Scifi TV Discussion Thread

[The Huskar Social Union]

I still remember when Voyager got the kind of hate Disco and Picard are getting now.

Honestly, I'm just enjoying the new stuff. Disco, in true Trek form, started off a little wobbly but corrected itself fairly quickly, and while Picard has some pacing issues, it was enjoyable TV, which is all I really want from, you know, TV.

Abramsverse can still get fucked though.

I agree honestly, bar the Abrams movies though, i actually enjoy those.

[Juristonia]

I just couldn't get in to them.
Felt like I was watching Fast and Furious but in space.

But I've also always had a unreasonable dislike of Chris Pine, which doesn't help.

[Tarsonis]

I still remember when Voyager got the kind of hate Disco and Picard are getting now.

Honestly, I'm just enjoying the new stuff. Disco, in true Trek form, started off a little wobbly but corrected itself fairly quickly, and while Picard has some pacing issues, it was enjoyable TV, which is all I really want from, you know, TV.

Abramsverse can still get fucked though.

people forget that having shitty first and second seasons are a trek tradition

[Stellar Colonies]

The most recently made Star Trek I watched was the last Abrams movie.

Haven't watched any of the new series yet, but I likely will eventually just to take a look.

What I've seen about the animated one though is highly concerning to me.

[New haven america]

I still remember when Voyager got the kind of hate Disco and Picard are getting now.

1. Honestly, I'm just enjoying the new stuff. Disco, in true Trek form, started off a little wobbly but corrected itself fairly quickly, 2. and while Picard has some pacing issues, it was enjoyable TV, which is all I really want from, you know, TV.

Abramsverse can still get fucked though.

1. No it didn't, it's only gotten worse. It went from an utter monstrosity in s1 to a complete and absolute train wreck in almost every possible way in s2. (Excluding Pike, Pike was nice)
2. STP is a character assassination of Picard, The Federation, and The Romulans.

Also, So you want grimdark sci-fi tv shows where humanity will always be shit, with a MC who gets talked down to and called a privileged useless old white fuck by every female member of the cast, and convoluted storylines and themes that go no where?

Seriously, does this sound like a comprehensible story?

[New haven america]

I still remember when Voyager got the kind of hate Disco and Picard are getting now.

Honestly, I'm just enjoying the new stuff. Disco, in true Trek form, started off a little wobbly but corrected itself fairly quickly, and while Picard has some pacing issues, it was enjoyable TV, which is all I really want from, you know, TV.

Abramsverse can still get fucked though.

people forget that having shitty first and second seasons are a trek tradition

And people forget that Alex Kurtzman outright doesn't like or want anything to do with Trek pre-2009.

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

I still remember when Voyager got the kind of hate Disco and Picard are getting now.

1. Honestly, I'm just enjoying the new stuff. Disco, in true Trek form, started off a little wobbly but corrected itself fairly quickly, 2. and while Picard has some pacing issues, it was enjoyable TV, which is all I really want from, you know, TV.

Abramsverse can still get fucked though.

1. No it didn't, it's only gotten worse. It went from an utter monstrosity in s1 to a complete and absolute train wreck in almost every possible way in s2.
2. STP is a character assassination of Picard, The Federation, and The Romulans.

Also, So you want grimdark sci-fi tv shows where humanity will always be shit, with a MC who gets talked down to and called a privileged useless old white fuck by every female member of the cast, and convoluted storylines and themes that go no where?

Seriously, does this sound like a comprehensible story?

What's worse is that the Hobus supernova and the given setup to sequel Trek, while admittedly being nothing but a plot device in the 2009 film, had a lot of potential (at least in my mind) to explore the aftermath of the loss of Romulus and what becomes of the Romulan Star Empire in the pre-2005 timeline.

