Hey Anons,
So, a few days ago, I unceremoniously hijacked a thread about STD. I needed to vent, I needed to complain, and those of you who were there were kind enough to listen, with a few of you even going so far as to take the effort to shill in response, like the wonderful Anons you are. It made me feel better, so in advance, Thank you.
However, I'm not done yet. As the days go by, I remember more and more about what I hate and despise about this televised abortion. So, I shall continue now.
The Klingons. I hate the new Klingons. The look is not the problem, though that's where all the critique is swept towards. The Klingon culture has been explored perhaps more than any other foreign culture in Star Trek. Some will claim that the Vulcans are known in more depth, but I disagree entirely.
Prequels like this have to approach Klingons like they approach humans in prequels; that they are to develop into what we eventually see, and this is not just a physical construct, it's one of culture.
To have blatant contradictions like a coffin ship that values the corpses of dead Klingons...to have costumes that have zero practical and combat value in any of the houses we've seen so far...to use tactics in war that are positively Romulan in terms of sophistication...all of these things are simply wrong for the culture.
Now, I could handle that if these were Klingons in the future of Star Trek...that the Klingons after the war at DS9 learned the value of adapting and developing beyond their tradition to adopt the successful things of other cultures. I could handle that. But for these to represent Klingons BEFORE....no, I don't accept that at all.
The fucking hacks who wrote this don't know what Klingons are. And watching this series, neither do I.
The use of original language. This is a huge problem in STD, but again, not for the reasons that people think.
1) the purpose of showing a language that requires subtitles in a movie or tv show is to confront the viewer with something that is 'foreign' in concept. Usually a person is on screen who has trouble understanding the language, which allows the viewer 'an in' to the situation, someone to sympathize with. Star Trek VI does this beautifully.
If there are no humans to understand, then we get the Star Trek III situation on the bridge of the Bird of Prey, as an example ('a lucky shot, sir'), where its in Klingon just to set up the fact that there are only Klingons present.
But notice how when the Klingons beam over to the Enterprise when it's on self-destruct, the communication over the communicators is all in English ('GET OUT!!! GET OUT OF THERE!!!'). We establish that Klingons speak Klingon to each other, and then we get rid of the language and subtitles so the actors can act.
cont.
I just realized that the acronym for Star Trek Discovery is, in fact, STD.
I can't stop giggling
cont.
The fuckers at STD decided i.e. made a conscious fucking decision to have everything in Klingon if they were not going to speak English. This doesn't work and here's why.
2) When you have a language that none of the actors understand and most likely have to learn phonetically, there is no way for them to understand what part of the language cadence to sculpt in order to be expressive. To be or not to be...we can stress certain words, and the meaning changes, but at least we're dealing with single syllables. But what happens when a word has more than one syllable and no one knows which one to stress? Furthermore, we stress different syllables to indicate to each other different meanings of words and their intensity. The result in STD?? A Klingon clusterfuck of useless noise, where actors speak as slowly as monotone as they can because they have no idea what to do and can't risk stressing the wrong part of the word or phrase. A question has a generic rise at the end, and a statement is monotone. No subtlety, and thus, no interest from us as viewers. This is why the Klingon scenes of dialog feel like they go on forever...because there is no variance and complexity to how words are spoken.
cont.
>We establish that Klingons speak Klingon to each other, and then we get rid of the language and subtitles so the actors can act.
I like the way The Hunt for Red October managed that.
cont.
This isn't the end of it. The actors are stuck having to say these lines with huge dentures, which means that the esses are all slurred and fucked, the hs are hollow and false, and they don't say anything gutteral for fear of blowing out the teeth they have glued in. This is a nightmare for any actor, but even worse for Klingons who are wearing a full facial prosthetic that looks thick enough to stop a bullet. You can't emote in that...you can't even get your eyes to change shape (which is one of the most important aspects to an actor...their eyes). The people who thought of all of this were idiots who didn't learn the lessons from previous incarnations of Star Trek...the just threw it all away, all the wisdom and knowledge because fuck that, we're doing our own one that isn't your Grandfather's Star Trek.
Maybe this Star Trek is a mirror universe Trek. That would explain why the Spore drive is not a major thing; I mean it's a million times better than even trans-warp.
I don't really know, I dropped this abortion in the 5th episode.
It is truly a terrible show.
Honestly I thought the Klingons were the least-shitty part about it until I read this treatise.
There's nothing worth salvaging from this trainwreck. Too bad Best Captain is stuck in Worse Show.
Ok, but what other than functional nitpick things and lore you don't agree with is bad? This kind of stuff bothers me the least with STD
STD gets social interaction in general entirely wrong, not just with the Klingons.
