Star Trek: Thread Space 9

[El Barto]

Dystopian sums up every single one of my issues.

I LOVE ST...but Discovery, and even the Picard series just had a dark, sinister, 'corruption is everywhere' vibe that just wears on me. Our current world is so, so messed up, and sometimes I just want to escape...to the 24th century!

Everytime I watch a classic TNG episode, I marvel at how well they balance a positive outlook with shades of grey.

DocAC was right that there was generally a good moral dilemma to resolve, but usually the conflict was in trying to keep their highbrow ideals and integrity while resolving the sorts of problem we could all relate to. And they generally did, or else felt pretty bad about it. Now they just do whatever "has to be done" and move right along to the next thing that needs exploding. It's basically 24 with phasers, transporters, and some familiar names scattered about.

[DoctorAction]

Don't get me wrong, I really like Disco and most of the new movies, but it certainly has felt more coherent as an overall ethos in the past. A lot of that is to do with the franchise basically stopping for a long time and being handled by various people, I think.

I think the heart of Disco is very human and I certainly feel they have the potential to create a more positive show. We'll see.

[Adami]

To me, and possibly just to me, Star Trek has several defining characteristics as well as some tertiary characteristics. I feel that the defining characteristics have been deemed undesirable recently and people are focusing on the tertiary characteristics.

So I'd say the defining characteristics are as follows. And these are just off the top of my head and probably not complete.

1) A future that represents humanity becoming what we always hoped we would. The humans/federation represent that idealism, while the aliens represent the ambiguity and current issues we face. That way it still shows people confronting very relevant problems of humanity while doing so from the  assumption that while we've already conquered much of this on our own, thus giving a bright future, we still have more to learn. It was never about making the future seem as bad as the present. It was about handling the present problems with the hope of the future. Take away that hope and it's just a reflection of right now, which is what every one else is already doing.
2) The final frontier, or "where no one has gone before" is more about us than about space. Space is the metaphor. I think, in my interpretation, this is exactly what Q was talking about in All Good Things. It's not about mapping star charts and nebula, it's about finding deeper and unknown aspects of our own humanity and potential.
3) Confronting, often times difficult, political, social, theological, etc dilemmas and challenging the viewer to go on that journey as well. Which is why Kirk, Spock, and Bones worked from the get go. They always had a bit of an ID, Ego, Superego element, even if they were often changing which represented what. It was the journey of examining these issues.
4) This is not what we want, but what we need. I think, but might be wrong, that it was Gene Roddenbery that said to give people what they need, not what they want. Star Trek wasn't (though it was in some more minor ways) about chasing and following social trends, but about doing what they think the people should be looking for. When you chase trends, you're just part of ever changing and ever fading zeitgeist of immediacy. When you strive for something beyond that, you tend to serve a different purpose. Star Trek used to inspire people to become officers, scientists, engineers, astronauts. Not because they wanted to give people what they want, but to give people what they didn't know they needed. How many people became astronauts because of Star Trek Into Darkness?

Then there's the tertiary stuff. The frosting on the cake that doesn't define the cake, but makes it more fun etc.
1) Space battles
2) Creative visuals
3) Good guys beating the bad guys
4) Excitement and thrills

I feel people have shifted the focus to the tertiary stuff, which almost all sci-fi also has. Which is what makes this, to me, Trek in name only. It has all that tertiary stuff that I can easily find a bunch of other places. Every thing about Star Trek for the last 10 years I can easily find in Star Wars, Firefly, Lost in Space (the new one) or one of the other dozens of Netflix original sci-fi shows. I feel people want crazy visuals and excitment and Star Trek is now trying to fill those needs. When people say they want Star Trek set in the distant future or to go to places where the laws of nature are all weird, it's just to get cool visuals. That's it. There's nothing to be learned or gained from that other than entertainment. And, maybe it's just me and maybe I'm way off, but to me Star Trek was more than just entertainment. Now? Since Abrams? Just entertainment.

Now, you can all dissect what I said and point out that Star Trek didn't always do all of those things and had moments that ran contrary to it, and you'd be missing my entire point. But this is why I say it's Trek in name only currently. Fun? Sure. Disco season 2 was a lot of fun. I hope the Pike show might be a bit more Trek, but I doubt it. With Pike Trek, I'm looking forward to fun sci-fi. I hope I'm wrong. Disco season 1 was just no fun at all. It was just modern typical sci-fi which I don't like much. Season 3 is off to a bad start but can always become fun the way season 2 did. Picard was just a complete mess of nonsense to me. I just don't think the people running Star Trek want to do Star Trek. They want to make a fun exciting product that the people want. But to me, that's never been what Star Trek was about.