We could've been able to see Picard and the Federation debating whether or not to involve themselves with the Romulans. Maybe Picard could have had some moral ambiguity and character development to him. I mean, we've seen before that Picard is a staunch believer in the Prime Directive, and maybe at first he would have been opposed to involving Starfleet in evacuating the Romulans (à la Kirk in Trek VI). Maybe we could have seen how Vulcan society reacts to the Romulan crisis, maybe as a contrast to the destruction of Vulcan in Kelvin Trek.

Maybe we could've seen how the Star Empire struggles to keep itself together as their central government is kicked out from under them, and perhaps the rise of the Romulan Free State along the fringes of the Star Empire's territory. Maybe we could've seen the political ramifications of the destabilization of one of the most prolific nations of the Beta Quardrant, and disputes between the Federation and Klingons over what should become of the Star Empire.

We could've even seen who or what sparked the premature Hobus supernova in the first place, and maybe the motivations behind the responsible party or parties, and finally explore why Romulus was destroyed in the first place.

There's a goldmine of ideas for what Picard could have been, and we get "J.L. Picard" and some contrived "Human vs robot" plot with the Borg and some Romulans sprinkled in somewhere. It's like the Animatrix but with a Trek facade. And Animatrix is the most depressing sci-fi I think I've ever seen.

[Tarsonis]

people forget that having shitty first and second seasons are a trek tradition

And people forget that Alex Kurtzman outright doesn't like or want anything to do with Trek pre-2009.

Kurtzman, when the franchise fell.

[Starblaydia]

What's worse is that the Hobus supernova and the given setup to sequel Trek, while admittedly being nothing but a plot device in the 2009 film, had a lot of potential (at least in my mind) to explore the aftermath of the loss of Romulus and what becomes of the Romulan Star Empire in the pre-2005 timeline.

Your problem there is that it pitches an in-depth socio-political drama for an alien culture that only really appeals to a percentage of existing fans. Presumably quite a high percentage, but with no obvious access for people who haven't seen a film more than a decade old. The trick to making things successful is to try and take them mainstream, rather than only appealing to the people who are fans already - same deal with comic books vs comic book movies.

For decent post-Hobus timeline stuff, that's what Star Trek Online is for

I zoned out of Discovery mid season 2, and haven't even bothered with Picard yet. Below Decks just looks like it'll be Rick & Morty-level humour to me, and I didn't manage to get past the first episode of that.

[New haven america]

What's worse is that the Hobus supernova and the given setup to sequel Trek, while admittedly being nothing but a plot device in the 2009 film, had a lot of potential (at least in my mind) to explore the aftermath of the loss of Romulus and what becomes of the Romulan Star Empire in the pre-2005 timeline.

Your problem there is that it pitches an in-depth socio-political drama for an alien culture that only really appeals to a percentage of existing fans. Presumably quite a high percentage, but with no obvious access for people who haven't seen a film more than a decade old. The trick to making things successful is to try and take them mainstream, rather than only appealing to the people who are fans already - same deal with comic books vs comic book movies.

For decent post-Hobus timeline stuff, that's what Star Trek Online is for

I zoned out of Discovery mid season 2, and haven't even bothered with Picard yet. Below Decks just looks like it'll be Rick & Morty-level humour to me, and I didn't manage to get past the first episode of that.

The problem with this line of thought though is that ST isn't a mainstream franchise, with only the TOS movies and TNG being popular in the mainstream. (I was considering putting TOS itself on there, but it got canceled and most people only remember moments from the series, not entire episodes)

Everything else about ST is niche and always has been, so there's no point in trying to attract a mainstream audience when the franchise you're dealing with revels in not being mainstream or existing solely to go against the grain of what's popular. Like, DS9 was on the chopping block for it's entire 2nd half and people who work on the show admit that it's a miracle that it was able to be finished, Voyager spent it's entire run with decreasing ratings, etc...

