4 ms·

> So...you're upset to see space opera played straight in your space opera? No, I like space opera too. I'm upset that ST has become Buffy the Vampire Slayer

> So...you're upset to see space opera played straight in your space opera? No, I like space opera too. I'm upset that ST has become Buffy the Vampire Slayer in Space. (Don't get the wrong idea, I like Buffy too.) > Have you forgotten entirely about S1 of TNG, or just chosen to ignore it? You'll have to clue me in to what specifically you're referring to, I re-watched it last year but I don't want to guess at what you mean. > DS9 is "not Roddenberry" I agree. DS9 was, in part, created specifically to explore "not Roddenberry" directions in the ST universe. There's a book, I can't find it at the moment, and I don't remember the title, but it's all excerpts from interviews with cast and crew. That's it. It's amazing. Anyhow, I bring it up because, reading it, it became clear what, for me anyway, is the crucial defining aspect of ST that differentiates it from other sci-fi franchises: In ST, people in the future have gotten over their bullshit. They are emotionally mature, guided by reason and rationality and their higher values. That's the key difference (from say, Star Wars or Farscape or Firefly...) People in the future pretty much have their shit together. Now this is something that some of the writers don't get. You find them complaining in their own words that Gene won't let them write an episode involving interpersonal drama between bridge crew. (Apparently this is really hard for some writers. No judgement intended.) It wasn't until after he died that Berman/Braga started to relax that. Now to me, this is wrong (for ST) for two reasons: First, it makes sense to me that these folks who fly around the galaxy in machines that can destroy worlds would have to be level-headed to use them w/o destroying themselves. Second, and more importantly, that's a huge part of what made ST so endearing and appealing in the first place: the deep and abiding love that Kirk/Spock/McCoy (most obviously) and the rest of the crew (less obviously) feel for each other. I mean, when Spock tells McCoy that he would also wish him to be present at his Pon farr, oh man, my eyes well up with tears. When it comes down to it, the characters in the "real" ST (if I may) treat each other like members of a healthy family do, and that's wonderful to see (in any context, not just space operatic sci-fi.) That's also the source of the "moral" superiority of Star Fleet: they actually are good guys. (And Vulcans don't lie.) You erode that and you've got Spaceballs. > To be honest, I don't get the mockery angle at all. I mean, you're talking about a show whose first season not only has antimilitarism as a major through-line in the way Lorca's story plays out, but concludes with a war being ended by a couple of people having a conversation about why more fighting sucks for everyone, and implementing a clever technobabble-driven plan to bring about peace. There's a lot I don't love about Discovery - most of its second season, for a start - but come on, what could possibly be more Star Trek than that? I've only seen ~4 minutes so I can't speak to the good things about the show, feeling mocked was my subjective response (I don't think the ST:D folks sat down and twirled their mustaches while contemplating how much they despise ST fans, hey?) It was things like how the Klingons are space orcs; the Romulan guy looks like space Legolas the elf. The people wearing hoodies (why does everyone in space wear hoodies these days?) The gay guys are the only ones married? Why does the female lead have a masculine name? It seems like they're trying to tick the diversity boxes without actually rattling anybody's cages (and I say that as a SJW, pro-diversity.) The rolling spaceship is ridiculous, the flash illuminating the nebula was just idiotic. The whole thing feels superficial and lazy despite obviously being the result of a lot of hard work by a lot of skilled, talented people. Maybe they're just pandering to the tastes of a younger audience (with whom I am out of touch.) Let me see if I can sum it up... Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones seem similar, yeah? But LotR is about Good vs. Evil whereas GoT is about aristocrats being really really shitty to each other. They are both entertaining, but I wouldn't let my kids watch the latter. Cheers!

