The current crop of Star Trek writers have no idea how chains of command function. Well, they have no idea how human beings interact in reality neither.
6:49 Robert Meyer Burnett: "In the original Star Trek, one life lost was a tragedy, even if it was an adversary. Balance of Terror: 'In another life, I could have called you friend.' " Thank you, Robert, for reminding us of such an important episode, scene, and lesson. 🖖
I remember watching the old movies with James T. Kirk and the TNG and thinking that they were actually good at teaching lessons of how to deal with all kinds of people. The new shows are practically the polar opposite.
Heaven forbid they try to have someone like Barclay in these new ones. Having someone that isn't them on screen. Let's demonize them and show a society that doesn't deal with mental health or struggles of some people.
I loved Kira and Odo's professionalism when the Cardassian took back control of DS9. Representing Bajor security they had both the Federation staff and Cardassians to deal with. They had to force themselves to remain nutral as the Cardassians began to gloat by the end of the episode. When I saw that episode, I thought, wow, this is so close real world tension you'd see if you ever saw a change of command anywhere in business or govt. And I've seen both.
That Data and Worf scene was so awesome. On one hand, I felt Worf was being played too disrespectful, but the writers were smart enough to show realistic consequences for those actions. And of course, Worf behaved appropriately thereafter. Brent Spiner's acting, as always, was superb. I could really believe he was an emotionless android calculating his response to achieve the desired result: Worf is his friend and someone he respects, but he's behaving poorly and he must communicate this concisely without overly shaming him or showing a loss of respect. Worf, also being an honorable man and a good Starfleet officer takes this in the spirit it's meant and adjusts his attitude immediately. There's more good writing in this one scene than in anything under the name "Star Trek" since "Enterprise" was cancelled.
@@jellybryce7742 So, to some extent, I think the in-universe idea was that Ro had a lot of potential, but given her background, they were willing to cut her a little slack. In the real world, I think they used it as an opportunity to provide some friction, and therefore story potential, among the crew.
I love that scene, too, and have used it to correct someone myself, but there's another scene shortly after in which Data denies Worf's suggestion (apparently), and you can see Worf struggle to keep his annoyance in check. It's mighty fine acting by Michael Dorn. Data then reconsiders and adopts Worf's suggestion.
@@jellybryce7742 She was a junior officer, and apparently had been sprung from Federation jail for some infraction, so they already knew she was a troublemaker. So like a rambunctious dog, they let her run while keeping her away from anything breakable.
I work in Hollywood. Sitting at work now. It breaks my heart to see what I once loved fall into the gutter. And, YES! Every single department is filled with children that have no idea what they are doing. Hiring, writting, scheduling, accounting. All incapable of performing their simple tasks.
This is in cross-sectors of industries. Where it already was a battle to find, mentor, promote people of character and skill, as opposed to some pants-crapper golden child. I blame this on neo-marxists. This is a macro fight, but like the dinner scene in 2nd hand lions.
I recently left one of the bigger video game developers, and regret to say that, excluding the old guard (who have their own problems, but at least can do their job) the exact same child-like culture of hyper emotional incompetence has penetrated all levels of the company.
I am still in Hollywood, but I got out of the "biz" 15 years ago, with no regrets. I got tired of all the back stabbing and lying that was 90 percent of the day and near 100 percent of the job. I don't lie and I see no reason to back stab, so it was time for me to go. Just in time? Hardly, it was bad when I got in, I just didn't know how bad. However, at least some product was still coming out to celebrate, that is not true now. Hits are rarities now and for good reason. Get woke go broke is real.
Robert hit something perfectly, the lack of value of life in the new series. Even in DS9 where there was a galactic war between two massive conglomerates of powers, the lose of life was still paused over. Starfleet personnel died not from incompetence but from the harsh reality of war. You can do everything right, and still get outplayed, become overrun, or simply get unlucky. Starfleet officers have been portrayed as corrupt, disillusioned, traitorous, but NEVER stupid. These people were always intelligent, had a plan, knew their stuff but were of course imperfect. Both good officers, and the bad ones. It makes you wonder how the hell this organization is even still around if there are so many incompetent leaders in it. In a galaxy full of threats, how have they not been invaded or subverted already? The Romulans were always viewed as this secretive nation in a cold war with the federation that was always looking for a way to gain the upper hand to invade, and there is no way the Paramount federation would survive against that threat. Much less the many other threats out there.
One thing of note is they write protagonists (not calling them heroes) the way villains used to be portrayed. There was an X-Men comic where they literally INVADED POLAND as if there aren't negative connotations to that.
There were just plain crazy/irrational/paranoid authority figures like Admiral Satie (but even she wasn't portrayed as stupid or clueless per se) in TNG, but those were rare exceptions. People usually had some good points even while having conflicts with the main heroes. Commander Shelby from the Best of Both Worlds two-parter was a great example. She was a bit pushy and cocky, but had a good head on her shoulders, inspiring Riker into action and having a good plan that almost worked but just came up short against the Borg. Ending up being upstaged by Riker doesn't make her weak or incompetent, it only means she's a rather good officer who just came up short compared to the crew that's supposed to be the best of the best. Jellico was another "bossy but capable" character. He was a harsh guy, but did what he had to do in his situation and handled the crisis admirably. Riker shouldn't have made the trouble he did. DS9 is all about the need to adapt to trying circumstances and make harsh compromises. Now suddenly a lot of people are incompetent straw losers.
I think there's something that music people intrinsically understand that TV/movie franchise people don't: that even if Kanye West purchased the rights to Led Zeppelin and released a new album under that name, it still wouldn't be Led Zeppelin. While Christopher Tolkien was not his father, he was a true heir to his father's art. Similarly, while Rick Berman was no Gene Rodenberry, he was a student of Gene and a more than suitable heir to Gene's legacy. But Kurtzmann is not part of this legacy: he's Kanye covering "Stairway to Heaven"
Actual Star Trek fans will make that argument, that just because its the same name doesn't make it canon or even part of the same IP. But there are just as many people who will fight to the death to tell you that it is canon and we should all just shut up and accept it. I can't tell you how many Star Trek youtube channels I've seen that just keep carrying on talking about the new crap just like they would TNG. They talk about lore changes, and character arcs and all that stuff as if its legitimate Star Trek. And of course they put out butthurt videos attacking viewers who comment that its all dogshit and that the person is a sellout.
TV people _can_ understand music, but it is rare. There even are 3 episodes across the 3 different Star Trek series (!) that shows the *human connection* was the heart and soul of ST. *ST:TNG* S6E19, _Lessons_ th-cam.com/video/c4y_oWBiwAo/w-d-xo.html *DS9* S7E5, _Chrysalis_ th-cam.com/video/rWDZGfEx3f0/w-d-xo.html *Voyager* S5E22, _Someone to Watch Over Me_ th-cam.com/video/UBbWC7Z8J0Q/w-d-xo.html "Seth" Trek also understands what makes _good_ Sci-Fi: *Exploring the social and moral implications of technology.* Star Trash Disaster doesn't understand _anything_ that made ST great.
Balance of Terror is one of my favorite episodes ever. The submarine/battleship was a little overdone, especially the running silent bit, but the battle of wits between the two captains was awesome. The fact that the Romulans weren't cardboard villains was great. You feel genuine sadness when the commander destroys his ship.
The "running silent" bit is a little silly, but I can rationalize it by thinking it wasn't the noise they were trying to stop, it was the detectable energy signature causing the noise.
Yes I was very sceptical about the Orville, the trailers looked great but there was a nagging voice in my mind saying this could be rubbish. I starting to watch it and it was great using some classic stories from Star Trek in a new and creative and funny ways. They could remove most of the humourous and wacky stuff and it would still be great.
@@stue2298 The episode 'If The Stars Should Appear' looks as though it was taken straight out of TNG or VOY, it's probably my favourite episode of the series.
Thats what happens when someone that actually cares writes a story. Seth is a huge fan of Star Trek, so it figures that he would know how to write Trek-like stories.
Not only is McFarlane are huge Trekkie fan, but he hired a bunch of people who worked on TNG and DS9 in the 90's, for his show. That's why The Orville, feels so much more like oldschool Star Trek.
Sorry, that´s not entirely correct: At least in Germany are Picard and Discovery (Season 1) available on Amazon Prime, Discovery (Seasons 1-4) can be seen on the free "Pluto TV" (in english and german language). So, if anyone has a masochistic urge...
*Michael Burnham* is insubordinate as hell. *Jean-Luc Picard* would delicately finesse his points across when he disagrees w/ his superiors. *James T. Kirk* was a maverick in the original series but even he had more respect for authority than that.
An insubordinate character CAN work (Doctors McCoy and T'ana, for example), but they have to be shown as competent at what they do and insubordinate in attitude only, not actual deed, unless they are acting in a rare case to save the day. A good example is Col. O'neilll (two Ls) from Stargate SG-1. He's insubordinate as hell, but he is also extremely competent and gets the job done. Warrant Officer Piccalo in SeaQuest DSV was the same way; ascerbic, irritating, and insubordinate, but competent and reliable when the chips were down.
@@jfangm And Doctor McCoy wasn't insubordinate unless absolutely required. Abrasive, sure, but he did what he was ordered to do every time. The handful of times he was actually insubordinate, it was where he was legitimately in charge (like medical situations) or lives were on the line that he needed to save. Worf had moments of insubordination, but he was dressed down, admitted his mistakes, and accepted his punishment, making sure to improve in the future, like with Data. It was always done, in the past, for a purpose and rarely at that. These are professionals in a professional setting, dealing with intense stress constantly. They can't have the emotional maturity of teenagers or people will die. The issue with today's writers is they think all that maturity is useless and doesn't let people be human and have feelings. In reality, it's the ability to recognize that feelings come after lives are saved and work is done.
The problem is "trust" and "superiority" : how can you trust your superior when they are insubordinate? How can you follow the rules of a superior who is just as insubordinate or worse? Kirk had the highest regard for the chain of command but he only broke the chain because the stakes were high for the Federation or personally *AND* he accepted all the punishments for breaking the chain of command (demotion, brig, etc).
Whoever's doing the writing for this show has a child's idea of what Captain Kirk was like and rather than making Burnham act like Kirk, because that would require finesse and competent writing to make her more than just a diverse female Kirk, they chose to hamfist it and just make Burnham absolutely perfect in every way so her insubordination is seen as a good thing. Writers these days are lazy and incompetent. You just need to have the right politics rather than ability
@@andystegall7407 it's the problem you always face when you're main character is either a Mary Sue or Gary Sue. There is no growth potential or learning because the character knows all and their actions are always right. They don't make mistakes so there is nothing to learn. The character never develops in a way that is interesting to the audience. You thus have to have plots where the stakes are always amazingly high in order to make the story interesting. Superman; Captain Marvel; Michael Burnham are all good examples of Gary/Mary Sue type characters.
It's funny... because to me, Netflix has become THE platform for awful content, shit out at a bullet train's pace... so "Discovery" (and the rest of them) should fit right in!
In fact there are like...different political visions among mankind. And someone has got the right to say their own point of view is better, but you also have got the right to criticize their own...or at least you should have it in what was once called a "Rule of law State" (which is getting scarcer and scarcer, I agree...)
"Sure, it has but there is a difference being shown something to make you think and told what to think. If you keep saying that line - Star Trek is political - I am guessing you are more the latter than the former." - A reply to that excuse.
It annoys me when they claim it was always "progressive". Progressiveism is judging groups based on their race and gender, into a system of hierarchical oppression... That was never Star Trek. Star Trek didn't care about your race, or gender, it was entirely merit based, your race/gender wasn't acknowledged. It was diverse without beating you around the head with it.
to para-phrase a comment I read recently about the latest series of Picard - "Awful writers taking legendary characters who could travel anywhere in the galaxy, and instead using them as a vehicle to whinge about what they hate in modern day America and their political opponents?". This isn't Star Trek, this someone basically being Buffalo Bill - parading around in the dead skin of Star Trek and it's beloved characters like Picard while they force their political and social views on everybody.
Skinwalkers. They wear their hides as costumes. He-Man. Star Wars. Marvel and DC (comics in general). Transformers even had a trans storyline at one point.
Yes, in large part... but ST:TOS dealt with racism (in its actual meaning), a Vietnam-like situation, and the like, definitely issues of the time in America.
