wasn't for his other exec producers, writers and left to just Gene's idea for ST it would have been based on a Earth ship that traveled just within the solar system) he laid the foundation in the 60s to what we got today. However by the 80s he was clearly out of touch and didn't grasp the changes in TV/SF. He kept writing scripts and characters like it was still 1968. TMP and the first couple seasons of TNG are prime examples of how out of touch he had become. The movies got good (mostly) after he was removed as lead and the same with TNG when he stepped down due to his health. It's pretty obvious he was the out of touch problem with ST by the time the 80s rolled around not the trail blazer he was in the 60s. And that's fine, but let's be honest about it rather then keep putting him on this pedestal with rose colored glasses.
@@PeterHarlequinWhite I mostly disagree with this take. Firstly, I think TMP is a vastly underrated movie, and since Wrath of Khan is consistently ranked as the best of the Trek films and Roddenberry was still very much the franchise lead at that point, I just don't think your thesis holds water. You're right that GR wasn't the head writer, like most EPs are these days, and the relative quality of Trek shows varied wildly, based in part on who was writing them. Roddenberry had mostly stepped down from running Trek actively after season 1 of TNG, but season 2 was even worse, quality-wise. TNG got better following the 1988 WGA strike, after which the show started accepting fan spec scripts and writers like Ronald Moore (Battlestar Galactica, For All Mankind) started writings eps. The really great eps didn't start in earnest until S3, but throughout the rest of the show's run it was a real mixed bag of greatness and crap, IMO. The heights of TNG were so great, but the valleys were pretty freakin' low. DS9 was consistently decent -- never really reaching the occasional greatness of TNG, but also never dropping into cringe badness. YMMV
This Star Trek is not like the 90's era at all. I personally still feel the writing is under-par compared to TNG and DS9 and have yet to see an episode of the same quality of those shows. I think the show is very much at war with itself, it wants to be the Trek of the 90's but the quality of the dialogue and writing is just not there. Plus, I really wish they'd go back to even lightening and stop running fast cuts all the time because the stories are never given moments to breath, the pacing is really off-putting. Its not as bad as Discovery or Picard but it still feels like they do not have quality writers on the show. The optimism is just not present... I'm all dystopia'ed out. I also feel it was a mistake to make yet another show during the TOS era.
There's a critique I failed to include in the video and it's about the SHOULDER PADS!!! I hate those pointy, angled shoulders on all the shirts. Go back to natural, rounded shoulder cuts, costume designers, I'm begging you!
Could not disagree more, the sharp shoulders manage to take a basic shirt and make it look like a uniform. It has the best fit of every Starfleet uniform except maybe the monster maroon.
Completely agree, although I don't mind the callbacks toooooo much tbh. SNW was the first show again since Voyager that I got really addicted to and excited about. I really didn't like Picard, I felt like it was extremely self-indulgent and this whole character arc of "so many people have to die so that the poor main character (who grew up in a castle in France...) can finally let love into his heart (read that very sarcastically...)" was actually really shocking to me in the way that I thought back then this is EXACTLY why I like Trek, that it usually doesn't do this. Picard actually made me angry because I also found it quite outdated and it tried to make up for that with callbacks but it didn't work imo. Trek is also about being forward for me and I felt like the very premise of Picard was extremely backward. Not to mention that as you say, Trek is optimistic and Picard not only introduced a hierarchical society, it also killed off so many callback characters that were about hope on the horizon. I mean - sorry, I get really cranky when I think of Picard lol. Discovery - hmmmm yeah. I'm sad about that actually. I'm non-binary myself and I was so excited about non-binary and queer rep in Trek because it makes complete sense in terms of what Star Trek is but then the show itself, as you say, is too plot driven and too close to what is basically mass-produced these days. I did like Season 4 but the rest of it was kind of meh. Diving into the dark side of the Federation is okay, DS9 does it often enough and it does it very well. Discovery didn't do it very well. And you're right about the part where crew-bonding, which should be light-hearted moments away from the complex storylines are still emotionally heavy in Discovery. I don't know why but it somehow makes the characters more one-dimensional to me because you never see the lighter side of them.
While I agree that ST:SNW is one of the best in decades, I feel that your dismissive attitude toward ST:LD is hastily considered. I watched all 4 seasons back-to-back last year and then shared them with my wife. My wife takes absolutely no stock in the Star Trek Universe's continuity and wouldn't get the fan service stuff if you planted it on her lap. What she does recognize is good television. She turned me on to Friends 30 years ago, got me into The West Wing, Modern Family, Ted Lasso, Parks and Recreation and The Diplomat and understands - at a core level - what makes great television. She doesn't have or make time for any serialized fiction that isn't of high quality. When I offered Lower Decks up to her, she was initially hesitant. But about 3 episodes in (probably quicker than that, as she didn't dismiss it earlier), she was pretty well hooked. Her interest lie in the characters, their interactions, the diversity of the crew and the humor with which they regarded the entire undertaking. The writing is top notch, so is the acting and the animation serves both the characters and the story at hand. You're entitled to your opinion - flawed as it may be - but when you indicate that the show's success is only due to fan service, you err. I didn't even notice how deep it was until my second time through. And while the Easter eggs are extremely well-done and they do make excellent use of the existing (TNG) universe without breaking it, the shows would stand on their own without any of it. Lower Decks fans love the characters, primarily.
I didn’t mean to suggest LD only succeeds because of fan service, but fan service is a big part of that show’s dna. I like LD and before SNW I was saying it and a few Short Treks were the only Trek worth watching. I freaking LOVE The Diplomat. I might do a video about it.
I miss the longer seasons. They let us get long stories but also time to breathe and get to know the characters. I feel like 10 episodes means they have to choose. Most Trek didn't find its feet until S3. _Disco_ isn't good IMO until S4 and even then, I don't know most characters names, let alone who they are. SNW is really kind of brilliant because we already know enough everyone that we can slip into their stories without too much difficulty, which is important in a limited season format. Disco proved that 10 eps are not enough time to invest in everyone, or in my case, anyone. SNW's biggest flaw is that it's limited in scope and time-frame. There are only so many things that can happen because of its setting, unless they devolve to Time War shenanigans, top secret ultra-magic Spore Drives nobody ever heard of, or other BS that would ruin it. I actually like SNW and I didn't think I would. It's a good show. IMO, it's the best Star Trek since _ST:Voyager_ My hope is that we'll get _Legacy._
This may be a "hot take" but Legacy feels like it would be taking the worst bits of Picard and making that a show. I have zero interest in that. Picard only held my interest because of the S3 fan service.
@@think_thing It would at least be new stories in the early 25th Century era. Many of us had hoped for a late 24th Century continuation when Disco was teased, but the only thing we have in that era is _Lower Decks._ _Disco S4 was OK. S5... meh. But jumping 900 years forward was as much of a mistake as putting the Spore Drive in the 23rd Century. (Quantum locked nacells might have seemed cool at the writing table, but still make zero sense when they need access by staff, and exchange materials to and from engineering. Like, cool transporter tech is a potential point of failure solving a problem nobody needed to create.) Sorry. I just want Star Trek to continue its story, not jump to random points and create huge plot-holes we never needed.
As someone who hated Discovery and Picard(although season 3 was fine) I agree with you on petty much every point. But i also wanna recommend Prodigy. Season 1 had all the strength of Star Trek and much less self referencing. Although season 2 went hard into it and got also very convoluted.
I think One reason Discovery failed that people overlook is that somehow there is infinite space inside the ship for turbolifts. It's things like that that make SNW seem better in comparison.
Yes! I've been enjoying SNW a lot, it just feels more Trek than Discovery did. When Michael started solving problems by mowing down a room full of people it kinda lost me
Good take! One note: the Anthology/Episodic-Ness of SNW is being understated IMHO. All of the season-arc stories he mentioned are basically of the character-portrait variety that I have never really thought belonged in sci-fi anyway; so they are easy to ignore.
TH-cam must have sent a notice to all creators to start adding the phrase "let's get into it" somewhere at the start of their videos, because I swear I hear that on every video from the past few weeks.
I agree that Strange New Worlds is the best Trek I've seen in a very long time. It's not perfect by any means, but it's head and shoulders above Discovery and the JJ Abrams movies!
I agree with your callback point if you were only pointing the finger at Lower Decks, but SNW is a prequel show on the Enterprise. So, the same characters, or those related to them are natural. The Khan connection is a stretch, but all the other ones are natural. You forgot that Scotty showed up in SNW.
I feel the call backs in SNW works better for the average person than say like Lower Decks because if you do not get the reference in SNW.... ah well it has a story as the cake and the reference is just the icing. In Lower Decks the references are so important to the show that they are the cake and the icing is any other part that might be called a story.... So sure Spock is well Spock but if you somehow didn't know about Spock well here you go start now. Yeah Pike was in the other shows but again who cares here is an actual character who is a new shining example of what most people want Star Fleet Captains to be..... He just happens to be named Pike. I am sure a large number of people had any idea Number One was from TOS until people starting talking about it. Also I mean Ortegas being the name that was going to be used? Definitely getting a little too picky with that one imo....
SNW and Season 3 Picard are the best when it comes to the NuTrek live-action. But an entire musical episode? A Lower Decks crossover? Season 2 SNW had some good episodes and some major stinkers, too. Even for experimentation episodes, they were just off. I'm also concerned with SNW's direction. Spock feels very weak in the series. They have him too emotional, and the other characters tend to run over him.
I personally wouldn't mind seeing a well-written well thought out movie about the very first captain of the Enterprise Robert April I think it would be even cooler to have the actor that plays Robert April from strange new worlds play him in the movie, although this is not like me to happen but it's just a thought
Well, hard disagree from this Trekkie. Voyager was my least favorite 90s era show and DS9 was my favorite (though my favorite individual eps were in TNG). But there’s more than one way to love Trek!
@@think_thing I still to this day cannot get in to DS9, a very thinly veiled spin off of TNG - which wasn't that great to me either. I've seen mexican soap operas and Japanese game shows in their native language(s) that I could get in to...and follow those storyline(s) easier than DS9. But like you said, to each their own.
Since we are watching the adventures of the Starship Enterprise a decade before Kirk takes the Conn. You NEED to see the characters from TOS in their previous lives.
I think we are due to return to camp. After decades of increasingly more and more serious and deep entertainment. The Campy goofball show is probably what we are looking for today. Today in the 2020s is much like the 1960s, a lot of social unrest and general anxiety about the state of things. Being flooded with doom and gloom, we are clinging towards a piece of low risk entertainment. We know Pike, Spock, Uhura, Chapel, M'benga, and Scotty have absolute plot armor on them, and we know they will make it out. Makes it safe feeling of adventure. Much like riding on a rollercoaster vs whitewater rafting. While both can be enjoyable the value of the enjoyment is based on where you are in life.
I don't disagree with this take at all. I might nitpick and say Pike has whatever the opposite of plot armor is -- we know exactly what happens to him and when. :) Until then though, sure.
Another area lacking in the writing is that there are so many miss opportunities. For example when Scotty first got aboard the Enterprise, instead of having him do something awesome they had other characters talk about how great he is. We have to constantly hear Ortegas being praised for being a good pilot of the ship rather than having her demonstrate the competency in an interesting way.
Pretty good summation, but I'd have an addition: "Classic" Trek did "moral plays" relatively often. You know - episodes with a particular message. Say the two black-white faced guys in classic Trek. I got what they wanted to tell me about racism as a kid in the 70s or 80s watching that episode. The most well known "episode with a message" is probably "Star Trek IV". Disco and Picard seem to have completely abandoned THAT part of what makes Trek special for me - I watched them all (and truly enjoyed Season 3 of Picard - all that Fanservice was what I needed after the estrangement of seasons 1 and 2) and I can't remember one episode like that. Strange New Worlds kicked off the show with one. All the classic colour schemes and designs masterfully combining the old with the new are fine and the characters are - you said it - just great. But the episode about that planet possibly about to nuke itself and Pike at the end holding that speech... ("Hi! I'm Christopher!") - That gave me the feeling that this show might not just be better than Disco and Picard (always from my point of view and taste ^^), but actually become proper good Trek. And the episode ended on a bloody hopeful outlook for that world too. Since then the show hasn't disappointed me once so far. Of course not all episodes are equally good, but they all have been good in my opinion. So far there wasn't one stinker. Which - the more episodes there are becomes more likely of course. So I surely won't be mad once it'll happen. :D #
Yes, excellent point about the morals of episodes. I think there are implicit morals in Discovery, and to a lesser extent Picard, but not overt, clear allegories like the episodes you mentioned.