3) Did any of you notice the shitty party scene in the Mudd time-travel episode? There's a lot of criticism to go around for this one, but the most glaring aspect is, once again, one that never seems to get mentioned. When portraying a society in the future, the point has always been (at least in the TV versions) to show what can be recognised by us as a party and yet is something not quite what we'd have today. That's why the TNG parties always seemed too mature...and the ones in DS9 too safe. Mature people, partying in a mature way.
But then, STD has their party. Something that says, 'look, you too could be at this party'. 'This is something you'd recognize'. This doesn't work precisely because you recognize it as a 1-1 translation, the only thing different being the costumes and sets (which is what it looks like). Maybe I should put it another way.
If you recognize an entire situation like a party as something you could have done last night, then the fantasy of being 300 years in the future is suddenly destroyed. The way we relate to people from different times is not by the situation they're in but by the philosophy that underpins their actions in that situation. That's how we find common ground, and also how we determine what is different about us.
STD doesn't understand this. They think that if we make it relate-able to today, if the audience sees themselves as they are in 2017 on screen in the future, then it works. This is ENTIRELY wrong.
This, incidentally, is also why swearing as hard as they did doesn't work either. But on a whole, the use of language in STD is pitiful. It's the same problem; they use modern day parlance for a show based in the future, and think that this transference makes the show relateable to the audience rather than the actual result which is taking the audience OUT of the fantasy.
cont.
I'll respond after...I don't want to lose my train of thought...
what is your fave star trek user?
please say ds9 or im moving on
cont.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. Diversity.
4) There is much huplah regarding the criticism or support of diversity, as if this is why people hate the damn show. The supporters of the show listen with deaf ears and deflect any valid criticism by assuming the critic is simply racist. The critics of the show who can't think of anything better love to point out the forced diversity of the show, shoving it in everyone's faces that 'look, here's the gay couple' or 'look, here's the black lead'...aren't we progressive?
The perception of social progress is always locked in the time it occurs, and with this show it's no different. What we're seeing played on screen is what the writers believe to be the problems of today, only transplanted 300 years into the future. For what reason, I have no idea.
I had mentioned a few days ago the problem of Frecklemonster telling Michael that she'd never encountered a woman named Michael before. This may seem progressive to the uninformed...'look, even that person in the future hasn't seen this before like us...wow the show is really pushing boundaries'. But this in fact shows precisely why the writers don't know what they're doing. If you transplant social expectations like this onto a show that takes place today, then it's fine to a point, but if you do this to a show that takes place long in the future, all it does is show that the future hasn't progressed beyond today.
You can do this in Star Trek with alien races (and old Star Trek did this all the time...transplant human intolerance of certain things onto aliens so that the future humans could judge them for being intolerant and not as advanced). But if you do this sort of thing with humans who are supposed to represent the future of us as a society, you simply sabotage the point of it being in the future.
cont.
cont.
For Frecklemonster to notice that she's never met a woman named Michael before shows that either Frecklemonster has a very small social life (which is probable) or that the future hasn't changed from today. Are names used for any gender in the future? If so, Frecklemonster is a recluse. If not, then we're where we are today.
I think I'll stop now...I'm tired, and I have many complaints. I'll try to address thoughts that were brought up though. The list of problems with this series is long and deep. Thanks for listening Anons...I know you understand.
Successful thoughtful movies always do this...it was standard practice in Hollywood for a long time, because it makes the most sense from the standpoint of a writer and a dramatist. The writers of STD are none of the above, and we have more than enough evidence to support that.
As I mentioned a few days back, one of the biggest problems with STD is that it is so convoluted, so misunderstood in terms of it's own genre and history that fans have no choice but to try to explain the inconsistencies and contradictions the only way they know how...to say that it's a mirror universe. Granted, the mirror universe is all but confirmed, but the point is that if things were consistent then we wouldn't be having this argument at all.
Did anyone hypothesize at the beginning of Voyager that they'd stumbled into a mirror universe because the Captain made erratic decisions that always seemed to be in the worst interest of her crew? Even better...did anything think Voyager was in a mirror universe because they had a black vulcan?
>Did anyone hypothesize at the beginning of Voyager that they'd stumbled into a mirror universe because the Captain made erratic decisions that always seemed to be in the worst interest of her crew? Even better...did anything think Voyager was in a mirror universe because they had a black vulcan?
Good point.
Even Enterprise felt like a Trek show. I don't know what the fuck STD feels like. Something else.
There are many elements that I have not gone into here that are their own beasts, but here's a quick rundown.
1) The writing is shit. Language use, character building, long and short form dramatic arcs, creativity vs. derivation...all of it. They don't know how to write the show, and they've obviously never seen episodes of it before, and if they have seen episodes, they hate them. The writers are doing everything possible to make this unStarTrek. They are succeeding.