Yes of course same as TNG for other issues in modern day but it was subtle and it wasnt to the detriment to the story or characters. In some ways enhancing characters and their development over the course of series and movies. Look Kirk's stance on Klingons after the death of his son and how in undiscovered country he learns to overcome his prejudices, just one example off the top of my head.
The writers commit pretty much every mistake I've seen newbie writers make. It's okay to make these mistakes when you're starting With hard work, feedback, and effort, one can improve. It's NOT okay when you are a showrunner!
I feel like they also don't understand how certain things work. Captain marvel: They thought power=good Halo: They don't understand the connection between masks, mysterious characters, and imagination. Hollywood in general: Treat special effects as action rather as an enhancer. Few things can mimic fighting as actually fighting.
Well the problem is that this generation of writers have come to believe that they're the cream of the crop who don't need to make any improvements and as result they've come to view legitimate criticism (especially constructive) as from of "hate speech".
Star Trek: thought-provoking sci-fi that used encounters with aliens to examine aspects of humanity. "Star Trek": insubordinate children shout and swear at each other in handheld dutch angles, and things explode.
Star Trek is pretty much the sci-fi version of a military drama, complete with officers and crewmen working together like clockwork, and all the complications that come with it, to perform feats no one-man army can ever do. Now, they literally have a one-(wo)man army as a main lead. Star Trek is about a group of *people,* and how these people deal with their adventures through space. Train Wrek is about a group of atomized caricatures, going on bland action set pieces while paying lip service to ideologues.
Those last few lines about literature is something Chris Gore mentioned in his interview. He said writers today are not writing based off experience or literature, but by past movies or tv shows. Just like Drinker mentioned about the “cliff jumping “. It’s spot on commentary
@@anderslennartsson1828 Given that both Kurtzman has publicly stated that he is not a fan of Star Trek and that he considers it to be a vehicle for his social messaging, I would consider that to be ill intent. Annoying and incapable would be Kurtzman trying to make something true to the spirit of Star Trek and failing. I could forgive that but not this twisted corruption.
I wrote this under a recent RLM Picard reView: When I was about 12, I saw "Star trek: First Contact." Shortly after seeing it, and enjoying it, my buddy gave me the "Star Trek: BORG" CD-Rom. Fun game. Introduced me to Q. Then, I watched "The Voyage Home." These three things opened the Trek doors for me. I have since watched the original series, Next Gen, and Voyager, and all of the movies. I still want to tackle DS9 at some point. Now, I can go back and see First Contact for the silly movie it is. Picard is what would happen if I had written a series when I was 12, only having experienced those first three things, and I'm almost wondering if the writers' Trek experience consists of those two movies, and a wiki page.
I was nervous with the first Jar Jar Abrams movie tagline of: "This isn't your fathers Star Trek!" That A.D.D. nightmare was even worse than my fears. It's not accidental. They are using Trek as window dressing to cram their Junior High world view down everyone's throats.
I just watched the episode 'Space Seed' from the OG series in preparation for the 'the Wrath of Khan'. I couldn't believed how good the writing was. I was in awe. People may say that some things about the old series are outdated but the writing was nearly flawless. Compare that to a lot of modern shows, my God how the art of storytelling has been denigrated.
I know exactly what you mean. I actually think that OG episode is required watching to understand "The Wrath of Khan." I did exactly this the other day. Fantastic writing indeed.
I remember the first season got REALLY good from Space Seed on. Like, the previous eps were pretty damn good, but from that one onwards the writing was on another level
Yeah thing is serious sci-fi in tv for adults was a new thing so there’s some weird stories. Like multiple planets that are exactly like earths past (because the studio had cowboy and Indian costumes, or WW2, or mobster costumes) but even in those episodes the message was positive and the writing was good. Captain Kirk geeking out about the American flag and the Declaration of Independence might have seemed weird awhile ago but it really hits home how devoid our society is of such a wholesome message
@@rogersmith7396 I actually don't think they got RAH to write for Trek. He did tour the set, and they did have other legends like Theodore Sturgeon, oh, and David Gerrold lifted the Flatcats from The Rolling Stones straight into The Trouble with Tribbles.
Whenever admirals showed up in Star Trek you knew the dynamics you were accustomed to wern’t going to apply. It always felt like a ceramic bomb that ticked ever other minuet when one was on screen. You never knew how it was going to play out and you never knew the internal workings of them, but the longer they were on screen you always felt the tension.
Now when admiral "assigned male at birth" shows up, you know Mikey Spock is going to teach him a lesson, change his mind, and end up apologizing for his orders which were wrong, and nothing bad would happen if they had just listened to diverse strong Whamens.
It's also worth noting that Gene Roddenberry himself was in the Army during the Second World War. He was intimately familiar with the chain of command, which is probably why it's depiction, as exampled by Drinker, is rather accurate. In fact, the ship they often use, the Enterprise, was so named after the USS Enterprise, one of the three original Aircraft carriers that America had prior to the Pearl Harbor attacks. And since we are on the topic of "things named after the USS Enterprise", the car rental company Enterprise was named after the ship, which the company's founder served on.
I remember being high as a kite watching the first of the reboot "Star Trek" films surrounded by four of my childhood friends who also grew up with TNG and DS9. We basically gave up on modern cinema at that point.
Real Star Trek is a dream of a better future - still flawed, but one where reason and compassion are at the forefront. Modern Trek is nothing but a mirror held up in front of the petulant and conceited society we already have, and that's why I hate it.
Same. Anything longer than 15 minutes gets added to the appropriate playlist for later viewing... when I actually have the time. ...Which I never end up having. So these bits are perfect for me.
Here in Europe who have no longer any way of watching Discovery. I can't even begin to tell you how devastated we all are that we are no longer able to "expand" our brains and sights with such a "cleverly" and "intelligent" written and directed piece of "art" (definitely not fecal matter) with such "lovable, intelligent, very human" "characters" (definitely not walking stereotypes). Discovery (if I don't put Star Trek next to it is because of how much respect I have for the show for being it's own thing), you will be missed, we all laugh ... uh... I mean cry at your demise.
I don't even consider myself a Trekkie in any capacity. But what Abrams and Kurtzman have done to Trek offends even me. As it should offend anyone valuing quality entertainment or the pop cultural legacy that Star Trek has built. Because what these two Hollywood hacks are doing to it can only be called cultural vandalism, if not outright rape and mauling, of something better men than them have built over generations. They are not creators. Not even stewards. They are destroyers and liquidators out of sheer creative incompetence and ideological malevolence.
A few years ago I gave my dad the dvd box of the entire original series. I also went swimming with my parents at the local pool once a week and afterwards we would always watch an episode of Star Trek. I dont have the heart to tell my dad what has become of the series :'( it would break his heart. It was a big part of his youth and a series he loved to watch and its legacy has been flushed down the toilet by these people...
Star Trek: Every crew member matters and is competent. “Star Trek”: Every crew member is incompetent and needs the Captain to tell them how to use a spoon.
Chris Gore explained it perfectly (if I understood him correctly). Writers today grew up with television and learn writing in college or whatever, wheras previous generation of writers grew up with hardcore sci-fi literature and mostly already had some life experience or some other form of education and then transitioned into writing. Certainly that does not fit to ALL writers. Maybe even the writers in ST:D would be good if they are not forced to include so many agendas into their plots, who knows? If you would cut out all the human drama in between the crew (I mean who cares which crew members loves which crew member) they would have time to focus on some actual Sci-Fi story plots. And additionally: There is only a finite amount of talented writers but there are so many shows made nowadays that there just aren't enough good people to write the plots.
Maybe its like the rest of society where they only hire people who will work cheap without regard for ability. Maybe the writers are all from Guatemala.
there's no shortage of talented writers, just like there's no shortage of talented musicians... they're simply not being hired. hollywood is not a meritocracy.
I think a big part of it is that the push for "diversity" is ignoring talent and experience. Paying dues doesn't exist. Guys like Mel Brooks and Woody Allen spent something like 15-20 years writing for television before they started writing and directing their own movies. Now, they'll give someone a big budget blockbuster after doing a 30 minute documentary if they check the right boxes.
Me: "I am a straight white male." Everyone in charge of making everything called "Star Trek" since 2009: "Shame on you. Also, Star Trek isn't for you".
"When was the last time we dedicated a naval vessel to a character a thousand years old?" IDK, let's ask the crews of HMS Ajax, HMS Achilles, HMS Actaeon, HMS Agamemnon, HMS Alecto, HMS Alexander, HMS Alfred (etc.)
@@anonygent She'd be given to the Soviets as war reparations, renamed Новороссийск, and sunk in 1955... and not by friendly fire. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Giulio_Cesare
All movie, TV and cultural commentary is made significantly better when you add Robert Meyer Burnett to the mix. The man is insightful in his critiques and his praise, and he has a way with words that really conveys his passion for entertainment.
I was so biased towards Trek, that when Discovery (STD) started... I was like - "Okay... It's probably going to be stupid, but maybe it won't be OFFENSIVELY bad. It, really, could be like the movies, and I can sort of pop-corn it." So they had that free trial thing when STD started, and I put it on - in the background, while I was doing dishes. It was so unequivocally, offensively, gratingly fucking stupid, that I still had to turn it off. The show is so goddamn bad, that it makes chores worse... (to say nothing of how they "didn't" blatantly steal the ship's spore drive powered by giant glowing tardigrades, and the sexual orientation/skin tone/position/uniforms of the entire crew - from Anas Abdin's indie video game)
LMFAO unfortunately I think we have all suffered those shows in some way . You think naaaaah it can't be as bad as everyone says I'm going to give it a go... Or you get the people who think well they said bad things about Enterprise and I loved that I'll try these and I might like them. I hate discovery and can't stand that show. I can't even say I like Picard because I don't but I watch it because I find it hilarious . The sad part is I don't think its supposed to be viewed as a comedy
I love how there is an obvious chain of command in TNG and the other shows. Everyone is a professional and respects each other. There is no bickering and things only get heated when things are REALLY serious. I also love how godlike the officers look to the junior officers. Anytime there is an episode from their point of view, all of the officers are intimidating but are shown nothing but respect. These new shows do nothing like that.
I was all set to agree with you, but no, I think not. In the 1960s, America was still recovering from the throes of Jim Crow and segregation, with rioting in the streets along racial lines. Star Trek showed a utopian future in which everyone got along. Star Trek: Diversity shows a dystopian future in which only women, minorities, and homosexuals are in charge. The reality is that the straight white men are still running the world, and probably will continue to do so for the next few centuries, liberal opinion notwithstanding.
The interesting thing is how the "diversity obsessed" writers and producers behind this can miss the mark so badly on an IP which, from the beginning back in the 60's, was already about diversity. And yet these modern producers have managed to segregate characters on their own, separate shows (if we presume Pike in Strange New Worlds is/will remain a straight white guy). The problem with Discovery is that it makes everything forced which pretty much goes against Star Trek's original intent.
The "diversity and inclusion" clique, ironically, is the most extremely racist and sexist group around. They sort people like crayons for disparate treatment depending upon their own peculiar notion of "social justice" that day.
The problem is that the "Original intent" of Star Trek hasn't changed in 60 years. This is a science fiction series without science. So it was in the original run and so it remained in Discovery. The phrase "Where no man has gone before" is a complete lie. If the onboard computer has comprehensive information about the planet, then it has already been discovered. Same goes to the aliens who all speak English. And the unscientific nature of the series is still not noticed, because the old fans united in the fight against wokeness and began to ignore core flaws. I mean - when real science looks more futuristic than a series about the future - this is already an occasion to think about reforming or completely changing the series. And I'm not a sci-fi fanatic, but rather a person who understands that real science is more interesting plot than stereotypes about science and science fiction. For 60 years in Star Trek, there has not been a chain of command. The captain is still personally sent on dangerous missions along with his first officer, which is risky and stupid. I know this is done to make the audience sympathize with the main character... But why always make the main character in command? It's as stupid as a hero in Skyrim leading every faction he joins. And many of these moments make the series predictable and unscientific. And this is a much more serious problem than "lack of optimism". Standalone episodes were stupid from the start. I had a lot of questions when the crew of the Enterprise accidentally moved in time in the past and the captain ... Did nothing. He didn't owe it to his superiors or scientists, he didn't sell this information to corporations, he didn't destroy the information... And the ship just continued on its course... But what? They don't explore unknown territories, they just act like rescue rangers - they rescue randos instead of exploring. This is another problem with Star Trek. If the crew is scientific, then where are the scientists? Why is it that when the crew finds a rare creature and kills it, the body does not end up in the hands of biologists or something? If the crew is military, then why are they doing all sorts of nonsense? Of course, you can say that "It was the 60s, people were more naive then, etc." But nothing has changed since then. Transporters remain in canon and allow you to move to the captain's bridge of an enemy ship. This is absurd.