@@think_thing Right, I mean the episodes with the obvious thing the writer wants you to think about in the end. :) The ones you can watch with kids and then talk about "what do you think the lesson here was?" or something similar. It might sound a little cheesy, but I totally love that part of Trek. After all, by it's "hard" definition, Science Fiction is meant to use it's fantastic settings to get people to think about stuff. Is Trek "hard" SciFi? Altogether... Not really. But every once in a while it does a good job at it. :) Ah, I just remembered another good one: Measure of a Man, the one where they decide Data doesn't belong to anyone, because he's sentient being. I do think we'll one day create a "real" AI (what's called AI atm is impressive and has deep consequences but it's not what we SciFi people mean by it - you know, "People In A Box" ^^ - proper self conscious entities) and if so at one point decisions about it's RIGHTS and similar things will have to be made like in the episode - one way or another.
My only complaint is how they've handled the Gorn because it contradicts TOS badly. If they can fix that next season, I'll be happy. As for the rest it, the pretend fans just need to get some chees to go whit their whines.,
lol. I'm actually fine with some retconning or even outright canon-abuse as long as the storytelling is engaging and the characters and stakes are relatable. But I get your complaint.
If the introduction of Kirk and a hyper-emotional, teenager-acting Spock didn't disappoint, then you aren't a real Trek fan, along with their hyper modern-day Bridge.
@@ronrhea2001 First, fan gate keeping is not cool. Please stop that. You don't get to decide who the "real Trek fans" are. Second, you may want to rewatch The Cage and observe all the ways Spock's behavior in that episode is so very un-Spock (smiling at blue flowers on Talos 4, randomly shouting on the bridge, yelling "the women!" on the transporter pad, etc.). Young Spock was very different than TOS Spock. You may not like Ethan Peck's performance (I think he's pretty good), but there's nothing in the writing that strikes me as anything more than exploring a still-getting-used-to-being-in-Starfleet beat. YMMV
@@think_thing _"You don't get to decide who the "real Trek fans" are."_ You're a akin to a vegan who eats meat but doesn't like being told he's not a vegan. Kurtzman Trek is nothing like Gene Roddenberry's _genuine_ Star Trek and if you wanna pretend you're a fan of Star Trek while watching corporate garbage like Same Old Crap, which you call SNW, then that's your delusion. Don't expect others to agree with your bubble
A prequel having characters that are mostly callbacks is fine. The only one I noticed it more for was La'an. And the main thing I dislike about her is more that she doesn't have any augmented abilities as far as I can tell. So, what's the point of her being descended from Khan? Overall though, they appear to have fleshed characters out in positive ways. Like T'Pring... Who was a horrible character in TOS. But here, she's a promising character who does not feel like a nut job... Which is not a bad choice. People being "evil" in Star Trek, is not particularly desirable.
Basic respect would have been to at least use his original designs, instead of redesigning everything. If they don't have the rights, then they should have just left it.
There are no rights issues that I’m aware of. Every show and movie ever made brings new design ideas, in everything from ship design to costumes to props to hair and make up. Look at the bridge design and costumes of TMP. This is nothing tv and movies haven’t always done.
@@think_thing There used to be rights issues, where they had to make things 20% different or so. Paramount had some of the rights, and CBS had some. I think CBS has them all now but either way it's a reboot. When they changed things for the TOS movies it didn't conflict with established canon, because time had gone by and they were upgrading their technology. For STD and SNW we know how things are supposed to look during that time period, so the fact that they dont' follow it means they aren't part of the existing continuity.
I think after Star Trek Legacy is done once they bring it. They should do a series set in the 25th Century that introduces new characters and new story lines furthering the adventure of the final frontier. All this while expanding yet keeping the format of what Trek is.
❤ the DISCO characters we got to know (some bridge crew just weren’t developed 🙁) Overall I enjoyed the ride, a little sad to see it go. Grew up on TOS in syndication, SNW is my jam!
For me, the difference is STD is a veneral disease, STP is made by people who hate people who hate Star Trek fans. Meanwhile, SNW is made by people who care about proper Star Trek, a more hopeful vision of the future. My main problem with it is, I want to see these characters last and tell their own stories, I don't want to see them being replaced by the new versions of the TOS crew.
It depends how you see Star Trek, iconic characters like Sherlock Holmes or as a universe like Elizabethan England. Personally, I prefer the iconic characters. I see the W-word as just a murky rightwing trope to disguise their hatred and racism.
Here's the way I look at it, every episode of strange new world so far has a "rewatchability" factor like the pre-2005 trek. At its worst, it's no worse than any of the more mundane TNG or DS9 episodes. DISCO is an absolute chore to get through add after the first few episodes of season 3 all the way to the end. I just found myself wanting to watch a recap video on TH-cam instead of the actual show. That being said, I have seen every episode of Discovery but several from the last three seasons have been so painful to get through. I can only think of a couple episodes of the entire series that have any kind of real "rewatchability". Same thing for seasons 1 & 2 of Picard. SNW has already produced some actual classics such as "Memento Mori". People whine about the Musical episode or the Lower Decks crossover but those are true guilty pleasures in the vein of TNG "Rascals" or DS9 "Take me out to the holosuite". There are plenty of fair criticisms of the show, but it is a significant course correction from DISCO or season 1/2 Picard.
It feels more like Trek than Picard, Lower Decks, and Discovery but it departs from TOS and TNG eras in its willingness to try new things. Every episode feels like it’s gonna jump the shark. I like it but would like to see a new series return to formula so we can have a bit of everything. I miss the days where the story unfolded at its own pace to reveal a moral quandary and/ or a clever solution to escape whatever it is ship and crew are mired in.
Trivial but a hill I will die on: Dr. M'Benga on SNW is NOT the same guy as the one on TOS. The age difference is irreconcilable. Booker Bradshaw was around 27 in TOS which would make him around 19 or 20 during the time period of SNW, whereas Babs was in his late 30's when SNW was being shot. Conclusion, he's the father, or uncle, or some such of the guy in TOS. This also accounts for their different status in the two shows. I know what the creators say, i don't care - can't be the same guy. Doesn't change your point at all but I seize every chance to rant about this.
DISCO on the most part is the lowest Trek IMO, however, without it, we wouldn't have gotten SNW. SNW is an ensemble cast to care about, that is what makes Trek, TREK! DISCO failed miserably in that regard. Took me 5 seasons to remember others names aside from Burnham, Saru and Tilly! LD is a fun ensemble cast romp of fan service and with animation, they can do things that are not possible in Live Action without it looking campy. However, I do agree with you 100% that SNW is the best Trek in the streaming era of Trek so far (PIC S3 is a very close second).
All of the Trek shows, classic and modern, can be found on Paramount Plus. It’s one of the 5 or 6 biggest streaming platforms, but I hear you, subscribing to 6 things is a lot.
The most basic thing is that the characters seem like relatively good people. They're fairly civilized and not ruled by animal instincts. And it doesn't have Discovery's annoying choice of having a main character of the show - who is also unlikable. Star Trek should not have a "main character" per se.
Oh, this isn't a mystery to me at all. The Federation is a society where you don't have to work unless you want to and you can live any lifestyle you choose, and a lot of people are for sure going to choose a life of hedonism, gluttony and sloth. Sure, technology will eliminate the most dangerous outcomes of that sort of life -- things like heart disease, diabetes, muscle atrophy, etc. -- people will be technically more healthy, but body image issues I hope are also less of a deal and so things like fat-shaming will seem barbaric -- at least that's how I would write the answer to this comment, if I was a Trek creator.
SNW got me back into Star Trek in a way that nothing else has. I was a kid when TOS was on, and, the first season of TNG was so bad, it took me awhile to get back into it. I watched it and DS9 kind of "dutifully" - I didn't do a whole lot of rewatching. I did watch and love Voyager, and I WANTED SO MUCH to love Enterprise, but it was a swing and a miss, in large part. Your points about Discovery are noted, but I feel defensive about that show because there was so much bad faith racism and misogyny attached to early criticism (even before it aired). Season 2 Discovery I absolutely love. As a prequel series, set only a few years before TOS, I'm not sure who wouldn't expect tons of legacy characters, though. I think they made a massive mistake in playing up the Chapel/Spock relationship - she was more interesting before they leaned into that. One of my least favorite elements of her "character" in TOS was that she basically had exactly one character trait - she was in unrequited love with Mr. Spock. Forming and developing a relationship between the two makes her less and less interesting, as she becomes a "girlfriend" character rather than a complex person in her own right. I love the risks that they have taken with SNW, and I find it just plain fun.
05:11 I'm sorry, but this accusation against FOX News is unfounded and could be construed as deceptive on your part. In the FOX News opinion piece you referenced, the author, David Marcus, never once uses the word "Marxist," nor does he paint with a broad brush in his criticism of two specific Star Trek: Discovery episodes. What Marcus does do is [quite rightfully] point out how the writers of the show used the series as a platform to push their own political agendas. He writes: "The first blatant example of electioneering on Star Trek: Discovery was a cameo by current and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams as none other than the President of the Federation of Planets. The second was a weird plot twist in the pilot of the new show, Strange New Worlds, in which the 2020 Capitol riot is depicted and blamed for starting a Second American Civil War and the destruction of the planet. To put it more succinctly, 'Orange man bad.'" In the same article, Marcus continues, pointing out this is nothing but partisan politics when he says: "The central confusion here is the difference between showing broad support for things like basic civil rights and openly advocating for one political party’s answers for securing them." Perhaps you didn't read the article in full, or at all; I don't know. However, it does appear you failed to grasp that Marcus is, in fact, a fan of the new Star Trek shows and actually praises key aspects of them: "The irony is that all three new Star Trek live-action shows are quite progressive in the diversity of their casting. And despite hysterical concerns about a backlash that never actually happens, everyone is on board as long as the story and the acting are good. Artists can, always have, and should use their work to hold a mirror up to their culture and society, even to advocate for broad agenda items. What they shouldn’t do is beam the equivalent of a 30-second Democrat Party political ad into the middle of a space adventure." It is clear that nothing in Marcus's article accuses Star Trek of 'Marxism.' It (the article) does, however, remind us how very far from Gene Roddenberry's original vision the current crop of Star Trek writers have strayed. Cheers!
Sigh. So, you're right that the text of the column I chose to screenshot for 5 seconds does not itself make a literal accusation of "marxism." With respect, this complaint, while true, misses the actual point I was making, which was a broad point about how Trek's tone has traditionally been optimistic and utopian due in part to it's hewing rather closely to standard mid-century American liberalism, despite others (broadly) complaining that it's too PC/woke/Marxist. I should have known I'd get called out on a detail like that, but the politics of Trek was not the central thrust of the point I was making there, it was a setup for the point, and I found a visual that supported that setup (the headline). When and if I ever make a video that's actually *about* the politics of Trek, I'll be sure to be more precise and cite sources accordingly, but this was visual shorthand. That said, Marcus's column is full of bad faith, disingenuous arguments. Stacy Abrams is a well known sci fi nerd and a huge Trek fan (and serious Buffy fan too). Her appearance was a cute easter egg. Marcus compares her appearance on the show with a 30 second political spot. Does he feel the same way about politicians appearing on SNL? Regarding the images from Jan 6 -- if that episode had been produced in 2020 the image used would have been of the George Floyd protests. If it was made in 2011 it would have been of Occupy Wall Street. Pike makes a point about "us vs. them" mentality and then uses images of what are for us current events to send the point home (to the aliens he's addressing and more importantly to the audience watching at home) and that point -- that our entrenched political and social divides can become so toxic that there's a body count -- is a really good point to make, one I'm surprised David Marcus is okay appearing to disagree with. For one to take that scene and conclude that the writers were saying "orange man bad" requires that they not actually listen to the words coming out of Pike's mouth. "The central confusion here is the difference between showing broad support for things like basic civil rights and openly advocating for one political party’s answers for securing them." Trek has always (ALWAYS) promoted a liberal, utopian, egalitarian vision of the future. It's anti racist, pro union, pro gay rights, and occasionally pacifist in its utopian ideals. If the writers are going to advocate for a given planet's best ways to achieve that kind of future, which Republican Party platform position does Mr. Marcus think the writers should use as a balance to the ones he identifies as being too "democrat?" I'm sorry, but beautiful visions of sci-fi utopian societies have a progressive bias. That was true in 1966 too. "...despite hysterical concerns about a backlash that never actually happens, everyone is on board as long as the story and the acting are good." I invite you to peruse this very comments section and see if you can find any signs of the backlash Mr. Marcus thinks doesn't exist.
...also, did David Marcus pen an op ed about how woke Batman had become after Senator Patrick Leahy made a cameo in The Dark Knight? Was that a 30 second political ad?