2) The music. The quality of composition is breathtakingly contrite, similar but lower in quality to John Williams' score to TFA. The problem is simple; the composer doesn't actually know how to write music, and this is endemic in most of Hollywood today. The theme song, which most people tend to focus on, is very poorly constructed; not orchestrally, though that's not very good, but in terms of harmony and counterpoint. There's a reason why the sweeping themes of TNG, DS9, and Voyager are counted as greats, along with the themes to Wrath of Kahn, and First Contact (which is in my view the best theme they ever came up with). This is the same reason, incidentally, that 'It's been a long road...'is such a failure with fans...it's actually a flawed song compositionally, and that's why no matter how many times you listen to it, it still sounds like shit.
Cont.
yes STD season 1 is trash. let's hope they learn the lesson and make season 2 great, otherwise cancel it.
i'm curious user seriously
One of the best examples of this.
cont.
3) The production decision to focus on a single character. This is the biggest mistake made by STD, and will be its downfall. Star Trek as a philosophy is one about people working together, whether it's aliens learning to work with humans or humans working with humans. Everyone is a team, everyone is valuable, and when someone fails, another one helps them to get better. A beautiful thing, actually.
By focusing on the single character of Michael, we're losing out on all the benefits of DIVERSITY (see, I was getting to this). That different people think differently, and that these differences can lead to better outcomes for all. With STD, every fucking problem must be solved by Michael. Michael is always the virus AND the cure. She's the centre of the fucking galaxy, for what reason I don't know.
Imagine if TOS only focussed on Kirk...for every fucking episode. That he solved all the engineering problems...all the science problems....all the diplomatic problems. No need for Spock to find that special calculation that no one else could do...Kirk can do it. No need for Scotty to use his expertise to stop the Enterprise from exploding...Kirk can do it.
Now, let's be honest. TOS was captain heavy, but not the way STD is with Michael. Not like this. In STD, Michael is always proven to have been 'right all along', that other characters would either doubt or downright reject her advice. She's a fucking miracle in space. With her on board, you don't need Starfleet.
The other Star Trek shows worked because of the feeling of family. Simple, straightforward. Families have a head or a leader, of course, but they also gain strength from all who participate and support it. A family doesn't work when one person has all the answers, is constantly not believed, but then is always proven to be right all along so that her smugness can simply increase. This is stupid and that's why we can't sympathize or relate to this abomination.
cont.
After they tried to modernize Stargate after Atlantis, and the fans didn't really watch it, you'd think the the industry would take a hint.
I bet a lot of the people working on STD only cared on surface level...like JJ movies. That's why everything was so intricate, but it was too much with no direction.
The show has no real arc and it borrows from old treks in a way that doesn't work. None of the characters or stories worked for me at all. Its really just a bad TV show, period.
4) Their budget is huge...and yet the sets look like that? Seriously...no, seriously. That's the best they can do? Same with the special effects for the ships....and don't get me started on the ship designs either...those fail for all the same reasons I mentioned earlier (lack of understanding, lack of training in aesthetics and classical forms, etc.). There's a simple reason why the original TOS Enterprise looks as good as it does in terms of proportion. There's a reason why the refit looks even better, and there's a very good reason why the Enterprise D has mostly great angles but a few angles that look like shit. You have to understand design aesthetics in order for things to look good, and the designers clearly have no training in it whatsoever. Perhaps I'm being too hard on them...I'm expecting the parthenon, and all I get is Daniel Libeskind. The point is, how can a show with this kind of a budget look so terrible? The only set that looks good is the Klingon Casket ship...and that's only from the inside sets, the outside design is a piece of uninformed trash, yet again.
Shall I go on? The list is long..and each topic seems to require a longer explanation...lol
my main issue is that I simply don't care about any of the characters at all and that I blame mostly on their decision to have an overarching plot that is advancing with each episode but the characters themselves seem to receive little or no development because of it, it reminds me of Battlestar Galactica but worse in every way because of the futuristic social progress vibe they are trying to set removes all the great stuff something like Battlestar Galactica could stuff into a show with a fast pacing advancing format, all the characters just agree and get along with one another and the Klingons fail to be menacing enough to warrant all the characters agreeing and happily getting along in the ship imo
BSG actually have character-centric episodes instead of everything being about Adama.
As a total series, the strongest for me is a tossup between TNG and DS9. Each have a multitude of awesome episodes, and each have characters that seem to gain in complexity enough over the series arc to be enjoyable to me.
TOS has a wonderful 1st season, an okay 2nd season, and a 3rd season that is absolute trash aside from 1 or 2 episodes. Voyager has characters that don't go anywhere, and Enterprise suffers from prequel syndrome, where no matter what they do, it'll contravene what we expect. Enterprise however tried to be creative in seasons 3 and 4, and I give them props for that. They really tried to do serious character development after season 3...if they had more time, maybe it would have been possible.