[Starblaydia]

Your problem there is that it pitches an in-depth socio-political drama for an alien culture that only really appeals to a percentage of existing fans. Presumably quite a high percentage, but with no obvious access for people who haven't seen a film more than a decade old. The trick to making things successful is to try and take them mainstream, rather than only appealing to the people who are fans already - same deal with comic books vs comic book movies.

Everything else about ST is niche and always has been, so there's no point in trying to attract a mainstream audience when the franchise you're dealing with revels in not being mainstream or existing solely to go against the grain of what's popular. Like, DS9 was on the chopping block for it's entire 2nd half and people who work on the show admit that it's a miracle that it was able to be finished, Voyager spent it's entire run with decreasing ratings, etc...

You're actually confirmeingmy point, so thank you. With 'New' Trek in the form of the JJ movies, Discovery and Below Decks, they're trying to take it mainstream and be like everything else, which seems to be why a decent percentage of existing Star Trek fans dislike them. My point about having to take it mainstream is not because I'd like it that way, but because the people who produce these things require it. Cult sleeper hits are all well and good, but the money people want more money.

I also don't accept that Star Trek has 'always tried to go against the grain'. At its best, it's about pointing the way forward to a better humanity and way of living alongside each other. DS9 had to go all dark and edgy with the sweeping galatic war arc because it was the mid-90s and that was considered the only way to have the space station sitcom be a viable product, I would hazard a guess because of Bablyon 5's influence too.

The point of making these TV shows is always to have them be popular, well-loved, stay on the air, and ultimately make money. You don't do that by specifically going against the grain, you do that by either matching or making the zeitgeist. I'd argue that TOS and TNG did that, at various points in their runs, but subseqent editions of the franchise almost entirely failed to. It's a fine line to walk.

[New haven america]

Everything else about ST is niche and always has been, so there's no point in trying to attract a mainstream audience when the franchise you're dealing with revels in not being mainstream or existing solely to go against the grain of what's popular. Like, DS9 was on the chopping block for it's entire 2nd half and people who work on the show admit that it's a miracle that it was able to be finished, Voyager spent it's entire run with decreasing ratings, etc...

1. You're actually confirmeingmy point, so thank you. With 'New' Trek in the form of the JJ movies, Discovery and Below Decks, they're trying to take it mainstream and be like everything else, which seems to be why a decent percentage of existing Star Trek fans dislike them. My point about having to take it mainstream is not because I'd like it that way, but because the people who produce these things require it. Cult sleeper hits are all well and good, but the money people want more money.

2. I also don't accept that Star Trek has 'always tried to go against the grain'. At its best, it's about pointing the way forward to a better humanity and way of living alongside each other. 3. DS9 had to go all dark and edgy with the sweeping galatic war arc because it was the mid-90s and that was considered the only way to have the space station sitcom be a viable product, I would hazard a guess because of Bablyon 5's influence too.

The point of making these TV shows is always to have them be popular, well-loved, stay on the air, and ultimately make money. You don't do that by specifically going against the grain, you do that by either matching or making the zeitgeist. I'd argue that TOS and TNG did that, at various points in their runs, but subseqent editions of the franchise almost entirely failed to. It's a fine line to walk.

1. No, people dislike them because they're bad, not because they're trying to be mainstream (That's an different but related issue). A lot of ST fans actually like 09 and Beyond because they're good movies, with Beyond actually being written and made by people who like and grew up with ST.
2. Well no, you're right, because Kurtzman Trek exists.
3. DS9 had the Dominion War because the writers wanted to see how they could test The Federation's and Gene's ideas vs. A seemingly unstoppable force, but the thing to note is that they never gave up the Federation's hope and optimism, unlike certain other shows made by The 4 Horseman of the Trekspocalypse.

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

What's worse is that the Hobus supernova and the given setup to sequel Trek, while admittedly being nothing but a plot device in the 2009 film, had a lot of potential (at least in my mind) to explore the aftermath of the loss of Romulus and what becomes of the Romulan Star Empire in the pre-2005 timeline.