I liked the blind guy, he was sarcastic and interesting, they should be able to do what they want, the ST universe is pretty mess up now so just put some proper thorns in the time line and do you own thing. PS I did like Discovery 1st series, maybe the second too, but I don't think I have understood what is actually going on since then. Its sort the guy the cat and his ship that is just bits of stuff, plus everyone coming up with ideas
I'd personally wanted TNG to be followed by a Star Trek in the 25th century, or the 29th century. The idea of prequels is a little annoying to me. Although I liked Enterprise well enough (minus Season 2), and SNW... Is a total success!
Casual nit pick. I know this is late to make any changes but almighty Zarquon! The dam thing is huge. A walk across the bridge looks like Pike is hiking lengthwise McCormick Place in Chicago. They need communicators just to talk to each other in Pikes Quarters. TOS quarters were at least plausible in size. Not a 3400' sq ft McManson. Unless each quarters is fitted with a Tardis bigger on the inside than the outside do-hickey.
I hear this and I get it, but I love the ways the interior windows in rooms like Pike’s quarters are exact analogs to what we see in exterior shots. And the scale of the Enterprise feels real to me in ways earlier ships never did. But yeah, Pike lives in the Star fleet version of the apartment in Friends.
I was turned off by the unnatural dialogue and interactions characters had between each other. Felt so weird watching it that I gave up halfway through the first season.
I only caught the pilot and decided it wasn't for me -- meaning it's aimed at such a young audience, I didn't really think I'd enjoy it. I have no antipathy toward it though, just not much of an opinion.
The question is, do you NEED to get all the callbacks in SNW to enjoy the show, or are they just seasoning that make people who know go "I understood that reference!"? A show that can stand on its own will have the latter. A show that only succeeds due to its name is 95% the former.
You know, I tried it but it really just got too dumb. Early in, (2nd or 3rd episode?) they encounter the super advanced aliens in the huge ship, who are seemingly monitoring everything with their comet they think is magic. So first of all, they are so advanced, but still act like 1600s peasants who think the sky is magic. Then, when the Enterprise launches Spock in a shuttle, he immediately starts melting it apart with the "heat shields" and then announces he is about to start doing just that in a moment (after visibly doing so for a while - just bad editing I guess) the (again, super advanced) aliens don't notice at all. It all wraps up with a "but maybe it was magic after all..." as if written by some child. I couldn't after that. EDIT: I may give it another try, as I did like the characters.
I agree. Trek has become stagnant...no matter how you paint a new Enterprise. It is quite frankly exhausting to see the same thing again and again. I was there for TOS as a child, so I feel I speak with some audience authority. SNW could have been that ultimate Trek, but again, fell amongst the same problems gained, when trying to appease the status quo.
a good video of your thoughts -- ive got 1000 mixed opinions, but my conclusion is well i guess i cant watch star trek anymore, (but the biggest annoyance is i cant share my interest with star trek with family, friends, unless im talking about old trek), --- and i doubt that its possible to give us fans the kind of original intention of star trek we kind of want, like ds9, like voyager, things near as possible to a earnest attempt giving science fictions typecasting in general, to at least try and go with originalities and not fan servicing. ~~~ (plus fun tidbit -- i watched discovery season 1, 10 times or more since it came out, sure plenty to not approve of, but it did try a bit, and i cant say that for anything else) ^^^ and pray they dont do dr who crossover!... summery; just wait for spiritual successors, star trek has left us, with its sibling nobody likes!
It's the show that I really love for illogical reasons. 😅 I hear people like Robert Meyer Burnett and absolutely agree, then I watch that ridiculous Crossover or musical episodes and my logic says this is a bad idea... but I end up loving those anyway, so much so, that SubspaceRhabsody is up there probably with my Top 20 Star Trek episodes 😅 and I've seen all 900
@@think_thing Apart From the positive outlook on the Future, one of the things I love about Trek is the variety: virtually any kind of story can be told each week. I think the writers of TNG once said, Science Fiction isn't a subset of storytelling tools, but a superset. And Star Trek in its heyday was very good at giving us different stories each week.
Discovery is unwatchable. I did not watch Picard but people seem to dislike it the same way as Discovery. I will try this as well, let's hope it is not as cringy as everything made after the Enterprise.
@@americanninja9163 Star Trek has always been woke. We live in a diverse world. Diversity of thought, culture, religion, sexuality and ethnicity. That diversity is how we learn, grow and evolve as a society. Our diversity makes us stronger and it’s something to be celebrated! As a Star Trek fan you should know this. “To explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no one has gone before!”
@@LilithsLove89 No it was never woke, you are just making stuff up. There is a big difference between exploring different topics through the sci-fi lens, and shovelling woke garbage propaganda down one's throat.
@@LilithsLove89 No it was never woke, you are just making stuff up. There is a big difference between exploring different topics through the sci-fi lens, and shovelling woke garbage propaganda down one's throat.
I still haven't watched a single episode. I hate the Jar Jar verse and don't care to see that disaster expanded upon. Also sci fi to me is about looking to the future, not the past.
Any show since the 90's ??? I'd say SNW is the best Star Trek since television bid farewell to TOS in 1969 (which had itself lost the majority of its sheen in season III). Don't get me wrong, TNG, DS9 & Enterprise were excellent "Starfleet" romps, but none have felt more like a true spiritual successor (predecessor?) to the original than Strange New Worlds. 'Twould seem that the showrunners 'get it', and have assembled a group of characters who rival the originals, because, for the most part, they are the originals. It is the character driven show Rodenberry originally envisioned, with visuals he could never have dreamed. If the show runs its full potential, the final season should lead us to the events of Pike's fate, seeing James T Kirk take the com and the Enterprise's familiar crew already in place (Except Chechov, who comes a season later). If that is not what happens it will be a truly missed opportunity for a historic television continuity moment. And after Discovery, we deserve a historic palette cleanser.
0:05 Why? Because fans were pee'oed over STD??? So when the Enterprise sailed in, they returned to what the fans wanted. And it worked, still I like all scifi and STD turned out good, going into the future.
I'm glad some people like NuTrek. I just can't take it seriously at all. The interior of the ship is way out of whack. Everyone is buddy buddy & the talking down to higher ranking officers without consequences for doing so. They treat Spock like an idiot (and now autistic in this series?). Spock is much older & has more experience than anybody else serving on the Enterprise. I find it very childish to how he is treated. I take issue with so much of this show. I enjoyed the 1st season, but it went down hill for all of season 2 for me. It's a visually stunning show, but for me I miss the moral issues that arise & how to solve those issues by a smart & unified crew by the end of every episode. What happened to the optimistic future? That is missing & to me the stories don't make sense if you really break them down. I'll leave it here as I could go on forever. I want to LOVE new Star Trek, but it's just not Trek to me anymore. It's a badly written sci-fi show IMO. Kudo's for everyone who enjoys it. I'm truly happy for you. PS. Off topic from SNW, but I really enjoyed Picard S3 as it made so much sense in the storyline. It wasn't perfect, but you can just see the difference by a good writing team of Terry Matalas & his writing team he brought in to give the TNG crew a great sendoff we never got in Nemesis. It was so riveting & left me wanting more after every episode until the conclusion.
@@WolvesbaneNetwork , Aesthetic is for dumb people... Good writing requires good writers... And they ain't got em. You can aesthetic BS your way into the average id**t, but if you want to do what Star Trek used to do, and inspire the minds of our astrophysicists, rocket scientists, and highest minds, you gotta do better than this shallow quippy trash. The division in modern Trek is that of intelligence. They told all their smartest and most avid fans to get fk'ed. (They even broke the 4th wall a few times to say it directly at the audience in Discovery) *Because that's the kind of petty sh*theads they are.
I cannot say that I agree with your opinions about strange new worlds… I also need to ask why you ignore season two as it has become clear the show runners fixate on the Easter eggs and berries that you touch on in this video. The character of spark has been relegated to comic relief, which is odd since he deserves respect, but as I said, is relegated to comic relief. The show also has a problem with adhering to the military hierarchy and structure that every trek show has had since the 1960s. In season 2 We see way too much of Jim Carrey Kirk just seems to be squatting on the enterprise for no reason. The most egregious and idiotic is the niece of kahn… Like, seriously? Season two proves that your complaints about strange new worlds are valid and also shows that the show runners can’t do much better than this. I agree that some of the actors are good on the show but strange new worlds isn’t as good as your saying it is. In a way it’s as pop culture referential as lower decks is meaning they can’t stop referencing past trek in strange new worlds. Maybe one day they’ll be a Star Trek show that actually looks forward, and no, the 31st century time jump discovery ain’t it. The only modern season of these trek shows to feel remotely like Star Trek was Picard season five. Sure it was full of fan service, but it sought to tie into older canon and none of the new series do that correctly.
Man, that Kirk casting... No!!! They did great with Pike as a Kirk replacement. But then made Kirk himself boring. Paul Wesley is a decent enough character. But he doesn't have much in the way of charisma as a rule breaker and adventurous leader.
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [2/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qJbQs_nhjD4/mqdefault.jpg)
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
New comment rule: any comment that complains that Star Trek is "woke" without a VERY detailed explanation about what you specifically mean and why you think that it's A: bad, and B: different from how Trek has always been, will be deleted without discussion. It's fine to disagree, but lazy, bad faith arguments are a waste of everyone's time.
It’s nothing more than a buzz word for people who are afraid of their own shadow.
@@priyonjoni wrong. The term originally meant being aware of injustices in society. Currently, the meaning refers to the entertainment industry shifting from solid storytelling to corporate lip service in order to appear like they're inclusive to the public, but just like with for example greenwashing not actually doing anything
@@monkeyzorr3090 "Currently, the meaning refers to the entertainment industry shifting from..."
This is nonsense. Woke is a catch-all phrase that means "liberal in any way I think is bad." In the 90s the term was "politically correct." Same shit, new word. It's not specific to the entertainment industry. It's not specific to anything at all. It's just a pejorative that people who feel threatened by diversity use to signal to their fellow dipshits how awful they are.
...sorry. Morning coffee hasn't hit yet.
It can have all the standard identity politics and be fine. The word woke has evolved to mean identity politics at the detriment of plot and everything else. Though people interpret the word woke to many different things.
I dislike greatly saying historical shows like OG Star Trek is woke just because it was progressive for the time nothing was "woke" until only a few years ago, when it was stolen from BLM and evolved in to what it is now.
Woke is a strong political statement and a shortcut to say the writing of a show has ignored good writing to inject an overwhelming amount of identity politics whenever possible to further an agenda.
And I agree that bringing in characters like Scotty and Kirk lowers the quality of the show, I like the SNW characters.
SNW is amazing. As a Gen Xer I swear that even watching the lead-in feels exactly like, even looks like what I would imagine when I was five and TOS was coming on. It's shocking the show makers could do such an incredible job of capturing the feel of TOS especially contrasting other recent shows failures or disinterest. Yes it's not perfectly consistent with TOS set design but it's completely believable that this is exactly what TOS would've looked like if it was originally made today. I'd rather it hadn't split off DISC but no trek is perfect.
I'm also a GenXer and I totally agree about the ship design (exteriors). The Enterprise looks EXACTLY like the painted covers of those James Blish Star Trek episode novelizations in the 70s. Love it.
I have drifted away from trek as its gotten more complicated to watch, but SNW sounds like it might be worth seeking out. thanks Bill!
OMG Pete, just go watch episode one right now. You'll know right away if it's for you or not (it will be).
Don't waste your time I remember.the original and have the perspective of time not the same at all.
@@leemorgan4037 you're dreaming - this is the best Trek ever. this is what TOS should have been
Trust me, its best to watch season 2 ( i think) of Discovery for a bit of crew backstory but not necessary. i have seen all trek shows and movies - SNW is my fav. Pike alone makes the show. when this is finished , the new best captain question will be Kirk vs Picard vs Pike.
the intro to them in Disc season 2 was great.
I don't have a problem with SNW or the callbacks because THEY MAKE SENSE for the supposed timeframe of the show. It has to be between the encounter at Talos IV and the voyages of TOS. It makes sense that a lot of the TOS crew is in both series (with different actors of course). The Gorn are an issue as is the Romulan temporal war, but damn it Jim they're writers not Federation Historians! I really like SNW and your video. I hope you get more subscribers.
😆 🤣 😂 its utter shit
@allenporter6586 Well said. I rather enjoy the call backs, myself.
Freaking love SNW. Excellent writing, great characters, vintage TOS charm, and freakin' Nurse Chapel...🥵
I have no issues whatsoever with Fan service, we are the reason it succeeds. That said I agree Fan service should not preclude great new stories and SNW strikes that Ballance.