I have favorite single episodes though that perhaps everyone here agrees with, so in some ways I'm a traditionalist. For TNG, it's always been Cause and Effect...that to me is quintessential Star Trek. For DS9...well, I'm rewatching it again now from the beginning, but I remember absolutely loving the Tribble episode more than anything else I'd ever seen. For TOS, I went through the series for the first time last year, and I was blown away by Balance of Terror...fucking amazing storytelling. For Voyager, for me the best one was that episode, I can't remember the name of it, when the holographic Doctor wrote the holonovel based on the crew, and the crew found out about it and ran it. The versions of the crew inside the holonovel were fucking hilarious...but the only way to appreciate it really is to have seen all the episodes before hand. For Enterprise...I can't think of a single episode, to be honest...but I do remember a few episodes in season 3/4 where Tripp is struggling with the fact that his sister was killed in the attack on Earth, and that combined with Archer not being sure about going to war and all that made everyone grow up a bit. I really liked that.
I haven't seen any of the animated series at all...
I've never actually watched Battlestar Galactica, so I don't know enough to comment about it...I've heard good things about it, but I haven't had the time. I'm currently trying to watch Doctor Who for the first time right now...from the very beginning. It's a lot to go through, and it'll take a long time to get to the modern day. But I'll keep BSG in mind...I keep hearing great things about it.
>picking Doctor Who over BSG
BSG is going to feel like grand space opera after that kiddy shit
They won't learn the lesson because they don't perceive that there is anything wrong with what they're doing. It's the same reason that Hillary lost. People were shouting at the top of their lungs that they wanted something different, but these people were labelled something and dismissed as value-less.
The same thing happens with STD. Legit critique is labelled an 'ism', is dismissed as being value-less because it is an 'ism', and then the writers and producers move on thinking that everything is okay.
The only way they'd improve is if they recognised that there was a problem. They won't, because it's clear they don't understand what Star Trek is actually about. They simply think that they own the property and can do whatever the fuck they want with it, and if the old fanbase doesn't like it, screw them, it's not made for them anyway. You see how this line of thinking works? It's endemic in every sector of western society right now...this 'I don't give a fuck about what others think' and 'Fuck Tradition...we have to progress from that old stuff'. It's so destructive...it's sad.
Well, it wasn't a competition. I'm curious regarding Doctor Who because I never watched it as a child, so I have no attachment to it. It has a HUGE following worldwide, and I thought I'd like to at least give it a try so I can understand why people are so fanatic about it.
It wasn't a case of 'well, should I watch Doctor Who or Breaking Bad'? It was more of a question of 'what don't I understand....well, I don't get Doctor Who at all...so let's try'.
I have a vague understand of BSG and its value to fans, but because it has some similarities to a space opera as you so put it, I wanted to do something different with my Sci Fi. I'm sure BSG will feel epic compared with Doctor Who...but I'm not watching it to compare them...just to understand them and their fanbases. I don't know if I'll make it through Doctor Who though...The first year has a lot of episodes...and I'm not progressing through them very fast.
Further to user's question about what is my favorite Star Trek, I'd like to thank you all for simply listening and adding to this admittedly serious conversation about the problems that can never be fixed in a shit show.
I'll simply mention my favorite 'moments' in Star Trek...from any of them. Some you know well, some you may have forgotten, and hopefully some will bring a tear to your eye.
The first one...
This started it all. The best opening in any Star Trek Tv show, bar none. I love the sound, I love the details, I love the changes from timeline to timeline (especially different camera views), and I love the mystery and how it's solved. Perfect episode, with perfect scenes.
You know when this happens. Easily the best short Captain's speech on the series, from one of the best episodes.
I watched it on the first airing...we didn't know what to fucking think after that...the most perfect cliffhanger in the history of Star Trek.
Let's stand over here and pretend like we're fixing this control panel....still makes me laugh for the irony.
An amazing performance, and one of the most heartbreaking of the entire show. Unforgettable.
When he destroys the planet that the Maquis have a base on...that's when I knew that Sisko was definitely different from Picard, and yet I liked him equally now.
I could go on and on...and the more I think about it, the more moments I can find (so, my mistake for announcing the intent which is clearly impossible for me). For what it's worth, Star Trek was something worth cherishing because it was indeed special, not only for the time it was created in but for the time after when we may need it most.
STD will not accomplish this unless they alter their philosophy heavily...and that's not going to happen because they detest what Star Trek used to be. They think Star Trek failed because the formula failed. Not so; it failed because of simple viewer fatigue (i.e. we had too much of it for too long).
But now we've passed the point of no return...great writers are extremely rare these days, and shows like this would rather deal with transitory issues like social progress and not deal with existential and universal issues like understanding the world around us, being curious, and learning to compromise and build.
Thanks Anons for stopping by and listening...good night to you all, and never forget. You were always welcome.