Your problem there is that it pitches an in-depth socio-political drama for an alien culture that only really appeals to a percentage of existing fans. Presumably quite a high percentage, but with no obvious access for people who haven't seen a film more than a decade old. The trick to making things successful is to try and take them mainstream, rather than only appealing to the people who are fans already - same deal with comic books vs comic book movies.

For decent post-Hobus timeline stuff, that's what Star Trek Online is for

I zoned out of Discovery mid season 2, and haven't even bothered with Picard yet. Below Decks just looks like it'll be Rick & Morty-level humour to me, and I didn't manage to get past the first episode of that.

I think more Trek fans would be willing to hash out some dough for good Star Trek. Sure, the fact that Discovery was being hosted on CBS All Access did worry some fans initially, from what I understand, many fans were ready to watch the franchise return to its television cradle.

I mean, I don't think people at that point knew that NuTrek as they understood it was going to be the general state of future Trek. At that point, all people had to contend with were just three action movies with a Star Trek skin on them. And they were set in an alternate reality, so if people didn't enjoy them, they could just outright deny their existence and stick with classic Trek, and the chronology would be fine.

You could make a clean split with NuTrek up until 2016, but once Discovery aired and NuTrek shifted into the pre-2005 Prime Timeline, it'd be real messy. Now, people are hypersensitive to the bungled continuity of post-2017 NuTrek and anything it has to offer. Some of it is justified (messing with some of Trek's core ideals), some of it is kinda stretching a bit (assuming the TOS Constitution-class by default had to be Starfleet's largest ship up until that point because she was the flagship, ergo ruling out the existence of the Kelvin and the Discovery), and some of it is just unnecessarily nitpicky (saying that Paris looks "too dark").

I do have to agree with NHA, people didn't like NuTrek not because of it's modernness or attempted mainstream appeal, butbecause it was bad. I mean, compromising some of the core ideals Trek was founded on (like an evolved humanity who doesn't swear every other word, or the elimination of poverty on Earth, or seeing a synth caste system in work on Utopia Planetia despite the Federation not allowing caste systems) in order to tell a story is pretty egregious.

I'm sure more people would have been fine with the updated aesthetics and the lens flares if the writers could just tell a compelling story that stuck with what Trek had always stood for in the past. As long as the stories were good, then figuring out the chronology of the ships and the evolution of technology could wait for later.

I mean, NHA was right about 2009 and Beyond. Lots of Trek fans (myself included) like those films, even with the messy chronology because despite the flashy action, the stories they tell are actually appealing and don't essentially destroy everything that had been established beforehand to tell some grim, dark, depressing story that doesn't mesh with Trek's optimistic version of the future (Into Darkness is real iffy, though).

It's when Discovery and Picard take Trek and betray those core ideas that people start to get angry and cancel their subscriptions.

[Tarsonis]

finally got around to watching Lower Decks. I personally found it endearing, but I get why its ratings are in the gutter.

[The Rich Port]

finally got around to watching Lower Decks. I personally found it endearing, but I get why its ratings are in the gutter.

Seems harmless really, although yeah, art's not supposed to be harmless, is it.

Goofy as TNG could be for example (Troi's tiddie suits), it made so many bold choices.

[Tarsonis]

finally got around to watching Lower Decks. I personally found it endearing, but I get why its ratings are in the gutter.

Seems harmless really, although yeah, art's not supposed to be harmless, is it.

Goofy as TNG could be for example (Troi's tiddie suits), it made so many bold choices.

I enjoy the takes on what the seedy underbelly of Starfleet is like. (Like the couple continuing their date despite all hell breaking loose around them because, heck it's just another Tuesday in starfleet.) And some of the commentary is pretty niche, (like mocking how the Senior officers get all the credit, and nobody mentions the people under them who no doubt would have been working right along side them.)

But I get also why people think its running afoul of Star Trek's sanctity

[The Rich Port]

Seems harmless really, although yeah, art's not supposed to be harmless, is it.