I agree the Discovery and Picard were just too damn fast and plot driven. When I watched the Strange New Worlds premiere, I was blown away and i loved it! Yhe characters had chances to breathe and everyone was well cast. It was the perfect blend of new and old Trek. It had the best opener and est Season 1 of any Trek.
You gave a lucid literate review. Finding a piece with such qualities that deal with a fan-centric subject is difficult. Well done.
Thanks so much!
My personal favorite 'NuTrek' show is Lower Decks, which IMO manages to keep the Trek optimism in a comedy setting (avoiding the 'half the characters are sociopaths' trope that plagues too many 'adult' animated shows ), but it is definitely too fan-service and reference heavy for most who don't have a few decades of media under their belt. Prodigy surprised me. The pilot felt more like one of the Star Wars CG cartoons to me at first, but after a few episodes it matured into a strong Trek show despite its focus on a younger demographic IMO, and I'm disappointed it didn't/ probably won't get the chance to run longer than its completed episodes.
I love seeing average Starfleet, not just "The best of the best." The _Cerritos_ is a refreshing change.
I find it interesting and maybe telling that it's the only one that Kurtzman is heavily involved in thats Very Good. I suspect that it's because it's the only one *intended* to be self-parody instead of being coincidental parody like PIC and DISC.
Great analysis. I mostly agree with your points. I do feel like a return to a more episodic format but with some follow-through and story arcs (aka a hybrid) is better for "Trek."
There's a lot of danger in devoting a season to One Big Bad, especially if the thing you pick isn't that good. And Discovery managed to do that five seasons in a row. I wanted more serialization after DS9, but they had a fantastic arc. Enterprise showed the danger in a whole season devoted to an arc (Xinidi). Discovery didn't learn the lesson. Neither did "Picard."
But SNW could be straight-up serialization and Disco could be totally episodic, and SNW would be better because of all of Disco's other woes you pointed out. The serialization makes it worse but it's probably not the singular reason Disco is so far off-course.
I really tried hard not to paint all of 'new trek' with the same brush. I tried all of it, and most of it just left me cold. I tried Discovery for a whole season (and even longer), but it just never sat right with me - and I think you are right. It was very soap opera-y with a lot of interpersonal conflict and angst. I am sure on TNG, they were "going at it" like rabbits, especially Riker, but we were never told about it much - it was all left to our imagination. Which hits on a HUGE part of Star Trek for me. I don't need the whole story, and I can draw my own inferences; and in fact, I like doing that. I don't want or need first hand experience about who is in an intimate relationship with who. Picard was okay - I actually liked the first season, but I couldn't stay with it. Lower Decks I dislike for the same reason I dislike the Orville - way, way too much 7 year old boy humor - fart jokes, body secretions jokes, etc. I know I am in the minority of this - I have never been a Jim Carey fan either. It's just not my thing.
What made me watch this video, though, is the 'Old, Comfy Chair' phrase. This was *exactly* how I felt watching SNW for the first time. I had come home again for the first time in a long, long time. The references to earlier Trek were distracting for a minute, but that was kind of easy to brush away for the most part - this *is* James Kirk's ship, and many characters from the original series are going to be here. There is this kind of attitude with TOS, TNG, Voyager and SNW (and Enterprise a little) - the idea that we have conquered our own issues and problems like poverty, prejudice, etc, and learned tolerance and even acceptance of other cultures. There is hope in that, and I think that hope is why I like a lot of Star Trek. And I know, even in these shows, sometimes the characters maybe aren't as enlightened as this is painting them to be, but that also adds contrast, and indicates that we have a long way to go even still. There is a depth to that idea, a wonder about where we may be heading, and I get to explore that idea on my own, and not have it told to me.
Sorry for the long post, and I know it probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I just felt like I was heard for a minute. :)
Makes total sense. Completely agree with the familiar comforting feeling of SNW, even if I may disagree about some of the other shows (I quite like Lower Decks but have a hard time with The Orville for similar reasons as you).
Well said!
I get what you're saying about callback characters, but SNW is an immediate prequel to the original series, and set on the same ship. With the exception of Spock, all are minor or background characters who did not get a lot of time or development in TOS. Even with Spock, it's fun to see the more emotional stage of his life and dovetails nicely with how he was presented in "The Cage / Menagerie".
For the people who keep whining about "woke" Trek, the only reason TOS wasn't this woke was the studio executives who held the purse strings (as stingy as they were). Gene Rodenberry most certainly wanted to go there.
And it went there a whole lot anyway. Go back and actually pay attention to the TOS & TNG: Just as "Woke" as anything now.
In the end, all woke really means is someone saying "I don't like that!"
@@wlewisiii _"In the end, all woke really means is someone saying "I don't like that!"_
Spreading misinformation there. The term originally meant being aware of injustice in society. The current meaning however pertains to the entertainment industry shifting from solid storytelling to corporate lip service in order to appear inclusive to the public, but just like with greenwashing not actually doing anything
@@monkeyzorr3090 Awkwardly, it has about three different overlapping, related, and opposed/contradictory meanings.
1: The origional awareness of social injustice.
2:The right wing snarl word for anything insufficiently oppressive to people not in the speaker's ingroup (or which they have been convinced is in any way oppressive of those who are), or tangentally adjacent to such because of political tribalism.
3: The media practice of throwing good writing out the window in favour of preaching (badly) about how evil men/white people/heterosexuals/cisgender people (pick any combination) are for... existing... and enjoying the franchise the media in question is supposed to be part of... and when you look at this carefully it shows distinct signs of not being intended, At All, to actually promote the things it is supposedly supporting, but to bait the far right into pitching a fit over it and thereby discrediting the large amount of entirely legitimate criticisem of the fact that the media in question is just... badly made (with a side effect of stroking the egos of certain individuals involved in the process) and allowing those who made money off making the thing badly to convince those whose money they took that the venture failed, not due to the incompitence of those who now have the money, but because of those Evil (insert unfavoured demographic here) in the audience actively sabotaging it for political reasons. A sort of pseudo-equivalent of greenwashing.
Unfortunately, by the very nature of 3, it often shows up in the same spaces as 2.
This is kind of similar, and related, to 'social justice warrior'.
Origionally, this was a (I think christian related?) term for someone actively fighting for positive change and an increase in, well, 'social justice', that is, people not getting screwed over by society for unjust reasons (such as being poor or part of a racial minority), and was used in a more abstract, collective, aspirational manner: "we must become warriors for social justice!" rather than "I'm a social justice warrior".
This use Somewhat faded out of public awareness for a while, before popping up again, mostly in the context of Really Obnoxious people using it as an excuse to continue being Really Obnoxious (I'm being polite here) because they were in favour of political positions that were generally considered 'good'.
Naturally this made the term a Prime target for becoming a right wing snarl word for 'progressive social change I don't like (usually entirely due to political tribalism)'.
Over time this combination of usages evolved, at least online, into more moderate and reasonable types making a distinction between 'activists' and 'SJWs', best illistrated thusly:
An activist will see a person in a wheelchair struggling to ascende the stairs into the local public library, offer to assist if doing so would actually help, then set about raising awareness of the problem among the public, and explaining how it can be corrected (and any side benefits), building public support for change, then go to the relevant decision makers and authorities and present them with the plan, proposed solution, and the fact of public support for this change. Baring outside factors, this will generally lead to, in this example, a ramp being built as well as or instead of the existing stairs, allowing those in wheelchairs, and anyone else with mobility issues, and people transporting things into and out of the building, to access the library much more easily and causing little or no inconvenience for anyone else.
An SJW, seeing the same situation, will not help the person in the wheelchair, but instead yell at everyone else for daring to be able to use the stairs. They will not start an informatio campaign regarding the problem, but instead asscribe the existence of stairs to an out group they don't like and then set about informing everyone they can that this outgroup is solely responsible for the existence of stairs specifically so that people in wheelchairs cannot access places. They will not gather public support and viable solutions, but instead harass and disrupt those who would make the relevant decisions, making it difficult for them to get on with doing their jobs, berrating them for not having already solved the issue (that they're only just hearing about), and at the end of the day when they eventually browbeat enough people into going along with something to get them to shut up and go away, the result is the removal of the library stairs, so now No One can get in. The SJW sees this as a great success. Meanwhile the public as a whole is now pissed off at what seems, from their point of view, to have been disabled people, or at least public figures supposedly in favour of improving things for disable people, taking away their library access... this over all makes the situation worse for everyone, and increases discrimination against disabled people.
Now, obviously, the latter is exagerated in terms of real world effects, largely because it's rare that everyone involved in the dicision making process is both radicalised enough And stupid enough to go along with this Obviously idiotic "solution", (and the both assume that the issue being addressed is minor and local) but it's intended to illistrate the thinking and methods of the type of person being refered to, which it does fairly well.
Agreed, and I'll add one more. Discovery didn't bother giving us reasons why we should root for Burnham. The writers had a checklist , and you can practically see the checklist.
you got this one. this has been my favorite series since the original. it seems to do everything right. thanks for the vid.
So far, i only watched Season 1 and my conclusion on that is, that it is better than STD, but sometimes still suffers from it's mother series. But my favourite show of all "NuTrek" is Lower Decks. Yes, it has the typical Rick & Morty humor, but it is serious, when it needs to and when something bad happens, it is not ONE crewmember alone, who saves the day.
Enterprise season 4’s structure of lots of 2 and 3 part stories is the model that future Trek series should have followed, IMO. With Enterprise we reliably had back-to-back good Trek episodes. Season 3’s Xindi’s arc was divisive* but almost everyone is very positive about season 4.
* But I’m a season 3/Xindi Arc super fan though, myself. It was a genius exploration of how much of their humanity they were willing to sacrifice in order to save humanity.
I didn't love the Xindi stuff and it felt like a desperate attempt to fix the miserable ratings. I definitely think S4 was the strongest and it felt like the writers knew they were canceled and so stopped trying to please anyone but the fans. It's funny you say everyone is positive about S4 being good. I feel like I'm a lone voice in the wind when I say that. :)
Enterprise's core problem (as is always the case with mediocre Trek) was character-based. Bakula was never a good fit for Trek, IMO, and the rest of the ensemble was pretty meh (T'Pol and Phlox notwithstanding).
Enterprise had amazing story lines, but I just didn't like the characters much :(
we'll never know what quality we might have had long term if S4 had been the original concept out of the gate. I'm off the opinion that you could probably have put together one full season of pretty good episodes out of the rest (if you avoid all TCW and Xindi stuff) and then what we experience as S4 (except the first and last episodes) as season two, you'd have the start of something very interesting.
But, alas...
You know, I love Strange New Worlds but I couldn't figure out why I still had a bit of a problem with it. I feel you hit it on the head with the "callbacks" and the constant revisiting of the past shows, lore, people, etc. This was probably why I liked TNG, they did revisit the past occasionally but there were so many episodes each season, the "callback" episodes just went into the mix. Keep the humor, keep the quiet times between characters between end-of-universe action sequences and tell a good story. The Star Trek model overlayed on top of the "24" model of action series is not my cup of tea. I'm exhausted by the end and I have a sugar high from all the grand speeches and all the rigorous patting of each of the characters on the others backs. Strange New Worlds has become one of my favorites.
Strange New Worlds seems to forget that Starfleet is a military organization. As a Navy retiree, I can honestly state that the only Star Trek shipboard uniforms that make any sense are TOS and Enterprise. They are simple, not tight fitting so that they would impede motion, nor do they feature any elements that can snag on machinery. I could have worn these uniforms in the engine room of an aircraft carrier without difficulty, the other uniforms ... not so much. Space is invariably tight onboard ships, TOS and Enterprise, not to mention Defiant in DS9, reflected this with compact bridges and living quarters. The trend towards large, spacious bridges is merely to invoke a "cool factor". Do you really want a control center where you can't comfortably converse with other team members without raising your voice to speak across the space or look over their shoulder? Close quarters enhance coordination. Then there is crew behavior. I swear, all modern Trek involves talking about feelings, often to the point that it comes off as a junior high school teen drama. Professionals are generally stoic and mission-focused, an emotional coworker is a weak link...you can save it for whenever you are off-duty. Have any of these people ever looked at how Nimoy portrayed Spock? He would not take casual disrespect from subordinates and is hardly naive or emotionally crippled ... the incomprehension of his crewmate's emotions is clearly and obviously sandbagging of one variety or another.
I hear these complaints, and they do make sense to me, and yet they fail to bother me in the least. I'd much rather the show runners focus on getting space physics right (also a perennial problem in Trek, technobabble aside) than proper military decorum or realism. Yes, Star Fleet is modeled after the Navy in terms of rank/hierarchy, but the mission is much closer to NASA's exploration mandate. I don't need Trek to be a military show.
