Not to mention that gatekeeping is kinda gross and actively goes against what Star Trek stands for. You wanna label good trek or bad trek, fine. But not trek? Come on.
I think on the mindset of what trek stands, bringing humanity together & tearing down divisions is really at the core. I think it’s completely fine to dissociate with elements of the media that seem to go contrary to that when you want to engage with something that pushes the idea of a positive future.
I think it’s completely fine to dissociate with elements of the media that seem to go contrary to that when you want to engage with something that pushes the idea of a positive future.
What elements? I’m begging you. I keep seeing people claim that the newer Treks go contrary to the older Treks but no one has ever been able to give me any examples of stuff that hasn’t already been done in Trek before. Stuff they either didn’t know about, forgot about, or purposefully ignored.
Answering everything with combat & lasers? Like I love a good kirk fight on a rock outside cali but give me a well written “we are stronger together speech” or some introspective or our differences make us stronger together, which I think most trek has been able to do.looking at kelvin trek or picard & saying no thanks to that I think is fine?
but give me a well written “we are stronger together speech” or some introspective or our differences make us stronger together, which I think most trek has been able to do
Dude. That was literally the resolution of the first season after everything that they had been through. The war was won with a speech.
Season 1: Episode 15 - Will You Take My Hand?
Beginning of Act 3:
Burnham: Is this how Starfleet wins the war? Genocide?!
Cornwell: You want to do this here? Fine. Terms of atrocity are convenient after the fact. The Klingons are on the verge of wiping out the Federation.
Burnham: Yes. But ask yourself: Why did you put this mission in the hands of a Terran and why the secrecy? It’s because you know it’s not who we are.
Cornwell: It very soon will be. We do not have the luxury of principles.
Burnham: That is all we have, Admiral… A year ago, I stood alone. I believed that our survival was more important than our principles. I was wrong. Do we need a mutiny today to prove who we are?
<Shots of the bridge crew looking with Burnham in solidarity before Acting Captain Saru stands up>
Saru: We are Starfleet.
Not enough? Same episode but later when they’re talking to L’rell.
<Burnham and L’rell enter the shrine where the hydrobomb was planted by Georgiou>
L’rell: What is this?
Burnham: This is the place the Federation crushed the Klingons. We planted a bomb in the heart of your homeworld. Qo’noS will be destroyed.
L’rell: You bring me here to gloat?
Burnham: No. To offer you an alternative. Klingons respond to strength. Use the fate of Qo’noS to bend them to your will. Preserve your civilization rather than watch it be destroyed.
L’rell: But… I am no one.
Ash Tyler: You once told Voq that you didn’t want the mantle of leadership. It’s time for you to leave the shadows.
<They then give L’rell the codes for the bomb. The only piece of leverage that Starfleet has, they have now given to the Klingons. Do note that the episode also shows Birds of Prey heading towards Earth. This was the last stand.>
Then there’s the speech that Burnham gives to Starfleet after the war: Link here
So, how does that not fit the criteria? I can find examples from the other seasons too, if you’d prefer.
The only difference between Star Trek: Discovery using speeches and any older Trek is that Star Trek: Discovery is serialized. Meaning that character growth happening instantly in one episode is going to feel awkward, stilted and like bad writing. If you want a speech like that you need to earn it now. You can’t just throw it out willy nilly for major threats like that. Yet, when they deal with smaller threats in the other seasons, they do use speeches like that. First thought that comes to mind was when they head to earth in Season 3 and force a chat that ends a standoff been going on near a century. Or the other chat they had with the Vulcans in Unification III.
Okay yeah that’s actually on me. I thought I was on my post about Discovery, not this one, which had a different vibe entirely. I totally goofed and I apologize.
That being said… Kelvin Trek I will let slide far more given it’s a movie. Most of them are pretty brash with a lot of visuals, action and explosions. Definitely different but I like them for what they are.
Picard I cannot fucking stand the first two seasons of but they still do try to talk our their problems about as often as they try to bash them out. Season 1 has Picard running about trying to figure out whats going on but at the end he’s still trying to resolve things with words more so than anything else. But the resolution of both Season 1 and Season 2 of Picard end because people decided to talk as opposed to blow each other up.
In other Star Treks, you have a ‘monster of the week’ type deal where the issue that you’re going to solve that week isn’t likely to ever come up again. You can fast track development there and be able to talk people down, especially when you’re an outsider coming in for a short period. When it comes to serialized shows they still do the same thing where they talk people down, it is just over a longer period of time. Having to whittle away at someone. You still see that whittling in old Trek. Sometimes there will be engagements in between talks or they will have to fire to get someone to actually listen. The only difference is that because they’re dealing with a smaller timeframe over all, they have to spend a smaller amount of that on those conflicts. Picard was able to stretch that out over a longer period of time to get to the point of discussion being the answer to their problems.
Season 1 has Riker show up with a massive fleet of shitty CGI copy/paste ships to go against the equally shitty Romulan fleet but they only existed as a stalemate to force conversation.