What I never understand is that both the OG Star Trek and Next Gen were diverse, but it was done in a way to represent the numerous planets and worlds that you'd expect to find on a Federation Starship.
Star Trek has jumped the shark so thoroughly there is no resurrecting it. Reboot as you please. It is dead. Star Wars is dying, nearly dead. This is FINE. It opens the way to new stories.
The frustrating part of this is that even though the show should have been cancelled long before this. It's ratings continue to fall with every season but it's allowed to continue because like BatWahmen, it spouts the right message and continues to be renewed exclusively on that merit. It's not a story about characters - it's a fucking placard with stick figures on it... Classic Trek showed that message of tolerance, understanding and diversity simply by having showing characters from multiple ethnic backgrounds working together. The animosity was gone, and in it's place was respect and fellowship. You had a multiracial crew simply working together, and being great at what they did. They acted as examples to what we could achieve, rather than having to keep telling us every fucking episode: "Hey Chekov. Your russian heritage would have made it really difficult for us to have been friends 100's of years ago. Did you know that, or should I remind you again in a few hours?" Like with any scene involving Stametts and the Doctor - I get it... Gay people have relationship issues too. Why is that the total extent of these characters development?
This show had several seasons pre-ordered even before a byte of it was recorded on a digital camera. Probably because they wanted enough episodes for syndication, or wanted to tie up the actors' paychecks, or just some legal shenanigans to be able to hold onto the rights of the IP. Netflix had signed up for two seasons to co-finance, and they cut their losses and bailed out as soon as they could. And rumor has it, that Amazon made the same pre-order for their LotR show.
In 20 to 30 years time how do you think humanity will react to all these old shows and movies and societies current attitudes and thoughts? I would hate to be a boy or a young man in todays society it must be awful and I mean that sincerely . Things have got to change . I said something the other day I will never be a feminist because I believe in equality and thats why I'm egalitarian and you'd think I'd have said something so evil and racist and horrible.
@@P.T.S.E. Maybe a couple of seasons, but if the shows already paid for then you would think being renewed would be a foregone conclusion, and not some sort of celebration when they announce it. i.e. "We got renewed for season 4" should have been met with - "Well yeah? The show is already paid for so of course it is" Hope that makes sense 😅
@@laurarules3642 Holy crap - yes!! I know exactly what you are talking about with egalitarian. Trying to explain to someone that feminism by it's definition is not equality, because it is weighted by etymology to favour the feminine. It's like when they try to redefine racism so that only majority powers can be racist, without recognising the idea that everyone can experience intolerance based on race, regardless of their own skin colour. Language is important.
@@romarudarkeyes "Trying to explain to someone that feminism by it's definition is not equality, because it is weighted by etymology to favour the feminine" So by your argument civil rights campaigners in the 1960s, were essentially racist or unequal, because they were more focused on people of colour, than white people? Language is important but it is also deceptive. If you are more concerned by a minority group of people sometimes being racist, than a majority of people, with far more power and influence, structuring society in a racist fashion...you are focusing on the wrong thing. Both sides are imperfect but one side tried to topple the American government on January 6, inspired in part by racism.
Heh, I marathoned DS9 during lockdown. It was great. Even though you could tell some 1990s writer was working through their WWII feels (Cardassians as Nazis was NOT subtle), it was still done with a level of maturity and the show allowed for interesting dynamics to be explored. The Nazis were allowed to express their actual views and were taken seriously by the writers, instead of being cartoon villains. And, of course, the level of character growth across seven seasons was beyond astonishing. I won't spoil anything for you, but two characters that start Ep 1 in a very bad/dark place manage amazing levels of growth and emotional maturity towards incredibly difficult topics. That amount of personal growth wouldn't be allowed today because 1) the writers aren't capable of that growth themselves, let alone writing it 2) it would mean that instead of characters dealing with the same thing the same way over and over again they would have to change, and that appears to be anathema to current entertainment and 3) it would go against the ""message"", as both characters would be viewed by the Woke as 'victims', so they would never be allowed to grow past the things holding them back or allow anything resembling nuance or forgiveness towards their 'oppressors'.
@@StarWarsomania You are correct in all of this of course. I've watched parts of it before but never the whole series all the way through. And I still contend that "In the pale moonlight" is the best episode of any pf the Star Trek series.
@@StarWarsomania There was a television character with a "problem," one that isn't politically correct. The hero or the writers, never addressed the issue till the second to last episode. In the earlier years, there was a supposed contrast with his lifestyle and growing up. So basically, the show tabled the issue till the very last. IMHO, this kept the protagonist from growing up, making some sacrifices, and really developing. Don't know what's going through the entertainment industry's minds?
Michael saved the Kelpians from the Ba'ul despite their warnings about how dangerous the kelpians are (against the prime directive), by use of the red angel signal... who were then was directly responsible for casuing the galactic wide burn, in which billions may have died. Hero!
That's more unintended consequences. If you ask me, a good spin-off would be about a ship and crew sent back in time to stop the Burn and them ultimately wrestling with the implications of correcting Burnham's actions and doing it anyways, rationalizing it with, as Spock said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
This whole mentality and crappy writing may be the result of "participation trophies". I remember years ago TV pundants talking about the negative future outcomes of babying children, saying there are "no winners and losers" and telling them that everyone is special and perfect exactly the way they are. I figured it was the typical outcry about the next generation that historically hasn't really held true. Like I didn't turn into a Satan worshiper because I liked heavy metal and D&D. But this time around I think they were correct, not all but many of the younger generation really do have a skewed view of reality and no concept of responsibility, needing to work hard, etc. And THAT skewed view is what we see in recent shows like Discovery. The writers are incapable of writing quality stories like the old Trek because they aren't even capable of understanding the old Trek. Humanity really has gotten a bit dumber this time around.
No that's all wrong, incompetent and immaturity has always existed. What's happened is that interest has become way too difficult to get. There are so many things out there to compete with for attention, from videogames, anime, movies and TV shows from other countries, youtube, twitch, TikTok, other social media. So they take old properties with name recognition to get free interest. And with this diversity nonsense it also means that companies don't have to worry about quality writing. Just get a bunch of diverse looking people and market the hell out of that so all the blue check marks on twitter and youtube will promote it for free cause they think they're supporting something progressive which is essentially a faux-religion.
What killed the series (it was on life support anyway) for me was in the end of one of the seasons (I forget which) the Starfleet Admiral is negotiating with the Orion Syndicate boss and she says this: "Capitalism wins again captain," That was the killing blow. They ham fist their politics into this stuff so blatantly that it's incredibly off-putting. Like drinker said, everybody but diverse-female-space-Jesus is an idiot and incompetent, however the more "diverse" you are the more competent you are. TNG at least tried to not make their morals preachy to the point of being obvious.
How did anyone watch even that much of it. I literally could not finish the first episode. And everything I've seen or heard since then is even more cancerous than that.
@@dash4800 I never got even that far. I was put off by the bad reviews and by the ludicrous design of the ship: for pete's sake, who would delete a ring from the middle of an inhabited disk in space? It's like putting holes in your jeans just to look c--. Oh. It's not a total loss, though. Even the sorriest of shows has entertainment value as an object of ridicule, as Critical Drinker & friends have proven multiple times.
I liked the part when Burnham rescues her friend from the Orion junkyard and then abandons all the other slaves to die once she frees him. And who could forget the part where she kills all the Liquidators in cold blood, right after it's established the Orion Syndicate forces people to work for them via threats and coercion.
wrong, what killed it Mickey Spork....strikes her captain, attempts to kill her then literally gets the captain killed, is slapped in the brig where she belongs then is sprung by that moral deprived idiot to be his first officer? that's what killed it, all in 1 episode they told me all I needed to know.... and each outrage after has only worsened the crimes of that caravan of shit!! i would say circus but that'd be a insult to good circuses everywhere and I'd say carnival but again that's an insult to good carnivals lol if new star trek were a samurai it'd be locked in a small room and given a tanto to commit sepiku with and told "save us the trouble of putting you on trial" but new star trek lacks even that kind of honor...it can't self terminate cus it must preach but nobody cares so it's failed and must die but can not self terminate cus it must preach and so the cycle never ends
When I watch Discovery, it feels like I'm watching a script intended for a teen drama on The CW that somehow got lost en route and ended up in a Paramount inbox! I get the impression the writers are only aware of character growth in the form of emotional teenagers thrown into exceptional circumstances and don't know how to cope with the responsibility. Now that's all well and good if you are writing for something like Spiderman - the style and content fit the narrative. But it doesn't work when you are trying to portray seasoned officers in a military-structured hierarchy, who were already supposed to be the cream of the crop just to get accepted to the Academy, let alone graduate and earn a commission. The only way I can believe this sort of blinkered failure could occur is because everything is being written by checklist. ie. some execs have disassembled the common elements from some popular TV show and given a list of points that have to occur in order for a story to be accepted. Logic and internal consistency be damned, its more important to mine drama from artificially high stakes and OTT emotional responses. I remember that Michael Pillar used to turn writers away on TNG if they couldn't answer the simple question of "what's it about," in a concise way. That man had standards when it came to storytelling. They need someone like him running the show (RIP) rather than the glorified script doctor that is Alex Kurtzman.
look at this panel of supernerds, legends, imagine the lore that these guys know. these guys should be show running and writing, lord of the rings, star trek, star wars, i would add chris gore as well
I gave Discovery a chance when it first came out. I watched the entire first season. I was bitterly disappointed. I did not LOVE Michael Burnham Sue.. like the creators demanded. Her arrogance was galling. What is sad is that the show had kernels of potential (like a few good characters). But those kernels are buried DEEPLY under piles of sh*t and garbage.
DSC has 99 problems and they are all Michael Burnham. If you cut her out of the series completely, it would be a MUCH better show. "Magic to Make the Sanest Men go Mad" was my favorite episode, and it was still ruined by the plot tearing itself apart to make Burnham the central figure. And it did so by effectively destroying the most intelligent member of the crew. Instead of it being a great opportunity for a supporting character to grow and learn, it had to be an opportunity for the main character to show how much better she is than everyone else.
I couldn't even get past episode 6 or something (can't even remember). It's a shame, because I like Saru and they have a Malaysian actress who is probably supposed to be Malaysian but somehow has a French sounding name (because of Jean-Luc Picard probably). It's hard to invest on a show where the MC is terribly disliked.
The weirdest part of it all is that star trek was always about understanding others, helping those less fortunate, and had lots of episodes dealing gender or sexuality and accepting those who are different. It never needed to become more woke or inclusive, it already was.
@@jfangm fair enough, 'woke' wasn't a thing back then. I guess what I mean is they did have a (successful) forward-thinking and accepting show formula and all they needed to do was continue it. And probably keep not-airing that old s1 TNG episode with the african aliens. That was a turd back then and aged about as well as one.
I'm rewatching voyager at present, Janeway doesn't bitch and whine she just puts her foot down as a captain. Even with the lee way she gives 7 yet doesn't hide her feminine vulnerability. The woke used to be subtle not sledgehammer.
@@ancientrenegade9243 Voyager came on back when i was a kid and i loved it. Funny enough, most people used to rank it like an un-canon stepchild for being too different from everything before. I consider it pretty inline with 'classic' trek, with stern, focused professional characters solving episodic crises(though too much borg stuff prbly). I dont feel that disc/picard will ever 'look good in retrospect'. But yeah, Janeway was a good character, played by a good actress.
4:50 have you ever run an image through a copier over and over again, each time you do the image degrades, it's a fitting analogy for modern entertainment
I can't even express in words the gratitude I feel towards all of you for making the ultimate sacrifice and watching that Shi+ Show, so I never had to.
That's an interesting point how Star trek has always had some connection to literature and poetry. It made Star trek always feel cultured. We don't get that in new trek anymore. Probably because the children it's written by and for don't even read books.