I am curious what about SNW uniforms bothers you -- in terms of fit and insignia (shoulder pads aside), they seem very close to the TOS uniforms. Are they not?
When you task a ship with defending your civilization from extinction, and outfit it with weapons capable of destroying life on a planetary scale, you definitely want personnel who obey the chain of command, and standing orders, rather than going with their feelings... i.e., at the least, a paramilitary organization.
@@53kenner yeah, again, I don't disagree with the point, it just doesn't get in the way of my enjoyment of the show as much as other ways the show lacks realism. I wouldn't be mad about it if they hewed closer to a more naval-like military attitude, but that particular bugbear doesn't resonate with me personally. That's all.
Based on watching my Dad's career in the USN during the Cold War, the first thing SNW should do to look 'more military' is change the uniforms every 3 years, and make them less practical and comfortable about every other time, and about every fourth time use a fabric totally inappropriate to the purpose.
@@53kenner _"Strange New Worlds seems to forget that Starfleet is a military organization."_
Which is fine, because Same Old Crap isn't canon to _genuine_ Star Trek, and even if it were, Starfleet is not a military organization but a scientific one that explores the galaxy
Actually I like the nods to the lore, at least the few I pick, the series is not based on them, there is good scifi, the nods are just a nice adornment.
To be honest, I don't *want* to think of SNW as being a "completely new thing," but rather as a kind of modernized continuation of the The Original Series. (The fact that this is actually a *prequel" of TOS notwithstanding.)
SNW is the first ST series in a long time that I can remember actually being *excited* about, with its faithfulness to canon and continuity being in what I'd consider good balance with "new stuff," too.
The last season of TOS came out the year I was born, so I have lived with Trek my whole life. In fact, one of my very earliest memories (between 1 and 3 years old) was of sitting on our living room floor watching Star Trek.
So again, notwithstanding the fact that this is a prequel, I find Strange New Worlds to be a joyfully refreshing "picking up where they left off, all those years ago."
yup, you and I are of the same vintage (1969) and I agree completely.
If you want a hopeful Star Trek series without the weight of past lore, may I suggest The Orville. It's got some Seth MacFarlane humor in it, and if that's not your cup of tea, I respect that, but for the most part, it's TNG with the serial numbers filed off.
Indeed. The Orville brings to the screenplay what current Trek under Kurtzman does not... Balance. In NuTrek there are villains who are clearly bad but their reasoning is rarely developed. The Orville on the other hand took seasons to develop the motivations of species that allowed the screenwriters to showcase how the Kaylon were misunderstood and fighting against enslavement, the Krill were following religious doctrine and yet an inroad to peace was forged, and the Union's primary military supplier the Moclans were a divided society that kept it's population ignorant of the truth that they were not as mono gendered as they'd been led to believe and were willing to kill that ultimately led to their leadership coming across as cry bullies and were expelled for trying to kill the daughter of a proud father who came to see that he could love his female child thanks to the story of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer while reconciling with his husband over the issue...
I want to enjoy Nu Trek... But the short seasons and direction of the writers seems to make it apparent that they have a different take on how to develop plots that just don't engage. Not in the way Classic Trek did where modern day contemporary issues could be addressed in the sci-fi allegory that blended entertainment with thoughtful consideration. Where NuTrek issues proclamations that highlight a chip on the writers shoulder, the Orville takes a step back and takes a more nuanced and overall look at a bigger picture.
Essentially... NuTrek punches up the action/drama while The Orville maintains the intellectual narratives Star Trek was known for before Kurtzman went all Tom Paris on Tuvok's Holo simulations.
Yes. This became a must watch and also to be unafraid to tackle real world issues in the context of a species tradition and beliefs.
St:discovery is more like a cruel horror fest in parts and just crudily cruel in others while also wacky with that fungus drive with limitless range. It's too in your face then dial it up to 2000. It has some nice moments but to suffer through the rest of it is a big ask imo.
I think more recent writers don't have much of a vision or some wisdom or insight to share. That makes the storytelling kind of flat, superficial and um.. ignorant.
I actually think this current (final) season of Discovery is a bit of a course correction. Best season of the show so far, I think, though that’s a low bar. But I’m finally starting to care a tiny bit about the characters and stakes.
You literally can't help being self-referential when the whole show is about established characters. Sometimes it's what I like about SNW. Even the musical callback in "Spock Amok". I grew up on TOS so that's part of the appeal for me.
This is spot on.. Strange New Worlds have that Trek feeling that others lack.. It's all about respect of the source ideas and ideologies. Trek represents a post scarcity society with lots of optimism. That's it.. Star Wars is space opera about dictatorship and it's opposition... Lord of The Rings is a fantasy world with good vs evil, where the stakes are set pretty much at the beginning of time, and all have their fixed roles.. Your ancestor did something bad, you carry the stain etc...Fate rules completely.
"fan service" is *engaging* . When I showed a co-worker from India, who didn't know anything about Star Trek, the new Pikard series opener, we first had to watch "Measure of a Man". After watching an episode in general, the discussion is "which classic episode do you re-watch first?" Besides the actual episode of whichever Trek, there's the official aftershow and at least one third-party commentator, so the hour-long watch is amplified by 2 to 3x.
For a look at completely original characters and stories, look into the fan fiction. They have a new ship, new original characters, and novel stories yet reference the overall worldbuilding background.
I know fan service is popular, and I acknowledge that in the video, but there was a reason Star Trek was popular to begin with, before the current fan culture existed to appease in the first place. It's great your friend had a Trek fan to guide them to earlier episodes and a deeper experience, but it's also telling that you felt you had to watch a classic episode in order to enjoy the Picard opener. That actually sounds like a problem to me.
TNG and DS9 (and to a lesser extent Voyager and Enterprise) existed in a post-TOS world but still managed to have completely original characters and stories set in-universe without constant easter eggs and call backs.
It's not just Trek, Star Wars is guilty of this same thing. It's not a deal breaker, I love SNW, but the larger fan-service-before-story thing is a real problem and, I think, a big part of why Picard was so bad.
@@think_thingBecause a hetero white man from the original series is at the helm.
@@suezcontours6653 It's probable that at least some of the improved audience score on Rotten Tomatoes over Discovery's score is because SNW foregrounds a white cis hetero dude instead of a woman of color, but that's not why I think SNW is better. Representation isn't Discovery's problem, tone is (among other scripting issues). But yeah, part of the show's success is likely down to Pike being a traditional white guy, no question.
@think_thing I'm not worried at all. Women who look like Burnham are more focused on being mothers. Discovery and all Tech TV shows and movies with diverse leading casts were basically recruitment Adverts.
@@think_thing It wasn't _necessary_ for the plot or the enjoyment. It was *deeper* that it's about someone I know, who had his own redemption cycle.
What would be unfair is if an "easter egg" was actually necessary to follow the plot; e.g. Novice: "Why did he do that? His actions and apparent motives make no sense! Why would he do that out of the blue?" Trekkie: "Didn't you see his insignia?"
SNW and LD are my favorite NuTrek, and I think you've nailed why - The fact that these characters live in world of hope. That's something I've always loved about Star Trek. Besides that overall opportunistic world view, I like that the characters are likeable and feel like their on the same team. Too many of the characters in STD are obnoxious, full of strife, self-hatred, and/or have ulterior motives, that they're a bunch of jerks. I've really tied to watch that show, forced myself through S1 to "give it a chance", and S2 was tolerable because of Pike, but I just can't get through S3. I just don't *CARE* about these characters and the stories are poorly written. I'm guess it's for other fans, and that's fine. I'll be content w/SNW and LD.
I think what Strange New Worlds achieved was the balance between serialization and standalone storytelling. We knew from the start that it wouldn't be a return to the "Reset Button of the Week" storytelling, as we were told that the stories themselves would be standalone, but the character development and world building would carry forward.
In retrospect, I would liken SNW's structure to Deep Space Nine, where the Dominion War story was always there, if only in the background, while the story being told had taken a different tangent, and I think the end result benefits from it. In my opinion, Discovery's problem has tended to be the pacing of its arcs, often padding and stretching out the story to cover the episode count, while doing a disservice to the payoff.
Hemmer’s less impressive antenna vs. how good Andorians looked in Enterprise 20 years ago was distracting for me. Surely special effects should have got better, not worse, in that time?
Hemmer was not Andorian....
@@skillcoiler Yes he was, Ainars are a subspecies of Andorians but still Andorians.
@@johnassal5838 That is like saying Romulans are Vulcans... While an argument can be made both sets are definitely related..... They are different and as such have different societies and characteristics. Did the Aenar in Enterprise look and act like the Andorians from Enterprise?
I watched your analysis as I was celebrating the long-awaited final episode of Discovery, feeling even less satisfied than I thought possible.
But I do agree with your assessment of Strange New Worlds, a Star Trek that returns to the mores of traditional trek, rather than the conflict of Zap!-Bonk!-Pow!-driven science fiction.
It is noteworthy that Discovery, while still quite serialized, adopted a much more episodic feel for it's final season. An attempt perhaps, to repair bad showrunner decisions by focusing on a single fan criticism. (and not the right one)
You did say you were not going to refer to season 2, but I would have liked a mention of the brilliant addition of Carol Kane as new-character 'Pelia", the most delightful sci-fi character since Farscape's Utu-Noranti Pralatong. I look very forward to Scotty working under her in season 3!
I agree S5 of Discovery made a course correction and I thought it was a little better -- I haven't seen the finale yet. Making it a scavenger hunt was an improvement over the exhausting whiplash-inducing narrative excesses of earlier seasons.
I like Carol Kane too and I wonder if she'll stick around for S3 or if they will just bring Scotty in and be done.
@@think_thing She mentioned that she had trained him, so I'm hoping to watch her train him further on exaggerating repair times and changing the laws of physics. 😉
I've loved Strange New Worlds since its inception. My biggest issue with Discovery is that its initial premise called for a show that would revolve around a starship's First Officer rather than its Captain, which never occurred. I could go into other issues (like canon), however, nobody wants to discuss that.
The point of the callbacks is that the story is a prequel and is leading up to the original series. Kirk did not walk onto the bridge and fire everybody, bringing on a new crew. Gradually adding the crew members that were in the original series is a valid way to go. The stories are what is important, and they are good.
A number of commenters have made this same point, but it's actually missing the central complaint. My deal with callbacks is not that they are unrealistic. Sure, it's a prequel, so some crew are likely to be the same between Pike's Enterprise and Kirk's a few years later. But every member of the main ensemble is a legacy call back (ok, Ortegas isn't really, but the rest are). That's a choice that the show runners made and given how incredibly pandering both Lower Decks and Picard are in terms of fan service, it really feels like there's a reticence to write new characters and tell new stories -- even the choice to make it a prequel feels that way, though I am obviously happy they did it.
Even Discovery is guilty of the fan service, making Burnham Spock's sister. I mean, come on.
TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise gave us new characters and new adventures (a few direct call backs like "The Naked Now" notwithstanding) and built an entire new mythos (and fan base in the process). Why can't that happen now? Must everything feed the nostalgia machine?
I obviously agree the stories are good and that is definitely more important than my fan service complaint, but my complaint stands.
I have only one issue with M'Benga being the Chief Medical Officer on SNW. It means that in order for McCoy to be CMO, something has to happen to M'Benga. Whether it be him stepping down for some reason, or getting demoted by Kirk, it means he gets a bad rap. I don't want this to happen as I really like the character. My hope is that it turns out this isn't the M'Benga we know from TOS, but his father, who steps down to care for Pike after the accident. This can then give a good transition to Piper, as a temp CMO, until McCoy comes on board. M'Benga shouldn't be screwed over plot-wise just to get to TOS.
I want to know what happened to Dr. Boyce!
Look at him, dissing DS9! (Yes, this comment is more to entice "the algorithm" than to start any kind of beef ;-) )
DS9 - to boldly go .........nowhere and talk about prophets .
I love DS9. Until SNW I’d have said DS9 was, episode for episode, the best Trek show. TNG had some truly transcendently great episodes, but also some really, really terrible ones. DS9 didn’t have bad eps. There were lots of mediocre eps and a few great ones, but no bad ones. I can’t say that about any of the other shows.
@@think_thing As I said - it was more to entice "the algorithm" so it pushes your video.