Goofy as TNG could be for example (Troi's tiddie suits), it made so many bold choices.

I enjoy the takes on what the seedy underbelly of Starfleet is like. (Like the couple continuing their date despite all hell breaking loose around them because, heck it's just another Tuesday in starfleet.) And some of the commentary is pretty niche, (like mocking how the Senior officers get all the credit, and nobody mentions the people under them who no doubt would have been working right along side them.)

But I get also why people think its running afoul of Star Trek's sanctity

It's not even about sanctity, DS9 broke a lot of Rodenberry's rules.

... You know what it is.

If DS9 is an admiral, and TNG is acaptain, and Voyager is a Lieutenant,and Enterprise is an ensign... This cartoon show is Wesley goddamn Crusher. And not Tolerable Wesley from late in TNG, Out-Of-The-Can Wesley, not even ripe yet.

What's the point XD

[La Paz de Los Ricos]

I enjoy the takes on what the seedy underbelly of Starfleet is like. (Like the couple continuing their date despite all hell breaking loose around them because, heck it's just another Tuesday in starfleet.) And some of the commentary is pretty niche, (like mocking how the Senior officers get all the credit, and nobody mentions the people under them who no doubt would have been working right along side them.)

But I get also why people think its running afoul of Star Trek's sanctity

It's not even about sanctity, DS9 broke a lot of Rodenberry's rules.

... You know what it is.

If DS9 is an admiral, and TNG is acaptain, and Voyager is a Lieutenant,and Enterprise is an ensign... This cartoon show is Wesley goddamn Crusher. And not Tolerable Wesley from late in TNG, Out-Of-The-Can Wesley, not even ripe yet.

What's the point XD

I would call that an accurate assessment, except for TNG. I was gonna say TNG should be an admiral, but then I remembered Insurrection and Nemesis exist and I immediately demoted TNG all the way down to lieutenant commander.

TOS gets that second admiral spot.

[New haven america]

finally got around to watching Lower Decks. I personally found it endearing, but I get why its ratings are in the gutter.

Seems harmless really, although yeah, art's not supposed to be harmless, is it.

Goofy as TNG could be for example (Troi's tiddie suits), it made so many bold choices.

Well it's not really harmless, because it shows that the franchise is going in the direction of following the mainstream and adhering to other's opinions instead of doing its own thing.

You know, animation is only for kids, the only animation for teens or adults are animated sitcoms a la~ The Simpsons, Family Guy, Rick and Morty, etc... ST could thrive in animation because the only limit to it is your imagination, but if the only thing The 4 Horsemen of the Trekspocalypse can come up with is another animated sitcom, then that shows just how imaginative they are.

[Twilight Imperium]

Seriously, does this sound like a comprehensible story?

I mean, you can make anything sound insane if you say it like that.

"Ancient beacon is misheard by modern-day people, plot ensues when we finally get the correct message" is basically what happened in Mass Effect 1, and people don't bitch about that. Star Trek: Picard has plenty of actual issues, we don't need to reach that far to add new ones.

[Auristania]

And people forget that Alex Kurtzman outright doesn't like or want anything to do with Trek pre-2009.

Kurtzman, when the franchise fell.

7 of 9, her guns blazing.

[Tarsonis]

Kurtzman, when the franchise fell.

7 of 9, her guns blazing.

You win the internet for a day.

[Imperial isa]

Okay if STD meant to be between STE and ST what happen to make the tech take a step back when it hit ST time frame ?

[New haven america]

Okay if STD meant to be between STE and ST what happen to make the tech take a step back when hit ST time frame ?

Don't question it, it looks cool, no one's watched TOS anyways, ignore it.

[Tarsonis]

Okay if STD meant to be between STE and ST what happen to make the tech take a step back when hit ST time frame ?

Don't question it, it looks cool, no one's watched TOS anyways, ignore it.

I mean, it's kinda true...