Those writers try to do something "new" or "different" without covering the basics of a story, that need to be strong and solid, or understanding what they want to do with their "vision". Thats why some basic stories with strong structure and good technical execution (see A Song of Ice and Fire) can be enjoyed by almost everyone, even when its nothing revolutionary. Hollywood writers of the newer generation strike me as highly incompetent and seem to just take stuff from different sources, dont take their time to understand it, because their whole story is just marketing and a smokescreen, because its sooo easy to sell it to a customer. They absolutely and positively underestimate the power of a strong narrative. Hell, even the Star Wars Prequels had strong points and nuanced storytelling, even when some artifical points were shit. The Critical Drinker understands this and thats why his books are solid and enjoyable. The love for stories and the respect for the source material is more important than any marketing bullshit you can think off. Make a good story and the marketing does itself. Fucking baffoons.
05:49: Here's the problem with "you will all go where no one has gone before":" 1) The people who were part of Starfleet were those individuals who grabbed on to the chance to search for adventure amongst the stars. They also knew the dangers of going to space (as space is a dangerous environment for most air-breathing species). 2) Not all Starfleet personnel would be stationed on starships - some would be expected to be part of starbase crews, planetary base personnel and fill other kinds of support roles necessary to maintain the Federation and its Starfleet space fleet (like engineers at shipyards, for example). 06:52. The massive issue with just killing off Starfleet officers is the pure fact that officers are VETERANS of the fleet - they are not only appointed based on skill and potential as leaders, but because they have experienced all the hazards (including combat) and obstacles that someone who has served will have experienced because they have served YEARS or even DECADES in the fleet. You don't survive THAT long in space if you haven't picked up major survival skills or instincts over the years. Also, as an officer, you need to instill that discipline, skills and drive to become an officer material in those that serve under them, so that the fleet will ALWAYS have people who have the skills and ability to lead, should the (older) leaders die or new ships become available (and which needs new leaders to command those ships). There's a REASON why Starfleet could rebuild their fleet after getting their ass handed to them by the Borg, and the reason is that they had bright, capable people to replace those lost in combat in a relatively short period of time because of the way Starfleet was structured and the Federation could provide them with the best and brightest that the member worlds could provide. :/
the dynamo effect of Gene Roddenberry spinning in his grave could power a small nation at how much disappointment he would feel at what his creation has become
TBF, none of the 90s stuff met Gene Roddenberry's vision - and was better TV because of it. Roddenberry wrote a 'bible' for the TNG show runners - tech couldn't be bad, there couldn't be stories about the alien races (especially war as he didn't want the new show to be militaristic like TOS was sometimes), etc, etc. Thankfully they ignored it. Where the modern stuff falls is a mix of bad story telling, and following Roddenberry is his progressive utopianism.
I'm truly mystified by how Nu Trek keeps getting made. I haven't met anyone who is an actual fan. Everyone I know who started watching has just given up. Even the reviewers aren't bothering any more. The only people who seem 'into' the show are the 'qweer' crowd who seem to enjoy the sense of moral superiority and latch on to the 'us vs them' mentality that Nu Trek imparts in the name of 'inclusion'.
I live out on the Left coast and there are a number of folks here who think Nu Trek is just fine. Some of them won't even accept the proposition that it is 'different' from other Trek shows. It's that last part that really underscores what is going on so far as I can tell: either they're not really paying attention at all or are completely uncritically accepting. I hate to say it, but they're just sheep.
I comfort myself with the fact that no matter how many woke movies or crappy retconed shows come out, We have and will always have Plenty of good Star Treks (Star Trek TOS, Movies 2-4,6-10, TNG)
I love seeing Robert Meyer Burnett being more outspoken. I've seen him on the John Campea show and other stuff and he's usually toning down his intelligence and opinions. Bring it on, Robert!
this is the kind of shit you get when you have a show featuring military characters written by people who have zero military experience/exposure. the kind of shit these characters pull.... in an actual military they'd all be outside mopping rain until they passed out, not praised for their "you go girl".
tbh, the military has gotten weak lately. You can't haze or initiate the new guys in units. Hell, apparently the section corporals aren't even allowed to swear at the new recruits.
There was a court martial "scene" I saw in the Starfleet "lore" of Discovery where a female captain basically lets a crew member die because - and they admit it - that he was annoying her. >< For real?! The fact that she was *exonerated* made me swear NEVER to watch Discovery.
Yes, I did disagree with that point. The Royal Navy has been naming its ships after classical figures for centuries. I didn't disagree with much else here though...😅
Hate to say it, but what a powerful statement about gentrification this makes. You have a "neighborhood" built over generations by hard-working and talented people so that it becomes immensely valuable, and then outsiders move in and destroy that value in a short time by shaping it to their own, failed ideals.
That's the opposite of how gentrification works. Outsiders move into a neighborhood because the land is cheap and the increased demand displaces the poorer original inhabitants who can no longer pay the higher rent. What you're describing is more like blockbusting.
9:25 The only one to save the Federation in the 23rd century as "its greatest warrior" was Garth of Izar. Even so, we should seriously question the idea of one person personally saving the Federation from an interstellar empire's armada. The Federation was so laughably incompetent in Discovery. Even a non-aligned planet in TOS had a sonic disruptor capable of blowing up a Constitution-class starship.
I must also say you guys posted this video and they put an ad on it that I had to watch twice that was promoting star trek discovery telling me I must binge it!!!!!
I’m gay. I used run home after school to watch Star Trek, to decompress after a sh** day. Star Trek was my escapism from the bullies, now it feels like it’s written by the bullies.
I watched half of season 1 and stopped. I'm glad I stopped, and I'm glad folks like you are out here to make sure I don't wonder if I should have kept watching.
The reason why they act like this is because none of these people understand the term "military bearing" and have always been told how great and amazing they are.
Tragically....Star Trek has always been diverse...but the characters and stories didn't focus solely on that aspect....TRUE diversity of people/aliens working together as if it's a completely normal thing to do. THAT was Star Trek's legacy. That's what the current showrunners don't get.
@@leslauner5062 The kind of stuff we see in Discovery was actually discouraged in DS9, for example, when Sisko was obsessing over racism that existed in the past and didn't exist in the present to the point that he had to go find it on the holosuite and it turned into an unhealthy obsession.. I think they were trying to tell us something.
Just to see what I could see, I wandered to Discovery's Wikipedia article to glance over a few things, particularly reception. Surprise, surprise, according to all the usual critics and the review websites, this show is absolutely amazing! As someone who never got into Star Trek perhaps as much as I should have, I can't say that I've had any interest in watching these new shows to see what the fuss is about, but I can't help but shake my head at the discrepancies between mainstream reviewers and the TH-cam channels that make the most sense to me.
5:59 - IIRC by the time they used "where no-ONE" in the movie, Next Generation was already showing on TV and this was done as a deliberate segue into the follow-on continuity. Nice analysis.
Haven't watched the video yet but I have to say "no longer" just isn't true, it's more like Star Trek didn't understand Star Trek since Discovery started ... at the latest!
The current crop of Star Trek writers have no idea how chains of command function.
Well, they have no idea how human beings interact in reality neither.
Only if it involves THE MESSAGE.
Their only experience with other people at this point is social media. Which is why every character nowadays talks like a Twitter thread.
They also keep on turning the society communist instead of a post scarcity
They need to have a conversation with Jayne Cobb about the chain of command :)
There is no current crop of Star Trek writers because there’s no Star Trek being written.
6:49 Robert Meyer Burnett: "In the original Star Trek, one life lost was a tragedy, even if it was an adversary. Balance of Terror: 'In another life, I could have called you friend.' "
Thank you, Robert, for reminding us of such an important episode, scene, and lesson. 🖖
I remember watching the old movies with James T. Kirk and the TNG and thinking that they were actually good at teaching lessons of how to deal with all kinds of people. The new shows are practically the polar opposite.
That reminds me of the "moral of the story" snippet at the end of most of the original He-Man cartoon episodes. Was very wholesome.
@Simulation algorithm For me it was the wholesome lessons taught in the 90's X-Men cartoon and the Justice League Animated series.
Heaven forbid they try to have someone like Barclay in these new ones. Having someone that isn't them on screen. Let's demonize them and show a society that doesn't deal with mental health or struggles of some people.
You mean “cry and threaten until you get what you want” isn’t a good strategy?
I loved Kira and Odo's professionalism when the Cardassian took back control of DS9. Representing Bajor security they had both the Federation staff and Cardassians to deal with. They had to force themselves to remain nutral as the Cardassians began to gloat by the end of the episode.
When I saw that episode, I thought, wow, this is so close real world tension you'd see if you ever saw a change of command anywhere in business or govt. And I've seen both.
That Data and Worf scene was so awesome. On one hand, I felt Worf was being played too disrespectful, but the writers were smart enough to show realistic consequences for those actions. And of course, Worf behaved appropriately thereafter. Brent Spiner's acting, as always, was superb. I could really believe he was an emotionless android calculating his response to achieve the desired result: Worf is his friend and someone he respects, but he's behaving poorly and he must communicate this concisely without overly shaming him or showing a loss of respect. Worf, also being an honorable man and a good Starfleet officer takes this in the spirit it's meant and adjusts his attitude immediately. There's more good writing in this one scene than in anything under the name "Star Trek" since "Enterprise" was cancelled.
they did it with ensign ro too but she always seemed to get away with it all the time because she was a bajoran.
I loved their little exchange afterwards, too.
@@jellybryce7742 So, to some extent, I think the in-universe idea was that Ro had a lot of potential, but given her background, they were willing to cut her a little slack. In the real world, I think they used it as an opportunity to provide some friction, and therefore story potential, among the crew.
I love that scene, too, and have used it to correct someone myself, but there's another scene shortly after in which Data denies Worf's suggestion (apparently), and you can see Worf struggle to keep his annoyance in check. It's mighty fine acting by Michael Dorn. Data then reconsiders and adopts Worf's suggestion.
@@jellybryce7742 She was a junior officer, and apparently had been sprung from Federation jail for some infraction, so they already knew she was a troublemaker. So like a rambunctious dog, they let her run while keeping her away from anything breakable.
I work in Hollywood. Sitting at work now. It breaks my heart to see what I once loved fall into the gutter.
And, YES! Every single department is filled with children that have no idea what they are doing. Hiring, writting, scheduling, accounting. All incapable of performing their simple tasks.
This is in cross-sectors of industries. Where it already was a battle to find, mentor, promote people of character and skill, as opposed to some pants-crapper golden child. I blame this on neo-marxists. This is a macro fight, but like the dinner scene in 2nd hand lions.
I recently left one of the bigger video game developers, and regret to say that, excluding the old guard (who have their own problems, but at least can do their job) the exact same child-like culture of hyper emotional incompetence has penetrated all levels of the company.
How do they pass their interview questions??
@@mrillis9259 the interview questions are written by the same children
I am still in Hollywood, but I got out of the "biz" 15 years ago, with no regrets. I got tired of all the back stabbing and lying that was 90 percent of the day and near 100 percent of the job. I don't lie and I see no reason to back stab, so it was time for me to go.
Just in time? Hardly, it was bad when I got in, I just didn't know how bad. However, at least some product was still coming out to celebrate, that is not true now. Hits are rarities now and for good reason. Get woke go broke is real.
Robert hit something perfectly, the lack of value of life in the new series. Even in DS9 where there was a galactic war between two massive conglomerates of powers, the lose of life was still paused over. Starfleet personnel died not from incompetence but from the harsh reality of war. You can do everything right, and still get outplayed, become overrun, or simply get unlucky. Starfleet officers have been portrayed as corrupt, disillusioned, traitorous, but NEVER stupid. These people were always intelligent, had a plan, knew their stuff but were of course imperfect. Both good officers, and the bad ones.
It makes you wonder how the hell this organization is even still around if there are so many incompetent leaders in it. In a galaxy full of threats, how have they not been invaded or subverted already? The Romulans were always viewed as this secretive nation in a cold war with the federation that was always looking for a way to gain the upper hand to invade, and there is no way the Paramount federation would survive against that threat. Much less the many other threats out there.
The Romulans would have done it if it wasn't for that pesky Michael Burnham single-handedly stopping them.
One thing of note is they write protagonists (not calling them heroes) the way villains used to be portrayed. There was an X-Men comic where they literally INVADED POLAND as if there aren't negative connotations to that.
Absolutely. Dumbed down to nothing and nothing much to show for it. DS9 Btw was superb!