@@think_thing Let's be honest the first 2.5 seasons of TNG were as a whole mediocre. With just as many, if not more, poor ones than decent ones. The irony is it wasn't until Gene stepped down as lead is when TNG got good more consistently. While Gene had MANY faults and people like to give him credit when it was his writers, producers who should get said credit (if it wasn't for his other exec producers, writers and left to just Gene's idea for ST it would have been based on a Earth ship that traveled just within the solar system) he laid the foundation in the 60s to what we got today. However by the 80s he was clearly out of touch and didn't grasp the changes in TV/SF. He kept writing scripts and characters like it was still 1968. TMP and the first couple seasons of TNG are prime examples of how out of touch he had become. The movies got good (mostly) after he was removed as lead and the same with TNG when he stepped down due to his health. It's pretty obvious he was the out of touch problem with ST by the time the 80s rolled around not the trail blazer he was in the 60s. And that's fine, but let's be honest about it rather then keep putting him on this pedestal with rose colored glasses.
@@PeterHarlequinWhite I mostly disagree with this take. Firstly, I think TMP is a vastly underrated movie, and since Wrath of Khan is consistently ranked as the best of the Trek films and Roddenberry was still very much the franchise lead at that point, I just don't think your thesis holds water. You're right that GR wasn't the head writer, like most EPs are these days, and the relative quality of Trek shows varied wildly, based in part on who was writing them. Roddenberry had mostly stepped down from running Trek actively after season 1 of TNG, but season 2 was even worse, quality-wise. TNG got better following the 1988 WGA strike, after which the show started accepting fan spec scripts and writers like Ronald Moore (Battlestar Galactica, For All Mankind) started writings eps. The really great eps didn't start in earnest until S3, but throughout the rest of the show's run it was a real mixed bag of greatness and crap, IMO.
The heights of TNG were so great, but the valleys were pretty freakin' low. DS9 was consistently decent -- never really reaching the occasional greatness of TNG, but also never dropping into cringe badness. YMMV
IMHO I give this title to Lower Decks. It's a love letter to 90s Trek.
This Star Trek is not like the 90's era at all. I personally still feel the writing is under-par compared to TNG and DS9 and have yet to see an episode of the same quality of those shows. I think the show is very much at war with itself, it wants to be the Trek of the 90's but the quality of the dialogue and writing is just not there. Plus, I really wish they'd go back to even lightening and stop running fast cuts all the time because the stories are never given moments to breath, the pacing is really off-putting. Its not as bad as Discovery or Picard but it still feels like they do not have quality writers on the show. The optimism is just not present... I'm all dystopia'ed out.
I also feel it was a mistake to make yet another show during the TOS era.
There's a critique I failed to include in the video and it's about the SHOULDER PADS!!! I hate those pointy, angled shoulders on all the shirts. Go back to natural, rounded shoulder cuts, costume designers, I'm begging you!
Could not disagree more, the sharp shoulders manage to take a basic shirt and make it look like a uniform. It has the best fit of every Starfleet uniform except maybe the monster maroon.
@@WolvesbaneNetwork How dare you disagree with my objectively true opinion!!! ;)
@@think_thing how dare you talk back to your audience member! I have been a loyal subscriber for 5 minutes! You've really fallen off.
Completely agree, although I don't mind the callbacks toooooo much tbh. SNW was the first show again since Voyager that I got really addicted to and excited about. I really didn't like Picard, I felt like it was extremely self-indulgent and this whole character arc of "so many people have to die so that the poor main character (who grew up in a castle in France...) can finally let love into his heart (read that very sarcastically...)" was actually really shocking to me in the way that I thought back then this is EXACTLY why I like Trek, that it usually doesn't do this. Picard actually made me angry because I also found it quite outdated and it tried to make up for that with callbacks but it didn't work imo. Trek is also about being forward for me and I felt like the very premise of Picard was extremely backward. Not to mention that as you say, Trek is optimistic and Picard not only introduced a hierarchical society, it also killed off so many callback characters that were about hope on the horizon. I mean - sorry, I get really cranky when I think of Picard lol. Discovery - hmmmm yeah. I'm sad about that actually. I'm non-binary myself and I was so excited about non-binary and queer rep in Trek because it makes complete sense in terms of what Star Trek is but then the show itself, as you say, is too plot driven and too close to what is basically mass-produced these days. I did like Season 4 but the rest of it was kind of meh. Diving into the dark side of the Federation is okay, DS9 does it often enough and it does it very well. Discovery didn't do it very well. And you're right about the part where crew-bonding, which should be light-hearted moments away from the complex storylines are still emotionally heavy in Discovery. I don't know why but it somehow makes the characters more one-dimensional to me because you never see the lighter side of them.
While I agree that ST:SNW is one of the best in decades, I feel that your dismissive attitude toward ST:LD is hastily considered. I watched all 4 seasons back-to-back last year and then shared them with my wife. My wife takes absolutely no stock in the Star Trek Universe's continuity and wouldn't get the fan service stuff if you planted it on her lap. What she does recognize is good television. She turned me on to Friends 30 years ago, got me into The West Wing, Modern Family, Ted Lasso, Parks and Recreation and The Diplomat and understands - at a core level - what makes great television. She doesn't have or make time for any serialized fiction that isn't of high quality. When I offered Lower Decks up to her, she was initially hesitant. But about 3 episodes in (probably quicker than that, as she didn't dismiss it earlier), she was pretty well hooked. Her interest lie in the characters, their interactions, the diversity of the crew and the humor with which they regarded the entire undertaking. The writing is top notch, so is the acting and the animation serves both the characters and the story at hand. You're entitled to your opinion - flawed as it may be - but when you indicate that the show's success is only due to fan service, you err. I didn't even notice how deep it was until my second time through. And while the Easter eggs are extremely well-done and they do make excellent use of the existing (TNG) universe without breaking it, the shows would stand on their own without any of it. Lower Decks fans love the characters, primarily.
I didn’t mean to suggest LD only succeeds because of fan service, but fan service is a big part of that show’s dna. I like LD and before SNW I was saying it and a few Short Treks were the only Trek worth watching.
I freaking LOVE The Diplomat. I might do a video about it.
I miss the longer seasons. They let us get long stories but also time to breathe and get to know the characters.
I feel like 10 episodes means they have to choose. Most Trek didn't find its feet until S3. _Disco_ isn't good IMO until S4 and even then, I don't know most characters names, let alone who they are.
SNW is really kind of brilliant because we already know enough everyone that we can slip into their stories without too much difficulty, which is important in a limited season format. Disco proved that 10 eps are not enough time to invest in everyone, or in my case, anyone.
SNW's biggest flaw is that it's limited in scope and time-frame. There are only so many things that can happen because of its setting, unless they devolve to Time War shenanigans, top secret ultra-magic Spore Drives nobody ever heard of, or other BS that would ruin it.
I actually like SNW and I didn't think I would. It's a good show. IMO, it's the best Star Trek since _ST:Voyager_
My hope is that we'll get _Legacy._
This may be a "hot take" but Legacy feels like it would be taking the worst bits of Picard and making that a show. I have zero interest in that. Picard only held my interest because of the S3 fan service.
@@think_thing It would at least be new stories in the early 25th Century era. Many of us had hoped for a late 24th Century continuation when Disco was teased, but the only thing we have in that era is _Lower Decks._
_Disco S4 was OK. S5... meh. But jumping 900 years forward was as much of a mistake as putting the Spore Drive in the 23rd Century.
(Quantum locked nacells might have seemed cool at the writing table, but still make zero sense when they need access by staff, and exchange materials to and from engineering. Like, cool transporter tech is a potential point of failure solving a problem nobody needed to create.)
Sorry. I just want Star Trek to continue its story, not jump to random points and create huge plot-holes we never needed.
As someone who hated Discovery and Picard(although season 3 was fine) I agree with you on petty much every point. But i also wanna recommend Prodigy. Season 1 had all the strength of Star Trek and much less self referencing. Although season 2 went hard into it and got also very convoluted.
I think One reason Discovery failed that people overlook is that somehow there is infinite space inside the ship for turbolifts. It's things like that that make SNW seem better in comparison.
Yes! I've been enjoying SNW a lot, it just feels more Trek than Discovery did. When Michael started solving problems by mowing down a room full of people it kinda lost me
Good take! One note: the Anthology/Episodic-Ness of SNW is being understated IMHO. All of the season-arc stories he mentioned are basically of the character-portrait variety that I have never really thought belonged in sci-fi anyway; so they are easy to ignore.
TH-cam must have sent a notice to all creators to start adding the phrase "let's get into it" somewhere at the start of their videos, because I swear I hear that on every video from the past few weeks.
Ha! I think I picked it up from a guy on TikTok who I follow. Now I’m gonna be all self conscious about it.
I agree that Strange New Worlds is the best Trek I've seen in a very long time. It's not perfect by any means, but it's head and shoulders above Discovery and the JJ Abrams movies!
I actually like the JJ movies, though I get why fans don't really think they're very Trek-like. I still found them fun (Into Darkness less so).
@@think_thing They were great action/adventure movies; they just weren't good Trek stories.
JJTrek is like watching a Star Wars video game with Trek skins painted on. I love Trek & Wars, but they should not be mixed. It's just not a good fit.
I agree with your callback point if you were only pointing the finger at Lower Decks, but SNW is a prequel show on the Enterprise. So, the same characters, or those related to them are natural. The Khan connection is a stretch, but all the other ones are natural. You forgot that Scotty showed up in SNW.
I feel the call backs in SNW works better for the average person than say like Lower Decks because if you do not get the reference in SNW.... ah well it has a story as the cake and the reference is just the icing. In Lower Decks the references are so important to the show that they are the cake and the icing is any other part that might be called a story.... So sure Spock is well Spock but if you somehow didn't know about Spock well here you go start now. Yeah Pike was in the other shows but again who cares here is an actual character who is a new shining example of what most people want Star Fleet Captains to be..... He just happens to be named Pike. I am sure a large number of people had any idea Number One was from TOS until people starting talking about it. Also I mean Ortegas being the name that was going to be used? Definitely getting a little too picky with that one imo....
SNW and Season 3 Picard are the best when it comes to the NuTrek live-action.
But an entire musical episode? A Lower Decks crossover? Season 2 SNW had some good episodes and some major stinkers, too. Even for experimentation episodes, they were just off. I'm also concerned with SNW's direction. Spock feels very weak in the series. They have him too emotional, and the other characters tend to run over him.
Those were two of my favorite episodes in season 2.
I personally wouldn't mind seeing a well-written well thought out movie about the very first captain of the Enterprise Robert April I think it would be even cooler to have the actor that plays Robert April from strange new worlds play him in the movie, although this is not like me to happen but it's just a thought
True, there has not been a good Star Trek show since Voyager. Let us all just agree to forget that slow moving travesty that they called DS9.
Well, hard disagree from this Trekkie. Voyager was my least favorite 90s era show and DS9 was my favorite (though my favorite individual eps were in TNG). But there’s more than one way to love Trek!
@@think_thing I still to this day cannot get in to DS9, a very thinly veiled spin off of TNG - which wasn't that great to me either. I've seen mexican soap operas and Japanese game shows in their native language(s) that I could get in to...and follow those storyline(s) easier than DS9. But like you said, to each their own.
Since we are watching the adventures of the Starship Enterprise a decade before Kirk takes the Conn. You NEED to see the characters from TOS in their previous lives.
I think we are due to return to camp. After decades of increasingly more and more serious and deep entertainment. The Campy goofball show is probably what we are looking for today.
Today in the 2020s is much like the 1960s, a lot of social unrest and general anxiety about the state of things. Being flooded with doom and gloom, we are clinging towards a piece of low risk entertainment. We know Pike, Spock, Uhura, Chapel, M'benga, and Scotty have absolute plot armor on them, and we know they will make it out. Makes it safe feeling of adventure. Much like riding on a rollercoaster vs whitewater rafting. While both can be enjoyable the value of the enjoyment is based on where you are in life.
I don't disagree with this take at all. I might nitpick and say Pike has whatever the opposite of plot armor is -- we know exactly what happens to him and when. :) Until then though, sure.
Another area lacking in the writing is that there are so many miss opportunities. For example when Scotty first got aboard the Enterprise, instead of having him do something awesome they had other characters talk about how great he is. We have to constantly hear Ortegas being praised for being a good pilot of the ship rather than having her demonstrate the competency in an interesting way.
Pretty good summation, but I'd have an addition: "Classic" Trek did "moral plays" relatively often. You know - episodes with a particular message. Say the two black-white faced guys in classic Trek. I got what they wanted to tell me about racism as a kid in the 70s or 80s watching that episode. The most well known "episode with a message" is probably "Star Trek IV".