Season 2 has the borg showing up and everyone freaking the fuck out. But that Borg threat was neutralized by two people getting along, in a manner of speaking. Jurati and the Borg Queen infected each other and created a sort of new “strain” of Borg with its own collective. But the conversation that they have at the end of Season 2 is what seals that conflict, not a fight.
The Kelvin timeline… yeah those are harder to argue. Most of it is just action but like I said, they’re movies so I don’t care that much about them. I mean that for all Trek movies. I’m more of a show dweeb.
Again I am endlessly sorry that I acted like a fucking fool. That is completely on me for not verifying where I was. I was responding to two different comments in the two different threads and just sort of forgot that this was a different post entirely. No ones fault but mine for my own stupidity.
IMO it’s got to have a healthy shot of humor. Running gags work for me, but keeping it light at least at the edges or the ending is very important. Too much humorless drama, too much self-seriousness, too many traumas means I’m not going to watch it. Make it fun. Give me zingers to balance the shooting and screaming. Have Spock insult McCoy every so slightly. Let Kirk side eye them both. That’s a good wrap for Trek.
If mentioning the existence of critics of this particular film isn’t wholly forbiedden now, here is one take which mentions some ways in which it perceived by some as atypical of traditional Star Trek.
That movie was released today. That straight up does not count. If it hasn’t been released for 24 hours then it can’t have had an impact on all the Trek shows that have been going on for nearly the better part of the past decade. Also, you can quite easily ignore literally everything about that movie and it will never have an impact on the overall lore or standing of Star Trek.
It’s about a black ops CIA organization within Starfleet that is morally corrupt and fucked. Section 31 is literally supposed to be contrary to the rest of Starfleet. I wouldn’t be shocked if that movie is too.
I haven’t seen it yet and cannot comment on the substance of the movie at all nor do I want to read it considering it says there are spoilers.
I wasn’t aiming to argue with you. Discovery is fine although it’s not for me. I was just expressing hope that the movie won’t be as bad as they say, since I still have some.
I asked for examples and you offered examples. You also started it with an argumentative phrase suggesting that critics of a movie cannot be mentioned on this community.
I was just expressing hope that the movie won’t be as bad as they say, since I still have some.
I heard people describe Discovery as essentially murdering the barely warm corpse of Star Trek. The show isn’t nearly as bad as that. All of these loud critics always end up being that. The loudest. Things are rarely as bad as they claim to be. I’m also very hesitant to accept criticisms from people whos livelihoods depend on clickbait.
I was referring to my earlier comment which you deleted. It suggested that some people believe the new movie is unfaithful to the ideals they expect Star Trek to uphold, in a way that would represent “stuff that hasn’t already been done.” It is not difficult to find such opinions expressed all over the net. It was in that comment that I expressed the hope that they would be proven wrong.
Not to mention that gatekeeping is kinda gross and actively goes against what Star Trek stands for. You wanna label good trek or bad trek, fine. But not trek? Come on.
I think on the mindset of what trek stands, bringing humanity together & tearing down divisions is really at the core. I think it’s completely fine to dissociate with elements of the media that seem to go contrary to that when you want to engage with something that pushes the idea of a positive future.
What elements? I’m begging you. I keep seeing people claim that the newer Treks go contrary to the older Treks but no one has ever been able to give me any examples of stuff that hasn’t already been done in Trek before. Stuff they either didn’t know about, forgot about, or purposefully ignored.
Answering everything with combat & lasers? Like I love a good kirk fight on a rock outside cali but give me a well written “we are stronger together speech” or some introspective or our differences make us stronger together, which I think most trek has been able to do.looking at kelvin trek or picard & saying no thanks to that I think is fine?
Dude. That was literally the resolution of the first season after everything that they had been through. The war was won with a speech.
Season 1: Episode 15 - Will You Take My Hand?
Beginning of Act 3:
Burnham: Is this how Starfleet wins the war? Genocide?!
Cornwell: You want to do this here? Fine. Terms of atrocity are convenient after the fact. The Klingons are on the verge of wiping out the Federation.
Burnham: Yes. But ask yourself: Why did you put this mission in the hands of a Terran and why the secrecy? It’s because you know it’s not who we are.
Cornwell: It very soon will be. We do not have the luxury of principles.
Burnham: That is all we have, Admiral… A year ago, I stood alone. I believed that our survival was more important than our principles. I was wrong. Do we need a mutiny today to prove who we are?
<Shots of the bridge crew looking with Burnham in solidarity before Acting Captain Saru stands up>
Saru: We are Starfleet.
Not enough? Same episode but later when they’re talking to L’rell.
<Burnham and L’rell enter the shrine where the hydrobomb was planted by Georgiou>
L’rell: What is this?
Burnham: This is the place the Federation crushed the Klingons. We planted a bomb in the heart of your homeworld. Qo’noS will be destroyed.
L’rell: You bring me here to gloat?
Burnham: No. To offer you an alternative. Klingons respond to strength. Use the fate of Qo’noS to bend them to your will. Preserve your civilization rather than watch it be destroyed.
L’rell: But… I am no one.
Ash Tyler: You once told Voq that you didn’t want the mantle of leadership. It’s time for you to leave the shadows.