There were just plain crazy/irrational/paranoid authority figures like Admiral Satie (but even she wasn't portrayed as stupid or clueless per se) in TNG, but those were rare exceptions. People usually had some good points even while having conflicts with the main heroes.
Commander Shelby from the Best of Both Worlds two-parter was a great example. She was a bit pushy and cocky, but had a good head on her shoulders, inspiring Riker into action and having a good plan that almost worked but just came up short against the Borg. Ending up being upstaged by Riker doesn't make her weak or incompetent, it only means she's a rather good officer who just came up short compared to the crew that's supposed to be the best of the best.
Jellico was another "bossy but capable" character. He was a harsh guy, but did what he had to do in his situation and handled the crisis admirably. Riker shouldn't have made the trouble he did.
DS9 is all about the need to adapt to trying circumstances and make harsh compromises.
Now suddenly a lot of people are incompetent straw losers.
I think there's something that music people intrinsically understand that TV/movie franchise people don't: that even if Kanye West purchased the rights to Led Zeppelin and released a new album under that name, it still wouldn't be Led Zeppelin. While Christopher Tolkien was not his father, he was a true heir to his father's art. Similarly, while Rick Berman was no Gene Rodenberry, he was a student of Gene and a more than suitable heir to Gene's legacy. But Kurtzmann is not part of this legacy: he's Kanye covering "Stairway to Heaven"
A comment for the alg boost
This is extremely insightful
Berman is Satans favorite son.
Actual Star Trek fans will make that argument, that just because its the same name doesn't make it canon or even part of the same IP. But there are just as many people who will fight to the death to tell you that it is canon and we should all just shut up and accept it. I can't tell you how many Star Trek youtube channels I've seen that just keep carrying on talking about the new crap just like they would TNG. They talk about lore changes, and character arcs and all that stuff as if its legitimate Star Trek. And of course they put out butthurt videos attacking viewers who comment that its all dogshit and that the person is a sellout.
TV people _can_ understand music, but it is rare. There even are 3 episodes across the 3 different Star Trek series (!) that shows the *human connection* was the heart and soul of ST.
*ST:TNG* S6E19, _Lessons_
th-cam.com/video/c4y_oWBiwAo/w-d-xo.html
*DS9* S7E5, _Chrysalis_
th-cam.com/video/rWDZGfEx3f0/w-d-xo.html
*Voyager* S5E22, _Someone to Watch Over Me_
th-cam.com/video/UBbWC7Z8J0Q/w-d-xo.html
"Seth" Trek also understands what makes _good_ Sci-Fi: *Exploring the social and moral implications of technology.*
Star Trash Disaster doesn't understand _anything_ that made ST great.
Balance of Terror is one of my favorite episodes ever. The submarine/battleship was a little overdone, especially the running silent bit, but the battle of wits between the two captains was awesome. The fact that the Romulans weren't cardboard villains was great. You feel genuine sadness when the commander destroys his ship.
The "running silent" bit is a little silly, but I can rationalize it by thinking it wasn't the noise they were trying to stop, it was the detectable energy signature causing the noise.
What a world we live in where Seth macfarlane makes a better star trek than star trek
Trek is not the name, but spirit of the story.
Yes I was very sceptical about the Orville, the trailers looked great but there was a nagging voice in my mind saying this could be rubbish. I starting to watch it and it was great using some classic stories from Star Trek in a new and creative and funny ways. They could remove most of the humourous and wacky stuff and it would still be great.
@@stue2298 The episode 'If The Stars Should Appear' looks as though it was taken straight out of TNG or VOY, it's probably my favourite episode of the series.
Thats what happens when someone that actually cares writes a story. Seth is a huge fan of Star Trek, so it figures that he would know how to write Trek-like stories.
Not only is McFarlane are huge Trekkie fan, but he hired a bunch of people who worked on TNG and DS9 in the 90's, for his show.
That's why The Orville, feels so much more like oldschool Star Trek.
Now that Star Trek: Discovery is no longer available in Europe, I'm sure we all feel sorry for the fans who can no longer watch it. Both of them.
Sorry, that´s not entirely correct: At least in Germany are Picard and Discovery (Season 1) available on Amazon Prime, Discovery (Seasons 1-4) can be seen on the free "Pluto TV" (in english and german language). So, if anyone has a masochistic urge...
"Remember when we were explorers?" Captain Jean-Luc Picard circa 2002
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
*Michael Burnham* is insubordinate as hell.
*Jean-Luc Picard* would delicately finesse his points across when he disagrees w/ his superiors.
*James T. Kirk* was a maverick in the original series but even he had more respect for authority than that.
An insubordinate character CAN work (Doctors McCoy and T'ana, for example), but they have to be shown as competent at what they do and insubordinate in attitude only, not actual deed, unless they are acting in a rare case to save the day. A good example is Col. O'neilll (two Ls) from Stargate SG-1. He's insubordinate as hell, but he is also extremely competent and gets the job done. Warrant Officer Piccalo in SeaQuest DSV was the same way; ascerbic, irritating, and insubordinate, but competent and reliable when the chips were down.
@@jfangm
And Doctor McCoy wasn't insubordinate unless absolutely required. Abrasive, sure, but he did what he was ordered to do every time. The handful of times he was actually insubordinate, it was where he was legitimately in charge (like medical situations) or lives were on the line that he needed to save.
Worf had moments of insubordination, but he was dressed down, admitted his mistakes, and accepted his punishment, making sure to improve in the future, like with Data.
It was always done, in the past, for a purpose and rarely at that. These are professionals in a professional setting, dealing with intense stress constantly. They can't have the emotional maturity of teenagers or people will die. The issue with today's writers is they think all that maturity is useless and doesn't let people be human and have feelings. In reality, it's the ability to recognize that feelings come after lives are saved and work is done.
The problem is "trust" and "superiority" : how can you trust your superior when they are insubordinate? How can you follow the rules of a superior who is just as insubordinate or worse? Kirk had the highest regard for the chain of command but he only broke the chain because the stakes were high for the Federation or personally *AND* he accepted all the punishments for breaking the chain of command (demotion, brig, etc).
Whoever's doing the writing for this show has a child's idea of what Captain Kirk was like and rather than making Burnham act like Kirk, because that would require finesse and competent writing to make her more than just a diverse female Kirk, they chose to hamfist it and just make Burnham absolutely perfect in every way so her insubordination is seen as a good thing.
Writers these days are lazy and incompetent. You just need to have the right politics rather than ability
@@andystegall7407 it's the problem you always face when you're main character is either a Mary Sue or Gary Sue. There is no growth potential or learning because the character knows all and their actions are always right. They don't make mistakes so there is nothing to learn. The character never develops in a way that is interesting to the audience. You thus have to have plots where the stakes are always amazingly high in order to make the story interesting. Superman; Captain Marvel; Michael Burnham are all good examples of Gary/Mary Sue type characters.
So people with Netflix can't watch Discovery ?! Sounds like an absolute win to me.
It's funny... because to me, Netflix has become THE platform for awful content, shit out at a bullet train's pace... so "Discovery" (and the rest of them) should fit right in!
“Oh no!” I am so devo! Gonna cry like the discovery cast
What about tos or tng though? Boooo paramount
I don't understand why people still watch Pedoflix.
Netflix has been cured of the STDs.
"But Star Trek has always been political!"
Whenever I see someone make that excuse I wish I could reach through my monitor to slap them.
It's a true assertion, but there's "political" and "POLITICAL"
In fact there are like...different political visions among mankind. And someone has got the right to say their own point of view is better, but you also have got the right to criticize their own...or at least you should have it in what was once called a "Rule of law State" (which is getting scarcer and scarcer, I agree...)
"Sure, it has but there is a difference being shown something to make you think and told what to think. If you keep saying that line - Star Trek is political - I am guessing you are more the latter than the former." - A reply to that excuse.
It annoys me when they claim it was always "progressive". Progressiveism is judging groups based on their race and gender, into a system of hierarchical oppression... That was never Star Trek. Star Trek didn't care about your race, or gender, it was entirely merit based, your race/gender wasn't acknowledged. It was diverse without beating you around the head with it.
Star Trek has always been political, it just has not always been shitty and preached its messages with the subelty of the tsar hydrogen bomb.
to para-phrase a comment I read recently about the latest series of Picard - "Awful writers taking legendary characters who could travel anywhere in the galaxy, and instead using them as a vehicle to whinge about what they hate in modern day America and their political opponents?".
This isn't Star Trek, this someone basically being Buffalo Bill - parading around in the dead skin of Star Trek and it's beloved characters like Picard while they force their political and social views on everybody.
Skinwalkers. They wear their hides as costumes. He-Man. Star Wars. Marvel and DC (comics in general). Transformers even had a trans storyline at one point.
Yes, in large part... but ST:TOS dealt with racism (in its actual meaning), a Vietnam-like situation, and the like, definitely issues of the time in America.
Alex Kurtzman posing in front of a full length mirror: "Would you eff me? I'd eff me."
Yes of course same as TNG for other issues in modern day but it was subtle and it wasnt to the detriment to the story or characters. In some ways enhancing characters and their development over the course of series and movies. Look Kirk's stance on Klingons after the death of his son and how in undiscovered country he learns to overcome his prejudices, just one example off the top of my head.
Doctor Who fans: First time?
The writers commit pretty much every mistake I've seen newbie writers make. It's okay to make these mistakes when you're starting With hard work, feedback, and effort, one can improve. It's NOT okay when you are a showrunner!
i wonder what would happen if they were told they could no longer use deus ex machina
I feel like they also don't understand how certain things work.
Captain marvel: They thought power=good
Halo: They don't understand the connection between masks, mysterious characters, and imagination.
Hollywood in general: Treat special effects as action rather as an enhancer. Few things can mimic fighting as actually fighting.
Well the problem is that this generation of writers have come to believe that they're the cream of the crop who don't need to make any improvements and as result they've come to view legitimate criticism (especially constructive) as from of "hate speech".
Star Trek: thought-provoking sci-fi that used encounters with aliens to examine aspects of humanity.
"Star Trek": insubordinate children shout and swear at each other in handheld dutch angles, and things explode.
Star Trek is pretty much the sci-fi version of a military drama, complete with officers and crewmen working together like clockwork, and all the complications that come with it, to perform feats no one-man army can ever do. Now, they literally have a one-(wo)man army as a main lead.
Star Trek is about a group of *people,* and how these people deal with their adventures through space. Train Wrek is about a group of atomized caricatures, going on bland action set pieces while paying lip service to ideologues.
Lots of boom.
You nailed it. That's the show... VERBATIM.
SCIENCE, bitches!
That's too accurate
Those last few lines about literature is something Chris Gore mentioned in his interview. He said writers today are not writing based off experience or literature, but by past movies or tv shows. Just like Drinker mentioned about the “cliff jumping “. It’s spot on commentary
Galaxy Quest is a better Star Trek.
Basically any sci-fi is better than nuTrek.
💯
Never give up, never surrender!
🛸 "I've Got 1 Job, It's Stupid But I'm Gonna Do It! OK!!" 🤣👍
The Orville out Star Treks Star Trek
"Matriarchy of incompetence" - the best summary of it all :)) Thank you!
In fact, when they get all those women making decisions, that's when STD goes from being poisonously bad to outright comedy.
“Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made.” JRR Tolkien
His name was JRR Token.
The Token German invader of the Britain isles which were basically the shire.
@mr illis
"Groomers cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and destroy what the forces of good have invented or made." -J.R.R. Tolkien
What's pathetically sad is that the holy trinity of Fantasy: LOTR, Game of Thrones & Wheel of Time have been tarnished
@@anderslennartsson1828 ok groomer.
@@anderslennartsson1828 Given that both Kurtzman has publicly stated that he is not a fan of Star Trek and that he considers it to be a vehicle for his social messaging, I would consider that to be ill intent. Annoying and incapable would be Kurtzman trying to make something true to the spirit of Star Trek and failing. I could forgive that but not this twisted corruption.
I wrote this under a recent RLM Picard reView:
When I was about 12, I saw "Star trek: First Contact." Shortly after seeing it, and enjoying it, my buddy gave me the "Star Trek: BORG" CD-Rom. Fun game. Introduced me to Q. Then, I watched "The Voyage Home." These three things opened the Trek doors for me. I have since watched the original series, Next Gen, and Voyager, and all of the movies. I still want to tackle DS9 at some point. Now, I can go back and see First Contact for the silly movie it is.