Disco and Picard seem to have completely abandoned THAT part of what makes Trek special for me - I watched them all (and truly enjoyed Season 3 of Picard - all that Fanservice was what I needed after the estrangement of seasons 1 and 2) and I can't remember one episode like that.
Strange New Worlds kicked off the show with one. All the classic colour schemes and designs masterfully combining the old with the new are fine and the characters are - you said it - just great. But the episode about that planet possibly about to nuke itself and Pike at the end holding that speech... ("Hi! I'm Christopher!") - That gave me the feeling that this show might not just be better than Disco and Picard (always from my point of view and taste ^^), but actually become proper good Trek. And the episode ended on a bloody hopeful outlook for that world too.
Since then the show hasn't disappointed me once so far. Of course not all episodes are equally good, but they all have been good in my opinion. So far there wasn't one stinker. Which - the more episodes there are becomes more likely of course. So I surely won't be mad once it'll happen. :D
#
Yes, excellent point about the morals of episodes. I think there are implicit morals in Discovery, and to a lesser extent Picard, but not overt, clear allegories like the episodes you mentioned.
@@think_thing Right, I mean the episodes with the obvious thing the writer wants you to think about in the end. :)
The ones you can watch with kids and then talk about "what do you think the lesson here was?" or something similar.
It might sound a little cheesy, but I totally love that part of Trek. After all, by it's "hard" definition, Science Fiction is meant to use it's fantastic settings to get people to think about stuff.
Is Trek "hard" SciFi? Altogether... Not really. But every once in a while it does a good job at it. :)
Ah, I just remembered another good one: Measure of a Man, the one where they decide Data doesn't belong to anyone, because he's sentient being. I do think we'll one day create a "real" AI (what's called AI atm is impressive and has deep consequences but it's not what we SciFi people mean by it - you know, "People In A Box" ^^ - proper self conscious entities) and if so at one point decisions about it's RIGHTS and similar things will have to be made like in the episode - one way or another.
My only complaint is how they've handled the Gorn because it contradicts TOS badly. If they can fix that next season, I'll be happy.
As for the rest it, the pretend fans just need to get some chees to go whit their whines.,
lol. I'm actually fine with some retconning or even outright canon-abuse as long as the storytelling is engaging and the characters and stakes are relatable. But I get your complaint.
Chronologically it could have been the Kzin. And i don't like the Alien vibes. Anyway, SNW is definitely a reboot, not a prequel.
If the introduction of Kirk and a hyper-emotional, teenager-acting Spock didn't disappoint, then you aren't a real Trek fan, along with their hyper modern-day Bridge.
@@ronrhea2001 First, fan gate keeping is not cool. Please stop that. You don't get to decide who the "real Trek fans" are.
Second, you may want to rewatch The Cage and observe all the ways Spock's behavior in that episode is so very un-Spock (smiling at blue flowers on Talos 4, randomly shouting on the bridge, yelling "the women!" on the transporter pad, etc.). Young Spock was very different than TOS Spock. You may not like Ethan Peck's performance (I think he's pretty good), but there's nothing in the writing that strikes me as anything more than exploring a still-getting-used-to-being-in-Starfleet beat. YMMV
@@think_thing _"You don't get to decide who the "real Trek fans" are."_
You're a akin to a vegan who eats meat but doesn't like being told he's not a vegan. Kurtzman Trek is nothing like Gene Roddenberry's _genuine_ Star Trek and if you wanna pretend you're a fan of Star Trek while watching corporate garbage like Same Old Crap, which you call SNW, then that's your delusion. Don't expect others to agree with your bubble
A prequel having characters that are mostly callbacks is fine.
The only one I noticed it more for was La'an. And the main thing I dislike about her is more that she doesn't have any augmented abilities as far as I can tell. So, what's the point of her being descended from Khan?
Overall though, they appear to have fleshed characters out in positive ways.
Like T'Pring... Who was a horrible character in TOS. But here, she's a promising character who does not feel like a nut job... Which is not a bad choice.
People being "evil" in Star Trek, is not particularly desirable.
Basic respect would have been to at least use his original designs, instead of redesigning everything. If they don't have the rights, then they should have just left it.
There are no rights issues that I’m aware of. Every show and movie ever made brings new design ideas, in everything from ship design to costumes to props to hair and make up. Look at the bridge design and costumes of TMP. This is nothing tv and movies haven’t always done.
the era of cardboard sets is over, get over it
@@think_thingThen why pretending to make a prequel when it's actually a reboot?
@@luizeduardoortizduarte4380 Sure, but that's a continuity error. This is a reboot, and a garbage one.
@@think_thing There used to be rights issues, where they had to make things 20% different or so. Paramount had some of the rights, and CBS had some. I think CBS has them all now but either way it's a reboot. When they changed things for the TOS movies it didn't conflict with established canon, because time had gone by and they were upgrading their technology. For STD and SNW we know how things are supposed to look during that time period, so the fact that they dont' follow it means they aren't part of the existing continuity.
I think after Star Trek Legacy is done once they bring it. They should do a series set in the 25th Century that introduces new characters and new story lines furthering the adventure of the final frontier. All this while expanding yet keeping the format of what Trek is.
❤ the DISCO characters we got to know (some bridge crew just weren’t developed 🙁) Overall I enjoyed the ride, a little sad to see it go.
Grew up on TOS in syndication, SNW is my jam!
For me, the difference is STD is a veneral disease, STP is made by people who hate people who hate Star Trek fans. Meanwhile, SNW is made by people who care about proper Star Trek, a more hopeful vision of the future. My main problem with it is, I want to see these characters last and tell their own stories, I don't want to see them being replaced by the new versions of the TOS crew.
I like the call back references. Most viewers do not break down episodes like you do.
Great observations and critiques !
Thanks! Please subscribe!
It depends how you see Star Trek, iconic characters like Sherlock Holmes or as a universe like Elizabethan England. Personally, I prefer the iconic characters. I see the W-word as just a murky rightwing trope to disguise their hatred and racism.
Here's the way I look at it, every episode of strange new world so far has a "rewatchability" factor like the pre-2005 trek. At its worst, it's no worse than any of the more mundane TNG or DS9 episodes. DISCO is an absolute chore to get through add after the first few episodes of season 3 all the way to the end. I just found myself wanting to watch a recap video on TH-cam instead of the actual show. That being said, I have seen every episode of Discovery but several from the last three seasons have been so painful to get through. I can only think of a couple episodes of the entire series that have any kind of real "rewatchability". Same thing for seasons 1 & 2 of Picard. SNW has already produced some actual classics such as "Memento Mori". People whine about the Musical episode or the Lower Decks crossover but those are true guilty pleasures in the vein of TNG "Rascals" or DS9 "Take me out to the holosuite". There are plenty of fair criticisms of the show, but it is a significant course correction from DISCO or season 1/2 Picard.
It feels more like Trek than Picard, Lower Decks, and Discovery but it departs from TOS and TNG eras in its willingness to try new things. Every episode feels like it’s gonna jump the shark. I like it but would like to see a new series return to formula so we can have a bit of everything. I miss the days where the story unfolded at its own pace to reveal a moral quandary and/ or a clever solution to escape whatever it is ship and crew are mired in.
I'd rather watch an episode of TOS for the tenth time than watch any of the newer series, including this one, for the first time.
You're missing out. Closest thing to brand new TOS episodes.
@@traceythomas6761 -- Sorry, but I can't accept anyone other than Leonard Nimoy playing the role of Spock.
@@gregb6469 Admittedly, that's a hard point to argue.
Trivial but a hill I will die on:
Dr. M'Benga on SNW is NOT the same guy as the one on TOS.
The age difference is irreconcilable. Booker Bradshaw was around 27 in TOS which would make him around 19 or 20 during the time period of SNW, whereas Babs was in his late 30's when SNW was being shot. Conclusion, he's the father, or uncle, or some such of the guy in TOS. This also accounts for their different status in the two shows.
I know what the creators say, i don't care - can't be the same guy.
Doesn't change your point at all but I seize every chance to rant about this.
DISCO on the most part is the lowest Trek IMO, however, without it, we wouldn't have gotten SNW. SNW is an ensemble cast to care about, that is what makes Trek, TREK! DISCO failed miserably in that regard. Took me 5 seasons to remember others names aside from Burnham, Saru and Tilly! LD is a fun ensemble cast romp of fan service and with animation, they can do things that are not possible in Live Action without it looking campy. However, I do agree with you 100% that SNW is the best Trek in the streaming era of Trek so far (PIC S3 is a very close second).
Good criticisms of Discovery. I enjoyed S1 of SNW but S2 got a little too comical - so much that it was self-deprecating in a bad way.
So where does this air? I lost track of Trek shows when they started requiring adding obscure streaming channels. This looks like fun.
All of the Trek shows, classic and modern, can be found on Paramount Plus. It’s one of the 5 or 6 biggest streaming platforms, but I hear you, subscribing to 6 things is a lot.
your title is incorrect - this is the best Star Trek series since the 1960s hands down.😉
The most basic thing is that the characters seem like relatively good people. They're fairly civilized and not ruled by animal instincts.
And it doesn't have Discovery's annoying choice of having a main character of the show - who is also unlikable.
Star Trek should not have a "main character" per se.
I'm still waiting for an explanation of why, with Transporters and Replicators, that there are still people who are not fit.
Oh, this isn't a mystery to me at all. The Federation is a society where you don't have to work unless you want to and you can live any lifestyle you choose, and a lot of people are for sure going to choose a life of hedonism, gluttony and sloth. Sure, technology will eliminate the most dangerous outcomes of that sort of life -- things like heart disease, diabetes, muscle atrophy, etc. -- people will be technically more healthy, but body image issues I hope are also less of a deal and so things like fat-shaming will seem barbaric -- at least that's how I would write the answer to this comment, if I was a Trek creator.
SNW got me back into Star Trek in a way that nothing else has. I was a kid when TOS was on, and, the first season of TNG was so bad, it took me awhile to get back into it. I watched it and DS9 kind of "dutifully" - I didn't do a whole lot of rewatching. I did watch and love Voyager, and I WANTED SO MUCH to love Enterprise, but it was a swing and a miss, in large part. Your points about Discovery are noted, but I feel defensive about that show because there was so much bad faith racism and misogyny attached to early criticism (even before it aired). Season 2 Discovery I absolutely love.
As a prequel series, set only a few years before TOS, I'm not sure who wouldn't expect tons of legacy characters, though. I think they made a massive mistake in playing up the Chapel/Spock relationship - she was more interesting before they leaned into that. One of my least favorite elements of her "character" in TOS was that she basically had exactly one character trait - she was in unrequited love with Mr. Spock. Forming and developing a relationship between the two makes her less and less interesting, as she becomes a "girlfriend" character rather than a complex person in her own right.
I love the risks that they have taken with SNW, and I find it just plain fun.
05:11 I'm sorry, but this accusation against FOX News is unfounded and could be construed as deceptive on your part. In the FOX News opinion piece you referenced, the author, David Marcus, never once uses the word "Marxist," nor does he paint with a broad brush in his criticism of two specific Star Trek: Discovery episodes. What Marcus does do is [quite rightfully] point out how the writers of the show used the series as a platform to push their own political agendas. He writes: "The first blatant example of electioneering on Star Trek: Discovery was a cameo by current and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams as none other than the President of the Federation of Planets. The second was a weird plot twist in the pilot of the new show, Strange New Worlds, in which the 2020 Capitol riot is depicted and blamed for starting a Second American Civil War and the destruction of the planet. To put it more succinctly, 'Orange man bad.'" In the same article, Marcus continues, pointing out this is nothing but partisan politics when he says: "The central confusion here is the difference between showing broad support for things like basic civil rights and openly advocating for one political party’s answers for securing them." Perhaps you didn't read the article in full, or at all; I don't know. However, it does appear you failed to grasp that Marcus is, in fact, a fan of the new Star Trek shows and actually praises key aspects of them: "The irony is that all three new Star Trek live-action shows are quite progressive in the diversity of their casting. And despite hysterical concerns about a backlash that never actually happens, everyone is on board as long as the story and the acting are good. Artists can, always have, and should use their work to hold a mirror up to their culture and society, even to advocate for broad agenda items. What they shouldn’t do is beam the equivalent of a 30-second Democrat Party political ad into the middle of a space adventure." It is clear that nothing in Marcus's article accuses Star Trek of 'Marxism.' It (the article) does, however, remind us how very far from Gene Roddenberry's original vision the current crop of Star Trek writers have strayed. Cheers!