throwanem 7y ago
I mean, don't get me wrong, what you describe as the good in Trek is something I also appreciate. The trouble is that, TOS aside, I don't see it where you do. The reason I called out TNG S1 earlier was because it lacked absolutely nothing in terms of space-opera absurdity by comparison with Discovery, and so it's odd to me that you should abhor the one and disregard the other. But I'd also mention it in this connection because the Roddenberry-driven performances of its characters don't read as "members of a healthy family", as you describe, but rather mostly as just flat and lifeless in affect. The interpersonal stuff just reads off, like a stage play put on by disinterested actors not directed very well. As we see later in the same series, that's certainly not the fault of any lack on the part of the main cast, whose relationships become more believable, rather than less, as the show goes on. The major change is the one you cite: Roddenberry no longer exercising creative control. I think it's reasonable to consider that that change lay behind the improvement of character and relationship portrayals that I describe - especially considering that, as you also note, many of the people who made the show have said exactly the same. Consider, too, that while the idea for TOS was his and a lot of the development was as well, he did not exercise anything like the same degree of absolute authority over that show as he did over S1 of TNG. I agree with you that TOS's characters were lively and that their friendships were obviously close, deep, and warm, and I think it's interesting that they were so in an environment much more similar to TNG's later seasons than to its early ones. (As a side note, if you haven't read Diane Duane's The Wounded Sky, from the Pocket Books TOS novel series, I can strongly recommend it. Of all the portrayals I've seen of the relationships among the TOS main characters, in and out of canon, this is the only one I find myself always coming back to specifically for the sake of that portrayal. I'm told that "Where No Man has Gone Before" from TNG S1 was meant to be an adaptation, but God alone knows how; they're nothing alike, especially in that that episode's characters are exceptionally flat even in comparison with the standard set by that season.) With regard to your comments on the supposed superficiality of Discovery, I feel it necessary to note that this is a judgment you've formed, and which you apparently hold quite firmly, on the basis of about four minutes of what I gather to be trailers and promos, and not on the basis of any true engagement, however adversarial, with the show itself. I find it difficult to understand how any judgment so formed could be anything other than superficial in its own right, considering that you have by your own account barely scratched the surface. It may be worth considering whether a more sustained investigation is worth your while. If nothing else, it can only enable you to better substantiate your arguments for why the show is bad! And, sure, I wouldn't let my kids watch Game of Thrones, either, if I had any. But that doesn't make it a bad show. To be sure, there's a vast sufficiency of traits which do make it a bad show! But it being inappropriate for children is not among them.

throwanem 7y ago

I mean, don't get me wrong, what you describe as the good in Trek is something I also appreciate. The trouble is that, TOS aside, I don't see it where you do. The reason I called out TNG S1 earlier was because it lacked absolutely nothing in terms of space-opera absurdity by comparison with Discovery, and so it's odd to me that you should abhor the one and disregard the other. But I'd also mention it in this connection because the Roddenberry-driven performances of its characters don't read as "members of a healthy family", as you describe, but rather mostly as just flat and lifeless in affect. The interpersonal stuff just reads off, like a stage play put on by disinterested actors not directed very well. As we see later in the same series, that's certainly not the fault of any lack on the part of the main cast, whose relationships become more believable, rather than less, as the show goes on. The major change is the one you cite: Roddenberry no longer exercising creative control. I think it's reasonable to consider that that change lay behind the improvement of character and relationship portrayals that I describe - especially considering that, as you also note, many of the people who made the show have said exactly the same. Consider, too, that while the idea for TOS was his and a lot of the development was as well, he did not exercise anything like the same degree of absolute authority over that show as he did over S1 of TNG. I agree with you that TOS's characters were lively and that their friendships were obviously close, deep, and warm, and I think it's interesting that they were so in an environment much more similar to TNG's later seasons than to its early ones. (As a side note, if you haven't read Diane Duane's The Wounded Sky, from the Pocket Books TOS novel series, I can strongly recommend it. Of all the portrayals I've seen of the relationships among the TOS main characters, in and out of canon, this is the only one I find myself always coming back to specifically for the sake of that portrayal. I'm told that "Where No Man has Gone Before" from TNG S1 was meant to be an adaptation, but God alone knows how; they're nothing alike, especially in that that episode's characters are exceptionally flat even in comparison with the standard set by that season.) With regard to your comments on the supposed superficiality of Discovery, I feel it necessary to note that this is a judgment you've formed, and which you apparently hold quite firmly, on the basis of about four minutes of what I gather to be trailers and promos, and not on the basis of any true engagement, however adversarial, with the show itself. I find it difficult to understand how any judgment so formed could be anything other than superficial in its own right, considering that you have by your own account barely scratched the surface. It may be worth considering whether a more sustained investigation is worth your while. If nothing else, it can only enable you to better substantiate your arguments for why the show is bad! And, sure, I wouldn't let my kids watch Game of Thrones, either, if I had any. But that doesn't make it a bad show. To be sure, there's a vast sufficiency of traits which do make it a bad show! But it being inappropriate for children is not among them.