Picard is what would happen if I had written a series when I was 12, only having experienced those first three things, and I'm almost wondering if the writers' Trek experience consists of those two movies, and a wiki page.
I was nervous with the first Jar Jar Abrams movie tagline of: "This isn't your fathers Star Trek!" That A.D.D. nightmare was even worse than my fears. It's not accidental. They are using Trek as window dressing to cram their Junior High world view down everyone's throats.
What about Enterprise buddy it's my favorite show of all time.
@@Dimmary That IS a decent show, with some unique storylines!
@@Dimmary I'll get to it, too.
I just watched the episode 'Space Seed' from the OG series in preparation for the 'the Wrath of Khan'. I couldn't believed how good the writing was. I was in awe. People may say that some things about the old series are outdated but the writing was nearly flawless. Compare that to a lot of modern shows, my God how the art of storytelling has been denigrated.
Robert Heinlein among others wrote for TOS.
I know exactly what you mean. I actually think that OG episode is required watching to understand "The Wrath of Khan." I did exactly this the other day. Fantastic writing indeed.
I remember the first season got REALLY good from Space Seed on. Like, the previous eps were pretty damn good, but from that one onwards the writing was on another level
Yeah thing is serious sci-fi in tv for adults was a new thing so there’s some weird stories. Like multiple planets that are exactly like earths past (because the studio had cowboy and Indian costumes, or WW2, or mobster costumes) but even in those episodes the message was positive and the writing was good. Captain Kirk geeking out about the American flag and the Declaration of Independence might have seemed weird awhile ago but it really hits home how devoid our society is of such a wholesome message
@@rogersmith7396 I actually don't think they got RAH to write for Trek. He did tour the set, and they did have other legends like Theodore Sturgeon, oh, and David Gerrold lifted the Flatcats from The Rolling Stones straight into The Trouble with Tribbles.
Whenever admirals showed up in Star Trek you knew the dynamics you were accustomed to wern’t going to apply.
It always felt like a ceramic bomb that ticked ever other minuet when one was on screen. You never knew how it was going to play out and you never knew the internal workings of them, but the longer they were on screen you always felt the tension.
Now when admiral "assigned male at birth" shows up, you know Mikey Spock is going to teach him a lesson, change his mind, and end up apologizing for his orders which were wrong, and nothing bad would happen if they had just listened to diverse strong Whamens.
@@theelder4797 "nothing bad would happen if they had just *been* *born* diverse strong Whamens." i think this is more accurate
They haven't understood Star Trek since J.J. Trek back in 2009.
JJ Abrams, destroyer of the franchises...
The 10 year olds and the Chinese got to have their non stop action or its "time out".
The reboot movies were bad but nowhere near as bad as Discovery and Picard.
I think it started more with the TNG movies, as those felt more like action movies than Star Trek.
@@SvendleBerries Especially First Contact
It's also worth noting that Gene Roddenberry himself was in the Army during the Second World War. He was intimately familiar with the chain of command, which is probably why it's depiction, as exampled by Drinker, is rather accurate. In fact, the ship they often use, the Enterprise, was so named after the USS Enterprise, one of the three original Aircraft carriers that America had prior to the Pearl Harbor attacks. And since we are on the topic of "things named after the USS Enterprise", the car rental company Enterprise was named after the ship, which the company's founder served on.
Red Letter Media's review of Star Trek Picard are fantastic. Mike and Rich are diehard fan boys just crushed by Modern Star Trek.
“How does it feel to watch everything you love as child, die?”
I remember being high as a kite watching the first of the reboot "Star Trek" films surrounded by four of my childhood friends who also grew up with TNG and DS9. We basically gave up on modern cinema at that point.
Real Star Trek is a dream of a better future - still flawed, but one where reason and compassion are at the forefront. Modern Trek is nothing but a mirror held up in front of the petulant and conceited society we already have, and that's why I hate it.
I'm liking the smaller clips where you just play the highlights. I love to watch all of it but I just don't have the time
Same. Anything longer than 15 minutes gets added to the appropriate playlist for later viewing... when I actually have the time.
...Which I never end up having. So these bits are perfect for me.
It would be better if they were uploaded on a different channel dedicated to just clips though, else I'll have to deactivate notifications.
Yes. These targeted snippets are great.
666666666669 66669 6669 6666
9 6669
Here in Europe who have no longer any way of watching Discovery.
I can't even begin to tell you how devastated we all are that we are no longer able to "expand" our brains and sights with such a "cleverly" and "intelligent" written and directed piece of "art" (definitely not fecal matter) with such "lovable, intelligent, very human" "characters" (definitely not walking stereotypes).
Discovery (if I don't put Star Trek next to it is because of how much respect I have for the show for being it's own thing), you will be missed, we all laugh ... uh... I mean cry at your demise.
I don't even consider myself a Trekkie in any capacity. But what Abrams and Kurtzman have done to Trek offends even me. As it should offend anyone valuing quality entertainment or the pop cultural legacy that Star Trek has built. Because what these two Hollywood hacks are doing to it can only be called cultural vandalism, if not outright rape and mauling, of something better men than them have built over generations.
They are not creators. Not even stewards. They are destroyers and liquidators out of sheer creative incompetence and ideological malevolence.
Very well said.
Well put, friend 👌
They also share some early life commonalities, take that as you will.
Preach bro preach
Abrams has the distinction of ruining Star Trek and Star Wars
A few years ago I gave my dad the dvd box of the entire original series. I also went swimming with my parents at the local pool once a week and afterwards we would always watch an episode of Star Trek. I dont have the heart to tell my dad what has become of the series :'( it would break his heart. It was a big part of his youth and a series he loved to watch and its legacy has been flushed down the toilet by these people...
To 'boldly go where no man has gone before' has taken on an all new meaning.
"To boldly go and be colonizers by non birthing assigned male at birth carbon units."
--- Star Trek 2030
Star Trek: Every crew member matters and is competent.
“Star Trek”: Every crew member is incompetent and needs the Captain to tell them how to use a spoon.
And the captain has to be a strong independent waaaman of colour.
Yes, an analogy perhaps of how government is now supposed to be our saviour and "mother".
Chris Gore explained it perfectly (if I understood him correctly). Writers today grew up with television and learn writing in college or whatever, wheras previous generation of writers grew up with hardcore sci-fi literature and mostly already had some life experience or some other form of education and then transitioned into writing. Certainly that does not fit to ALL writers. Maybe even the writers in ST:D would be good if they are not forced to include so many agendas into their plots, who knows? If you would cut out all the human drama in between the crew (I mean who cares which crew members loves which crew member) they would have time to focus on some actual Sci-Fi story plots.
And additionally: There is only a finite amount of talented writers but there are so many shows made nowadays that there just aren't enough good people to write the plots.
good people often are canceled before they get in the door
Maybe its like the rest of society where they only hire people who will work cheap without regard for ability. Maybe the writers are all from Guatemala.
there's no shortage of talented writers, just like there's no shortage of talented musicians... they're simply not being hired.
hollywood is not a meritocracy.
I think a big part of it is that the push for "diversity" is ignoring talent and experience. Paying dues doesn't exist. Guys like Mel Brooks and Woody Allen spent something like 15-20 years writing for television before they started writing and directing their own movies. Now, they'll give someone a big budget blockbuster after doing a 30 minute documentary if they check the right boxes.
I can add the following question: How much reading do modern writers do? I've found that reading improves the quality of writing.
Me: "I am a straight white male." Everyone in charge of making everything called "Star Trek" since 2009: "Shame on you. Also, Star Trek isn't for you".
"But you're a bad person if you don't like it!"
I hate it when they say to we LONG-TIME fans, "It isn't for you, so don't watch it." then turn around & blame US when it flops.
"When was the last time we dedicated a naval vessel to a character a thousand years old?"
IDK, let's ask the crews of HMS Ajax, HMS Achilles, HMS Actaeon, HMS Agamemnon, HMS Alecto, HMS Alexander, HMS Alfred (etc.)
they were talking about real navies
@@Fadaar The kind you don't have to blow up and pull start the outboard.
All of the above are real life warships
If you named a ship after Julius Caesar, would it be sunk by friendly fire? 😏
@@anonygent She'd be given to the Soviets as war reparations, renamed Новороссийск, and sunk in 1955... and not by friendly fire.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Giulio_Cesare
All movie, TV and cultural commentary is made significantly better when you add Robert Meyer Burnett to the mix. The man is insightful in his critiques and his praise, and he has a way with words that really conveys his passion for entertainment.
Anyone who hasn't seen Discovery or Picard is the only winner in this game.
I was so biased towards Trek, that when Discovery (STD) started... I was like -
"Okay... It's probably going to be stupid, but maybe it won't be OFFENSIVELY bad. It, really, could be like the movies, and I can sort of pop-corn it."
So they had that free trial thing when STD started, and I put it on - in the background, while I was doing dishes.
It was so unequivocally, offensively, gratingly fucking stupid, that I still had to turn it off.
The show is so goddamn bad, that it makes chores worse...
(to say nothing of how they "didn't" blatantly steal the ship's spore drive powered by giant glowing tardigrades, and the sexual orientation/skin tone/position/uniforms of the entire crew - from Anas Abdin's indie video game)
Proud to be one !
Real Star Trek ended in 2009 sayeth the Drinker !!!
I haven't seen them, and never will thanks to Drinker's reviews of them.
My prize is in being less miserable than anyone who watched it.
LMFAO unfortunately I think we have all suffered those shows in some way . You think naaaaah it can't be as bad as everyone says I'm going to give it a go... Or you get the people who think well they said bad things about Enterprise and I loved that I'll try these and I might like them. I hate discovery and can't stand that show. I can't even say I like Picard because I don't but I watch it because I find it hilarious . The sad part is I don't think its supposed to be viewed as a comedy
I love how there is an obvious chain of command in TNG and the other shows. Everyone is a professional and respects each other. There is no bickering and things only get heated when things are REALLY serious. I also love how godlike the officers look to the junior officers. Anytime there is an episode from their point of view, all of the officers are intimidating but are shown nothing but respect. These new shows do nothing like that.
Art is a mirror of reality and Star Trek, once a beacon of hope for the future is now showing us how reality is circling the drain.
They should show hunanity as slaves with the Federation as the masters.
Or they’re just showing whatever they think will make money, which happens to be shallow and ridiculous plots with no real take home message
@@cougar2013 But they surely leave a lot of money on the table doing that.
I was all set to agree with you, but no, I think not. In the 1960s, America was still recovering from the throes of Jim Crow and segregation, with rioting in the streets along racial lines. Star Trek showed a utopian future in which everyone got along. Star Trek: Diversity shows a dystopian future in which only women, minorities, and homosexuals are in charge. The reality is that the straight white men are still running the world, and probably will continue to do so for the next few centuries, liberal opinion notwithstanding.
Star Trek: Discovery. Where even Netflix discovered, No one wants it.
Most of the woke audience doesn't watch this anyways
The interesting thing is how the "diversity obsessed" writers and producers behind this can miss the mark so badly on an IP which, from the beginning back in the 60's, was already about diversity. And yet these modern producers have managed to segregate characters on their own, separate shows (if we presume Pike in Strange New Worlds is/will remain a straight white guy).
The problem with Discovery is that it makes everything forced which pretty much goes against Star Trek's original intent.
The "diversity and inclusion" clique, ironically, is the most extremely racist and sexist group around. They sort people like crayons for disparate treatment depending upon their own peculiar notion of "social justice" that day.
The problem is that the "Original intent" of Star Trek hasn't changed in 60 years. This is a science fiction series without science. So it was in the original run and so it remained in Discovery. The phrase "Where no man has gone before" is a complete lie. If the onboard computer has comprehensive information about the planet, then it has already been discovered. Same goes to the aliens who all speak English. And the unscientific nature of the series is still not noticed, because the old fans united in the fight against wokeness and began to ignore core flaws.
I mean - when real science looks more futuristic than a series about the future - this is already an occasion to think about reforming or completely changing the series.
And I'm not a sci-fi fanatic, but rather a person who understands that real science is more interesting plot than stereotypes about science and science fiction.
For 60 years in Star Trek, there has not been a chain of command. The captain is still personally sent on dangerous missions along with his first officer, which is risky and stupid. I know this is done to make the audience sympathize with the main character... But why always make the main character in command? It's as stupid as a hero in Skyrim leading every faction he joins.