Sigh. So, you're right that the text of the column I chose to screenshot for 5 seconds does not itself make a literal accusation of "marxism." With respect, this complaint, while true, misses the actual point I was making, which was a broad point about how Trek's tone has traditionally been optimistic and utopian due in part to it's hewing rather closely to standard mid-century American liberalism, despite others (broadly) complaining that it's too PC/woke/Marxist. I should have known I'd get called out on a detail like that, but the politics of Trek was not the central thrust of the point I was making there, it was a setup for the point, and I found a visual that supported that setup (the headline). When and if I ever make a video that's actually *about* the politics of Trek, I'll be sure to be more precise and cite sources accordingly, but this was visual shorthand.
That said, Marcus's column is full of bad faith, disingenuous arguments. Stacy Abrams is a well known sci fi nerd and a huge Trek fan (and serious Buffy fan too). Her appearance was a cute easter egg. Marcus compares her appearance on the show with a 30 second political spot. Does he feel the same way about politicians appearing on SNL?
Regarding the images from Jan 6 -- if that episode had been produced in 2020 the image used would have been of the George Floyd protests. If it was made in 2011 it would have been of Occupy Wall Street. Pike makes a point about "us vs. them" mentality and then uses images of what are for us current events to send the point home (to the aliens he's addressing and more importantly to the audience watching at home) and that point -- that our entrenched political and social divides can become so toxic that there's a body count -- is a really good point to make, one I'm surprised David Marcus is okay appearing to disagree with.
For one to take that scene and conclude that the writers were saying "orange man bad" requires that they not actually listen to the words coming out of Pike's mouth.
"The central confusion here is the difference between showing broad support for things like basic civil rights and openly advocating for one political party’s answers for securing them."
Trek has always (ALWAYS) promoted a liberal, utopian, egalitarian vision of the future. It's anti racist, pro union, pro gay rights, and occasionally pacifist in its utopian ideals. If the writers are going to advocate for a given planet's best ways to achieve that kind of future, which Republican Party platform position does Mr. Marcus think the writers should use as a balance to the ones he identifies as being too "democrat?" I'm sorry, but beautiful visions of sci-fi utopian societies have a progressive bias. That was true in 1966 too.
"...despite hysterical concerns about a backlash that never actually happens, everyone is on board as long as the story and the acting are good."
I invite you to peruse this very comments section and see if you can find any signs of the backlash Mr. Marcus thinks doesn't exist.
...also, did David Marcus pen an op ed about how woke Batman had become after Senator Patrick Leahy made a cameo in The Dark Knight? Was that a 30 second political ad?
I liked the blind guy, he was sarcastic and interesting, they should be able to do what they want, the ST universe is pretty mess up now so just put some proper thorns in the time line and do you own thing. PS I did like Discovery 1st series, maybe the second too, but I don't think I have understood what is actually going on since then. Its sort the guy the cat and his ship that is just bits of stuff, plus everyone coming up with ideas
a turd is just a turd no matter how much sprinkle you put on it.
Some people are into the aesthetic, and can't comprehend beyond the surface.
I'd personally wanted TNG to be followed by a Star Trek in the 25th century, or the 29th century.
The idea of prequels is a little annoying to me. Although I liked Enterprise well enough (minus Season 2), and SNW... Is a total success!
Casual nit pick. I know this is late to make any changes but almighty Zarquon! The dam thing is huge. A walk across the bridge looks like Pike is hiking lengthwise McCormick Place in Chicago. They need communicators just to talk to each other in Pikes Quarters. TOS quarters were at least plausible in size. Not a 3400' sq ft McManson. Unless each quarters is fitted with a Tardis bigger on the inside than the outside do-hickey.
I hear this and I get it, but I love the ways the interior windows in rooms like Pike’s quarters are exact analogs to what we see in exterior shots. And the scale of the Enterprise feels real to me in ways earlier ships never did. But yeah, Pike lives in the Star fleet version of the apartment in Friends.
I was turned off by the unnatural dialogue and interactions characters had between each other. Felt so weird watching it that I gave up halfway through the first season.
how do you feel about Star Trek: Prodigy?
I only caught the pilot and decided it wasn't for me -- meaning it's aimed at such a young audience, I didn't really think I'd enjoy it. I have no antipathy toward it though, just not much of an opinion.
I actually liked it. Didn't think I would because it is aimed for a younger audience, but it was a pleseant surprise.
The question is, do you NEED to get all the callbacks in SNW to enjoy the show, or are they just seasoning that make people who know go "I understood that reference!"?
A show that can stand on its own will have the latter. A show that only succeeds due to its name is 95% the former.
You know, I tried it but it really just got too dumb. Early in, (2nd or 3rd episode?) they encounter the super advanced aliens in the huge ship, who are seemingly monitoring everything with their comet they think is magic. So first of all, they are so advanced, but still act like 1600s peasants who think the sky is magic. Then, when the Enterprise launches Spock in a shuttle, he immediately starts melting it apart with the "heat shields" and then announces he is about to start doing just that in a moment (after visibly doing so for a while - just bad editing I guess) the (again, super advanced) aliens don't notice at all. It all wraps up with a "but maybe it was magic after all..." as if written by some child. I couldn't after that.
EDIT: I may give it another try, as I did like the characters.
I like this show, they did good.
I agree. Trek has become stagnant...no matter how you paint a new Enterprise. It is quite frankly exhausting to see the same thing again and again. I was there for TOS as a child, so I feel I speak with some audience authority. SNW could have been that ultimate Trek, but again, fell amongst the same problems gained, when trying to appease the status quo.
a good video of your thoughts --
ive got 1000 mixed opinions, but my conclusion is well i guess i cant watch star trek anymore, (but the biggest annoyance is i cant share my interest with star trek with family, friends, unless im talking about old trek), --- and i doubt that its possible to give us fans the kind of original intention of star trek we kind of want, like ds9, like voyager, things near as possible to a earnest attempt giving science fictions typecasting in general, to at least try and go with originalities and not fan servicing. ~~~ (plus fun tidbit -- i watched discovery season 1, 10 times or more since it came out, sure plenty to not approve of, but it did try a bit, and i cant say that for anything else) ^^^ and pray they dont do dr who crossover!... summery; just wait for spiritual successors, star trek has left us, with its sibling nobody likes!
It's the show that I really love for illogical reasons. 😅
I hear people like Robert Meyer Burnett and absolutely agree, then I watch that ridiculous Crossover or musical episodes and my logic says this is a bad idea... but I end up loving those anyway, so much so, that SubspaceRhabsody is up there probably with my Top 20 Star Trek episodes 😅 and I've seen all 900
@@fgdj2000 I loved it too. Also an old school fan. Right there with you.
@@think_thing Apart From the positive outlook on the Future, one of the things I love about Trek is the variety: virtually any kind of story can be told each week. I think the writers of TNG once said, Science Fiction isn't a subset of storytelling tools, but a superset. And Star Trek in its heyday was very good at giving us different stories each week.
I wanted SNW to be it's own show and live up to it's name. The stranger and newer the better, like episode two of season one. Not like BOT retold.
I don't know what "BOT" refers to.
@@think_thing Balance Of Terror - Original series season one redone by SNW.
@@trentrock3210 Ah, I see.
Discovery is unwatchable. I did not watch Picard but people seem to dislike it the same way as Discovery.
I will try this as well, let's hope it is not as cringy as everything made after the Enterprise.
Spoiler alert.... it is, another shinny woke garbage
@@americanninja9163 Star Trek has always been woke. We live in a diverse world. Diversity of thought, culture, religion, sexuality and ethnicity. That diversity is how we learn, grow and evolve as a society. Our diversity makes us stronger and it’s something to be celebrated! As a Star Trek fan you should know this.
“To explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no one has gone before!”
@@LilithsLove89 No it was never woke, you are just making stuff up. There is a big difference between exploring different topics through the sci-fi lens, and shovelling woke garbage propaganda down one's throat.
Picard season 3 is very watchable, if you can stomach the first two it's a good watch.
@@LilithsLove89 No it was never woke, you are just making stuff up. There is a big difference between exploring different topics through the sci-fi lens, and shovelling woke garbage propaganda down one's throat.
Something is wrong 364 thumps up/297 down. hmm
I still haven't watched a single episode.
I hate the Jar Jar verse and don't care to see that disaster expanded upon.
Also sci fi to me is about looking to the future, not the past.
Any show since the 90's ???
I'd say SNW is the best Star Trek since television bid farewell to TOS in 1969 (which had itself lost the majority of its sheen in season III). Don't get me wrong, TNG, DS9 & Enterprise were excellent "Starfleet" romps, but none have felt more like a true spiritual successor (predecessor?) to the original than Strange New Worlds. 'Twould seem that the showrunners 'get it', and have assembled a group of characters who rival the originals, because, for the most part, they are the originals. It is the character driven show Rodenberry originally envisioned, with visuals he could never have dreamed.
If the show runs its full potential, the final season should lead us to the events of Pike's fate, seeing James T Kirk take the com and the Enterprise's familiar crew already in place (Except Chechov, who comes a season later). If that is not what happens it will be a truly missed opportunity for a historic television continuity moment.
And after Discovery, we deserve a historic palette cleanser.
Easy most of the cast are fans..
0:05 Why? Because fans were pee'oed over STD??? So when the Enterprise sailed in, they returned to what the fans wanted. And it worked, still I like all scifi and STD turned out good, going into the future.
I think season 5 is bit better from Discovery, tone wise, but it’s still exhausting.
I'm glad some people like NuTrek. I just can't take it seriously at all. The interior of the ship is way out of whack. Everyone is buddy buddy & the talking down to higher ranking officers without consequences for doing so. They treat Spock like an idiot (and now autistic in this series?). Spock is much older & has more experience than anybody else serving on the Enterprise. I find it very childish to how he is treated. I take issue with so much of this show. I enjoyed the 1st season, but it went down hill for all of season 2 for me.
It's a visually stunning show, but for me I miss the moral issues that arise & how to solve those issues by a smart & unified crew by the end of every episode. What happened to the optimistic future? That is missing & to me the stories don't make sense if you really break them down. I'll leave it here as I could go on forever. I want to LOVE new Star Trek, but it's just not Trek to me anymore. It's a badly written sci-fi show IMO. Kudo's for everyone who enjoys it. I'm truly happy for you.
PS. Off topic from SNW, but I really enjoyed Picard S3 as it made so much sense in the storyline. It wasn't perfect, but you can just see the difference by a good writing team of Terry Matalas & his writing team he brought in to give the TNG crew a great sendoff we never got in Nemesis. It was so riveting & left me wanting more after every episode until the conclusion.
None of these fake Treks can hold a candle to the real original treks.
Yup, you got it.
They had a musical episode where Klingons were a boy-band. No, it's not a comfy old chair.
That was the best joke in that episode.
And the main Klingon's actor there was was... Check the name out!
(It was even a K-Pop band :-) )
Except as a callback to an older age of tv. Musical episodes are a tried and true tradition of episodic tv. That really works
@@WolvesbaneNetwork , Aesthetic is for dumb people...
Good writing requires good writers...
And they ain't got em.
You can aesthetic BS your way into the average id**t, but if you want to do what Star Trek used to do, and inspire the minds of our astrophysicists, rocket scientists, and highest minds, you gotta do better than this shallow quippy trash.
The division in modern Trek is that of intelligence. They told all their smartest and most avid fans to get fk'ed. (They even broke the 4th wall a few times to say it directly at the audience in Discovery) *Because that's the kind of petty sh*theads they are.
I cannot say that I agree with your opinions about strange new worlds… I also need to ask why you ignore season two as it has become clear the show runners fixate on the Easter eggs and berries that you touch on in this video.
The character of spark has been relegated to comic relief, which is odd since he deserves respect, but as I said, is relegated to comic relief.
The show also has a problem with adhering to the military hierarchy and structure that every trek show has had since the 1960s.
In season 2 We see way too much of Jim Carrey Kirk just seems to be squatting on the enterprise for no reason.
The most egregious and idiotic is the niece of kahn… Like, seriously?
Season two proves that your complaints about strange new worlds are valid and also shows that the show runners can’t do much better than this.
I agree that some of the actors are good on the show but strange new worlds isn’t as good as your saying it is.
In a way it’s as pop culture referential as lower decks is meaning they can’t stop referencing past trek in strange new worlds.
Maybe one day they’ll be a Star Trek show that actually looks forward, and no, the 31st century time jump discovery ain’t it.
The only modern season of these trek shows to feel remotely like Star Trek was Picard season five. Sure it was full of fan service, but it sought to tie into older canon and none of the new series do that correctly.
Man, that Kirk casting... No!!!
They did great with Pike as a Kirk replacement. But then made Kirk himself boring.
Paul Wesley is a decent enough character. But he doesn't have much in the way of charisma as a rule breaker and adventurous leader.