<They then give L’rell the codes for the bomb. The only piece of leverage that Starfleet has, they have now given to the Klingons. Do note that the episode also shows Birds of Prey heading towards Earth. This was the last stand.>
Then there’s the speech that Burnham gives to Starfleet after the war: Link here
So, how does that not fit the criteria? I can find examples from the other seasons too, if you’d prefer.
The only difference between Star Trek: Discovery using speeches and any older Trek is that Star Trek: Discovery is serialized. Meaning that character growth happening instantly in one episode is going to feel awkward, stilted and like bad writing. If you want a speech like that you need to earn it now. You can’t just throw it out willy nilly for major threats like that. Yet, when they deal with smaller threats in the other seasons, they do use speeches like that. First thought that comes to mind was when they head to earth in Season 3 and force a chat that ends a standoff been going on near a century. Or the other chat they had with the Vulcans in Unification III.
There are plenty of those speeches.
Burnham was in the first season of picard? What?
-I am an asshole-
is ok, is a lot going on atm
Okay yeah that’s actually on me. I thought I was on my post about Discovery, not this one, which had a different vibe entirely. I totally goofed and I apologize.
That being said… Kelvin Trek I will let slide far more given it’s a movie. Most of them are pretty brash with a lot of visuals, action and explosions. Definitely different but I like them for what they are.
Picard I cannot fucking stand the first two seasons of but they still do try to talk our their problems about as often as they try to bash them out. Season 1 has Picard running about trying to figure out whats going on but at the end he’s still trying to resolve things with words more so than anything else. But the resolution of both Season 1 and Season 2 of Picard end because people decided to talk as opposed to blow each other up.
In other Star Treks, you have a ‘monster of the week’ type deal where the issue that you’re going to solve that week isn’t likely to ever come up again. You can fast track development there and be able to talk people down, especially when you’re an outsider coming in for a short period. When it comes to serialized shows they still do the same thing where they talk people down, it is just over a longer period of time. Having to whittle away at someone. You still see that whittling in old Trek. Sometimes there will be engagements in between talks or they will have to fire to get someone to actually listen. The only difference is that because they’re dealing with a smaller timeframe over all, they have to spend a smaller amount of that on those conflicts. Picard was able to stretch that out over a longer period of time to get to the point of discussion being the answer to their problems.
Season 1 has Riker show up with a massive fleet of shitty CGI copy/paste ships to go against the equally shitty Romulan fleet but they only existed as a stalemate to force conversation.
Season 2 has the borg showing up and everyone freaking the fuck out. But that Borg threat was neutralized by two people getting along, in a manner of speaking. Jurati and the Borg Queen infected each other and created a sort of new “strain” of Borg with its own collective. But the conversation that they have at the end of Season 2 is what seals that conflict, not a fight.
The Kelvin timeline… yeah those are harder to argue. Most of it is just action but like I said, they’re movies so I don’t care that much about them. I mean that for all Trek movies. I’m more of a show dweeb.
Again I am endlessly sorry that I acted like a fucking fool. That is completely on me for not verifying where I was. I was responding to two different comments in the two different threads and just sort of forgot that this was a different post entirely. No ones fault but mine for my own stupidity.
deleted by creator
IMO it’s got to have a healthy shot of humor. Running gags work for me, but keeping it light at least at the edges or the ending is very important. Too much humorless drama, too much self-seriousness, too many traumas means I’m not going to watch it. Make it fun. Give me zingers to balance the shooting and screaming. Have Spock insult McCoy every so slightly. Let Kirk side eye them both. That’s a good wrap for Trek.
If mentioning the existence of critics of this particular film isn’t wholly forbiedden now, here is one take which mentions some ways in which it perceived by some as atypical of traditional Star Trek.
That movie was released today. That straight up does not count. If it hasn’t been released for 24 hours then it can’t have had an impact on all the Trek shows that have been going on for nearly the better part of the past decade. Also, you can quite easily ignore literally everything about that movie and it will never have an impact on the overall lore or standing of Star Trek.
It’s about a black ops CIA organization within Starfleet that is morally corrupt and fucked. Section 31 is literally supposed to be contrary to the rest of Starfleet. I wouldn’t be shocked if that movie is too.
I haven’t seen it yet and cannot comment on the substance of the movie at all nor do I want to read it considering it says there are spoilers.
Do you have any examples from the past 10 years?
I wasn’t aiming to argue with you. Discovery is fine although it’s not for me. I was just expressing hope that the movie won’t be as bad as they say, since I still have some.
I asked for examples and you offered examples. You also started it with an argumentative phrase suggesting that critics of a movie cannot be mentioned on this community.
I heard people describe Discovery as essentially murdering the barely warm corpse of Star Trek. The show isn’t nearly as bad as that. All of these loud critics always end up being that. The loudest. Things are rarely as bad as they claim to be. I’m also very hesitant to accept criticisms from people whos livelihoods depend on clickbait.
I was referring to my earlier comment which you deleted. It suggested that some people believe the new movie is unfaithful to the ideals they expect Star Trek to uphold, in a way that would represent “stuff that hasn’t already been done.” It is not difficult to find such opinions expressed all over the net. It was in that comment that I expressed the hope that they would be proven wrong.
Removed by mod