And many of these moments make the series predictable and unscientific. And this is a much more serious problem than "lack of optimism".
Standalone episodes were stupid from the start. I had a lot of questions when the crew of the Enterprise accidentally moved in time in the past and the captain ... Did nothing. He didn't owe it to his superiors or scientists, he didn't sell this information to corporations, he didn't destroy the information... And the ship just continued on its course... But what? They don't explore unknown territories, they just act like rescue rangers - they rescue randos instead of exploring.
This is another problem with Star Trek. If the crew is scientific, then where are the scientists? Why is it that when the crew finds a rare creature and kills it, the body does not end up in the hands of biologists or something? If the crew is military, then why are they doing all sorts of nonsense?
Of course, you can say that "It was the 60s, people were more naive then, etc." But nothing has changed since then. Transporters remain in canon and allow you to move to the captain's bridge of an enemy ship. This is absurd.
Identity politics is killing innovation and creativity. The drive to push out "the message" is the only thing Hollyweird knows how to do .
@@ahoramazda6864 I think TNG took the “science” aspect of the science fiction more seriously. TOS not so much.
@@acommonman8304 As someone who watched the original Star Trek as it first aired every week I can't begin to tell you just how wrong you are.
What I never understand is that both the OG Star Trek and Next Gen were diverse, but it was done in a way to represent the numerous planets and worlds that you'd expect to find on a Federation Starship.
Star Trek has jumped the shark so thoroughly there is no resurrecting it. Reboot as you please. It is dead. Star Wars is dying, nearly dead. This is FINE. It opens the way to new stories.
Its dead only for gate Keepers
@@Darkness1984 the old gatekeepers have simply been replaced by new ones. It just happens to be the case the new ones are invariably less competent.
The frustrating part of this is that even though the show should have been cancelled long before this. It's ratings continue to fall with every season but it's allowed to continue because like BatWahmen, it spouts the right message and continues to be renewed exclusively on that merit. It's not a story about characters - it's a fucking placard with stick figures on it...
Classic Trek showed that message of tolerance, understanding and diversity simply by having showing characters from multiple ethnic backgrounds working together. The animosity was gone, and in it's place was respect and fellowship. You had a multiracial crew simply working together, and being great at what they did. They acted as examples to what we could achieve, rather than having to keep telling us every fucking episode:
"Hey Chekov. Your russian heritage would have made it really difficult for us to have been friends 100's of years ago. Did you know that, or should I remind you again in a few hours?"
Like with any scene involving Stametts and the Doctor - I get it... Gay people have relationship issues too. Why is that the total extent of these characters development?
This show had several seasons pre-ordered even before a byte of it was recorded on a digital camera.
Probably because they wanted enough episodes for syndication, or wanted to tie up the actors' paychecks, or just some legal shenanigans to be able to hold onto the rights of the IP.
Netflix had signed up for two seasons to co-finance, and they cut their losses and bailed out as soon as they could.
And rumor has it, that Amazon made the same pre-order for their LotR show.
In 20 to 30 years time how do you think humanity will react to all these old shows and movies and societies current attitudes and thoughts? I would hate to be a boy or a young man in todays society it must be awful and I mean that sincerely . Things have got to change . I said something the other day I will never be a feminist because I believe in equality and thats why I'm egalitarian and you'd think I'd have said something so evil and racist and horrible.
@@P.T.S.E. Maybe a couple of seasons, but if the shows already paid for then you would think being renewed would be a foregone conclusion, and not some sort of celebration when they announce it.
i.e. "We got renewed for season 4" should have been met with - "Well yeah? The show is already paid for so of course it is"
Hope that makes sense 😅
@@laurarules3642 Holy crap - yes!! I know exactly what you are talking about with egalitarian. Trying to explain to someone that feminism by it's definition is not equality, because it is weighted by etymology to favour the feminine.
It's like when they try to redefine racism so that only majority powers can be racist, without recognising the idea that everyone can experience intolerance based on race, regardless of their own skin colour.
Language is important.
@@romarudarkeyes "Trying to explain to someone that feminism by it's definition is not equality, because it is weighted by etymology to favour the feminine" So by your argument civil rights campaigners in the 1960s, were essentially racist or unequal, because they were more focused on people of colour, than white people?
Language is important but it is also deceptive. If you are more concerned by a minority group of people sometimes being racist, than a majority of people, with far more power and influence, structuring society in a racist fashion...you are focusing on the wrong thing.
Both sides are imperfect but one side tried to topple the American government on January 6, inspired in part by racism.
Thanks for posting the highlights. Some things just need to be heard by more people.
Started watching Deep Space 9 last night and the maturity and intelligence of it contrasted against the awful new iterations is shocking.
had great music too.
Heh, I marathoned DS9 during lockdown. It was great. Even though you could tell some 1990s writer was working through their WWII feels (Cardassians as Nazis was NOT subtle), it was still done with a level of maturity and the show allowed for interesting dynamics to be explored. The Nazis were allowed to express their actual views and were taken seriously by the writers, instead of being cartoon villains.
And, of course, the level of character growth across seven seasons was beyond astonishing. I won't spoil anything for you, but two characters that start Ep 1 in a very bad/dark place manage amazing levels of growth and emotional maturity towards incredibly difficult topics.
That amount of personal growth wouldn't be allowed today because 1) the writers aren't capable of that growth themselves, let alone writing it 2) it would mean that instead of characters dealing with the same thing the same way over and over again they would have to change, and that appears to be anathema to current entertainment and 3) it would go against the ""message"", as both characters would be viewed by the Woke as 'victims', so they would never be allowed to grow past the things holding them back or allow anything resembling nuance or forgiveness towards their 'oppressors'.
@@StarWarsomania You are correct in all of this of course. I've watched parts of it before but never the whole series all the way through. And I still contend that "In the pale moonlight" is the best episode of any pf the Star Trek series.
@@StarWarsomania There was a television character with a "problem," one that isn't politically correct. The hero or the writers, never addressed the issue till the second to last episode. In the earlier years, there was a supposed contrast with his lifestyle and growing up. So basically, the show tabled the issue till the very last. IMHO, this kept the protagonist from growing up, making some sacrifices, and really developing. Don't know what's going through the entertainment industry's minds?
Ds9 is the wine of st. As it gets older it just gets better
Michael saved the Kelpians from the Ba'ul despite their warnings about how dangerous the kelpians are (against the prime directive), by use of the red angel signal... who were then was directly responsible for casuing the galactic wide burn, in which billions may have died. Hero!
That's more unintended consequences. If you ask me, a good spin-off would be about a ship and crew sent back in time to stop the Burn and them ultimately wrestling with the implications of correcting Burnham's actions and doing it anyways, rationalizing it with, as Spock said "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
The body count for the burn was likely in the _trillions._
Ah, the Ba'ul and Lorca, the only good things in STD
@@jfangm That's why she's called Burnham! Bom! Bom!
This whole mentality and crappy writing may be the result of "participation trophies". I remember years ago TV pundants talking about the negative future outcomes of babying children, saying there are "no winners and losers" and telling them that everyone is special and perfect exactly the way they are. I figured it was the typical outcry about the next generation that historically hasn't really held true. Like I didn't turn into a Satan worshiper because I liked heavy metal and D&D. But this time around I think they were correct, not all but many of the younger generation really do have a skewed view of reality and no concept of responsibility, needing to work hard, etc. And THAT skewed view is what we see in recent shows like Discovery. The writers are incapable of writing quality stories like the old Trek because they aren't even capable of understanding the old Trek. Humanity really has gotten a bit dumber this time around.
No that's all wrong, incompetent and immaturity has always existed.
What's happened is that interest has become way too difficult to get.
There are so many things out there to compete with for attention, from videogames, anime, movies and TV shows from other countries, youtube, twitch, TikTok, other social media.
So they take old properties with name recognition to get free interest.
And with this diversity nonsense it also means that companies don't have to worry about quality writing.
Just get a bunch of diverse looking people and market the hell out of that so all the blue check marks on twitter and youtube will promote it for free cause they think they're supporting something progressive which is essentially a faux-religion.
What killed the series (it was on life support anyway) for me was in the end of one of the seasons (I forget which) the Starfleet Admiral is negotiating with the Orion Syndicate boss and she says this:
"Capitalism wins again captain,"
That was the killing blow. They ham fist their politics into this stuff so blatantly that it's incredibly off-putting. Like drinker said, everybody but diverse-female-space-Jesus is an idiot and incompetent, however the more "diverse" you are the more competent you are. TNG at least tried to not make their morals preachy to the point of being obvious.
So are men dressing as women the most competent woman atheletes? Republicans seem to think so.
How did anyone watch even that much of it. I literally could not finish the first episode. And everything I've seen or heard since then is even more cancerous than that.
@@dash4800 I never got even that far. I was put off by the bad reviews and by the ludicrous design of the ship: for pete's sake, who would delete a ring from the middle of an inhabited disk in space? It's like putting holes in your jeans just to look c--. Oh.
It's not a total loss, though. Even the sorriest of shows has entertainment value as an object of ridicule, as Critical Drinker & friends have proven multiple times.
I liked the part when Burnham rescues her friend from the Orion junkyard and then abandons all the other slaves to die once she frees him. And who could forget the part where she kills all the Liquidators in cold blood, right after it's established the Orion Syndicate forces people to work for them via threats and coercion.
wrong, what killed it
Mickey Spork....strikes her captain, attempts to kill her then literally gets the captain killed, is slapped in the brig where she belongs then is sprung by that moral deprived idiot to be his first officer? that's what killed it, all in 1 episode they told me all I needed to know....
and each outrage after has only worsened the crimes of that caravan of shit!! i would say circus but that'd be a insult to good circuses everywhere and I'd say carnival but again that's an insult to good carnivals lol
if new star trek were a samurai it'd be locked in a small room and given a tanto to commit sepiku with and told "save us the trouble of putting you on trial"
but new star trek lacks even that kind of honor...it can't self terminate cus it must preach but nobody cares so it's failed and must die but can not self terminate cus it must preach and so the cycle never ends
When I watch Discovery, it feels like I'm watching a script intended for a teen drama on The CW that somehow got lost en route and ended up in a Paramount inbox!
I get the impression the writers are only aware of character growth in the form of emotional teenagers thrown into exceptional circumstances and don't know how to cope with the responsibility. Now that's all well and good if you are writing for something like Spiderman - the style and content fit the narrative. But it doesn't work when you are trying to portray seasoned officers in a military-structured hierarchy, who were already supposed to be the cream of the crop just to get accepted to the Academy, let alone graduate and earn a commission.
The only way I can believe this sort of blinkered failure could occur is because everything is being written by checklist. ie. some execs have disassembled the common elements from some popular TV show and given a list of points that have to occur in order for a story to be accepted. Logic and internal consistency be damned, its more important to mine drama from artificially high stakes and OTT emotional responses.
I remember that Michael Pillar used to turn writers away on TNG if they couldn't answer the simple question of "what's it about," in a concise way. That man had standards when it came to storytelling. They need someone like him running the show (RIP) rather than the glorified script doctor that is Alex Kurtzman.
Star Trek don’t understand Star Trek. Star Wars don’t understand Star Wars. I’m sticking to 40k. It’s Loresome!
GW doesnt understand 40k either im afraid.
Damn straight brother
@@Gravord85 agree but they can’t fuck it up like the woke mess they put on our screens.
@@droopyballbag give them time. Naming the emperor and giving him a wife was a big step in that direction
Don't lose hope for 40k, they still have some great books in the Horus Heresy Series!
look at this panel of supernerds, legends, imagine the lore that these guys know. these guys should be show running and writing, lord of the rings, star trek, star wars, i would add chris gore as well
I gave Discovery a chance when it first came out. I watched the entire first season. I was bitterly disappointed. I did not LOVE Michael Burnham Sue.. like the creators demanded. Her arrogance was galling.
What is sad is that the show had kernels of potential (like a few good characters). But those kernels are buried DEEPLY under piles of sh*t and garbage.
DSC has 99 problems and they are all Michael Burnham. If you cut her out of the series completely, it would be a MUCH better show. "Magic to Make the Sanest Men go Mad" was my favorite episode, and it was still ruined by the plot tearing itself apart to make Burnham the central figure. And it did so by effectively destroying the most intelligent member of the crew. Instead of it being a great opportunity for a supporting character to grow and learn, it had to be an opportunity for the main character to show how much better she is than everyone else.
I'm sorry, but in any properly run military, Michael Burnham would have been shot for mutiny in the second episode
Detmer and Osho are wasted on DSC.
I couldn't even get past episode 6 or something (can't even remember). It's a shame, because I like Saru and they have a Malaysian actress who is probably supposed to be Malaysian but somehow has a French sounding name (because of Jean-Luc Picard probably). It's hard to invest on a show where the MC is terribly disliked.
"Diverse Female Space Jesus" gets me every time the Drinker says it. Never gets old.
Not to be confused with “Non-Diverse Space Jesus”, which is Rey.
The weirdest part of it all is that star trek was always about understanding others, helping those less fortunate, and had lots of episodes dealing gender or sexuality and accepting those who are different. It never needed to become more woke or inclusive, it already was.
It was liberal, not woke. Never confuse the two.
@@jfangm fair enough, 'woke' wasn't a thing back then. I guess what I mean is they did have a (successful) forward-thinking and accepting show formula and all they needed to do was continue it. And probably keep not-airing that old s1 TNG episode with the african aliens. That was a turd back then and aged about as well as one.
I'm rewatching voyager at present, Janeway doesn't bitch and whine she just puts her foot down as a captain. Even with the lee way she gives 7 yet doesn't hide her feminine vulnerability. The woke used to be subtle not sledgehammer.
@@ancientrenegade9243 Voyager came on back when i was a kid and i loved it. Funny enough, most people used to rank it like an un-canon stepchild for being too different from everything before. I consider it pretty inline with 'classic' trek, with stern, focused professional characters solving episodic crises(though too much borg stuff prbly). I dont feel that disc/picard will ever 'look good in retrospect'. But yeah, Janeway was a good character, played by a good actress.
That scene between Data and Worf (referenced by the Critical Drinker) was one of the best-scripted scenes ever in STNG.
4:50 have you ever run an image through a copier over and over again, each time you do the image degrades, it's a fitting analogy for modern entertainment
I feel like Kevin Costner in Dances With Wolves hearing of news back East when you give updates on Star Trek.
How the hell did Raffi ever become an officer with her emotional maturity?
Alien integration quota.
@@rogersmith7396 i laughed way too hard at this.
Quite cleary, you have no grasp of psychology. Don't post, you're only embarrassing the species further.
"How do these ships even function?" As well as the Bad Reboot/Secret Hideout writing rooms.
It should be a felony to pirate Star Trek Discovery.
Oops, edit: it should be a felony to WATCH Star Trek Discovery.
Why not both?
It should be a felony to continue to produce Star Trek Discovery.
Wasn't there data proving that STD had a low viewer count *AND* a low piracy count? People didn't even want to waste bandwidth to pirate it.
@@thatHARVguy Not even enough interest for people to bother stealing it. That's how you know you have a shit product.
STD is a..."A matriarchy of incompetence." -- Extremely succinct and well said...
I can't even express in words the gratitude I feel towards all of you for making the ultimate sacrifice and watching that Shi+ Show, so I never had to.
Yes! Very happy to see Robert MB on the session here! So fun to see all our TH-cam Legends all in one place getting along.
Star Trek discovery literally the definition of if the most toxic parts of Twitter wrote Star Trek.
That's an interesting point how Star trek has always had some connection to literature and poetry. It made Star trek always feel cultured.
We don't get that in new trek anymore. Probably because the children it's written by and for don't even read books.
Those writers try to do something "new" or "different" without covering the basics of a story, that need to be strong and solid, or understanding what they want to do with their "vision". Thats why some basic stories with strong structure and good technical execution (see A Song of Ice and Fire) can be enjoyed by almost everyone, even when its nothing revolutionary. Hollywood writers of the newer generation strike me as highly incompetent and seem to just take stuff from different sources, dont take their time to understand it, because their whole story is just marketing and a smokescreen, because its sooo easy to sell it to a customer. They absolutely and positively underestimate the power of a strong narrative. Hell, even the Star Wars Prequels had strong points and nuanced storytelling, even when some artifical points were shit. The Critical Drinker understands this and thats why his books are solid and enjoyable. The love for stories and the respect for the source material is more important than any marketing bullshit you can think off. Make a good story and the marketing does itself. Fucking baffoons.
05:49:
Here's the problem with "you will all go where no one
has gone before":"
1) The people who were part of Starfleet were those individuals
who grabbed on to the chance to search for adventure amongst the stars. They also knew the dangers of going to space (as space is a dangerous environment for most air-breathing species).
2) Not all Starfleet personnel would be stationed on starships -
some would be expected to be part of starbase crews, planetary base personnel and fill other kinds of support roles necessary to maintain the Federation and its Starfleet space fleet (like engineers at shipyards, for example).
06:52. The massive issue with just killing off Starfleet officers is
the pure fact that officers are VETERANS of the fleet - they are not only appointed based on skill and potential as leaders, but because they have experienced all the hazards (including combat) and obstacles that someone who has served will have experienced because they have served YEARS or even DECADES in the fleet. You don't survive THAT long in space if you haven't picked up major survival skills or instincts over the years. Also, as an officer, you need to instill that discipline, skills and drive to become an officer material in those that serve under them, so that the fleet will ALWAYS have people who have the skills and ability to lead, should the (older) leaders die or new ships become available (and which needs new leaders to command those ships). There's a REASON why Starfleet could rebuild their fleet after getting their ass handed to them by the Borg, and the reason is that they had bright, capable people to replace those lost in combat in a relatively short period of time because of the way Starfleet was structured and the Federation could provide them with the best and brightest that the member worlds could provide. :/
the dynamo effect of Gene Roddenberry spinning in his grave could power a small nation at how much disappointment he would feel at what his creation has become
TBF, none of the 90s stuff met Gene Roddenberry's vision - and was better TV because of it. Roddenberry wrote a 'bible' for the TNG show runners - tech couldn't be bad, there couldn't be stories about the alien races (especially war as he didn't want the new show to be militaristic like TOS was sometimes), etc, etc. Thankfully they ignored it. Where the modern stuff falls is a mix of bad story telling, and following Roddenberry is his progressive utopianism.
Actually, Gene Roddenberry's ashes were shot into the sun on a rocket(true story).
@@leslauner5062 Only some, not all. I also call it "swirling in his urn' rather than "rolling in his grave".
I appreciated the passion we share for Star Trek, but that show left us along time ago.
I'm truly mystified by how Nu Trek keeps getting made. I haven't met anyone who is an actual fan. Everyone I know who started watching has just given up. Even the reviewers aren't bothering any more.
The only people who seem 'into' the show are the 'qweer' crowd who seem to enjoy the sense of moral superiority and latch on to the 'us vs them' mentality that Nu Trek imparts in the name of 'inclusion'.
Propaganda over Profit
I live out on the Left coast and there are a number of folks here who think Nu Trek is just fine. Some of them won't even accept the proposition that it is 'different' from other Trek shows. It's that last part that really underscores what is going on so far as I can tell: either they're not really paying attention at all or are completely uncritically accepting. I hate to say it, but they're just sheep.
I comfort myself with the fact that no matter how many woke movies or crappy retconed shows come out, We have and will always have Plenty of good Star Treks (Star Trek TOS, Movies 2-4,6-10, TNG)
Strike movies 6-10 and TNG seasons 5-7 and add back ST:TMP and TAS and I’m with you.
Major Grin's channel has turned our common disdain for _Star Trek: Kurtzman_ into art.
I love seeing Robert Meyer Burnett being more outspoken. I've seen him on the John Campea show and other stuff and he's usually toning down his intelligence and opinions. Bring it on, Robert!
this is the kind of shit you get when you have a show featuring military characters written by people who have zero military experience/exposure. the kind of shit these characters pull.... in an actual military they'd all be outside mopping rain until they passed out, not praised for their "you go girl".
tbh, the military has gotten weak lately. You can't haze or initiate the new guys in units. Hell, apparently the section corporals aren't even allowed to swear at the new recruits.
There was a court martial "scene" I saw in the Starfleet "lore" of Discovery where a female captain basically lets a crew member die because - and they admit it - that he was annoying her. >< For real?! The fact that she was *exonerated* made me swear NEVER to watch Discovery.
10:07 The Royal Navy is naming one of its new Astute-class SSNs HMS Agamemnon. ;-)
Yes, I did disagree with that point. The Royal Navy has been naming its ships after classical figures for centuries. I didn't disagree with much else here though...😅
Hate to say it, but what a powerful statement about gentrification this makes. You have a "neighborhood" built over generations by hard-working and talented people so that it becomes immensely valuable, and then outsiders move in and destroy that value in a short time by shaping it to their own, failed ideals.
That's the opposite of how gentrification works. Outsiders move into a neighborhood because the land is cheap and the increased demand displaces the poorer original inhabitants who can no longer pay the higher rent. What you're describing is more like blockbusting.
@@xeroprotagonist Ah! Okay, my bad. Thanks for the correction.
I really like the short clips. Great way to get to it for those who don't have the time to commit to entire streams.
9:25 The only one to save the Federation in the 23rd century as "its greatest warrior" was Garth of Izar.
Even so, we should seriously question the idea of one person personally saving the Federation from an interstellar empire's armada. The Federation was so laughably incompetent in Discovery. Even a non-aligned planet in TOS had a sonic disruptor capable of blowing up a Constitution-class starship.
I LOVE Star Trek, but I gave up on Discovery after s3e1 and I’m BARELY hanging on to Picard for now. It’s literally heart breaking for true fans! 💔
All of this just makes us appreciate the old Star Trek series more and more .
Just like Disney's Star Wars
I must also say you guys posted this video and they put an ad on it that I had to watch twice that was promoting star trek discovery telling me I must binge it!!!!!
I’m gay. I used run home after school to watch Star Trek, to decompress after a sh** day. Star Trek was my escapism from the bullies, now it feels like it’s written by the bullies.
I watched half of season 1 and stopped. I'm glad I stopped, and I'm glad folks like you are out here to make sure I don't wonder if I should have kept watching.
The reason why they act like this is because none of these people understand the term "military bearing" and have always been told how great and amazing they are.
Thank you for showing a clip from the longer stream. I really don't have 3-5 hours at a time to watch the stream.
“All of you will go where no one has gone before” you mean going broke? Financially and culturally. Thank Christ, diversity is worth it.
Financially, culturally, creatively bankrupt.
Tragically....Star Trek has always been diverse...but the characters and stories didn't focus solely on that aspect....TRUE diversity of people/aliens working together as if it's a completely normal thing to do. THAT was Star Trek's legacy. That's what the current showrunners don't get.
@@leslauner5062 The kind of stuff we see in Discovery was actually discouraged in DS9, for example, when Sisko was obsessing over racism that existed in the past and didn't exist in the present to the point that he had to go find it on the holosuite and it turned into an unhealthy obsession..
I think they were trying to tell us something.
@@wun1gee Which episode was that in?
"To boldly go woke where no woke show has gone woke before."
“Matriarchy of incompetence”… ha ha! I’m going to borrow that! Good one!
tfw you prove the Ferengi correct
It's sad that they can't figure out how to make star trek after 700+ previous examples of episodes on how its done.
One thing I like about Drinker: he has fun 😅
Kurtzman Trek never understood Star Trek.
Just to see what I could see, I wandered to Discovery's Wikipedia article to glance over a few things, particularly reception. Surprise, surprise, according to all the usual critics and the review websites, this show is absolutely amazing! As someone who never got into Star Trek perhaps as much as I should have, I can't say that I've had any interest in watching these new shows to see what the fuss is about, but I can't help but shake my head at the discrepancies between mainstream reviewers and the TH-cam channels that make the most sense to me.
I NEVER
Get tired
Of hearing Drinker say
"Diverse Female Space Jesus"
It’s just one of those things that always makes me laugh.
5:59 - IIRC by the time they used "where no-ONE" in the movie, Next Generation was already showing on TV and this was done as a deliberate segue into the follow-on continuity.
Nice analysis.
Haven't watched the video yet but I have to say "no longer" just isn't true, it's more like Star Trek didn't understand Star Trek since Discovery started ... at the latest!
The fact they have the OG, TNG, Voyager, DS9, Enterprise and even the Kirk cartoon, and NOT the new stuff, shows how well it was being received.
Just thinking how Starfleet used to be staffed by competent officers and crew.
Ah, good times
"A matriarchy of incompetence."