[WilliamMunny]

To me, and possibly just to me, Star Trek has several defining characteristics as well as some tertiary characteristics. I feel that the defining characteristics have been deemed undesirable recently and people are focusing on the tertiary characteristics.

So I'd say the defining characteristics are as follows. And these are just off the top of my head and probably not complete.

1) A future that represents humanity becoming what we always hoped we would. The humans/federation represent that idealism, while the aliens represent the ambiguity and current issues we face. That way it still shows people confronting very relevant problems of humanity while doing so from the  assumption that while we've already conquered much of this on our own, thus giving a bright future, we still have more to learn. It was never about making the future seem as bad as the present. It was about handling the present problems with the hope of the future. Take away that hope and it's just a reflection of right now, which is what every one else is already doing.
2) The final frontier, or "where no one has gone before" is more about us than about space. Space is the metaphor. I think, in my interpretation, this is exactly what Q was talking about in All Good Things. It's not about mapping star charts and nebula, it's about finding deeper and unknown aspects of our own humanity and potential.
3) Confronting, often times difficult, political, social, theological, etc dilemmas and challenging the viewer to go on that journey as well. Which is why Kirk, Spock, and Bones worked from the get go. They always had a bit of an ID, Ego, Superego element, even if they were often changing which represented what. It was the journey of examining these issues.
4) This is not what we want, but what we need. I think, but might be wrong, that it was Gene Roddenbery that said to give people what they need, not what they want. Star Trek wasn't (though it was in some more minor ways) about chasing and following social trends, but about doing what they think the people should be looking for. When you chase trends, you're just part of ever changing and ever fading zeitgeist of immediacy. When you strive for something beyond that, you tend to serve a different purpose. Star Trek used to inspire people to become officers, scientists, engineers, astronauts. Not because they wanted to give people what they want, but to give people what they didn't know they needed. How many people became astronauts because of Star Trek Into Darkness?

Then there's the tertiary stuff. The frosting on the cake that doesn't define the cake, but makes it more fun etc.
1) Space battles
2) Creative visuals
3) Good guys beating the bad guys
4) Excitement and thrills

I feel people have shifted the focus to the tertiary stuff, which almost all sci-fi also has. Which is what makes this, to me, Trek in name only. It has all that tertiary stuff that I can easily find a bunch of other places. Every thing about Star Trek for the last 10 years I can easily find in Star Wars, Firefly, Lost in Space (the new one) or one of the other dozens of Netflix original sci-fi shows. I feel people want crazy visuals and excitment and Star Trek is now trying to fill those needs. When people say they want Star Trek set in the distant future or to go to places where the laws of nature are all weird, it's just to get cool visuals. That's it. There's nothing to be learned or gained from that other than entertainment. And, maybe it's just me and maybe I'm way off, but to me Star Trek was more than just entertainment. Now? Since Abrams? Just entertainment.

Now, you can all dissect what I said and point out that Star Trek didn't always do all of those things and had moments that ran contrary to it, and you'd be missing my entire point. But this is why I say it's Trek in name only currently. Fun? Sure. Disco season 2 was a lot of fun. I hope the Pike show might be a bit more Trek, but I doubt it. With Pike Trek, I'm looking forward to fun sci-fi. I hope I'm wrong. Disco season 1 was just no fun at all. It was just modern typical sci-fi which I don't like much. Season 3 is off to a bad start but can always become fun the way season 2 did. Picard was just a complete mess of nonsense to me. I just don't think the people running Star Trek want to do Star Trek. They want to make a fun exciting product that the people want. But to me, that's never been what Star Trek was about.

This. This. This.

I could not agree more. I was soooooo excited for Picard, and therefore, I was summarily crushed by the final product.

[hefdaddy42]

To me, and possibly just to me, Star Trek has several defining characteristics as well as some tertiary characteristics. I feel that the defining characteristics have been deemed undesirable recently and people are focusing on the tertiary characteristics.

So I'd say the defining characteristics are as follows. And these are just off the top of my head and probably not complete.

1) A future that represents humanity becoming what we always hoped we would. The humans/federation represent that idealism, while the aliens represent the ambiguity and current issues we face. That way it still shows people confronting very relevant problems of humanity while doing so from the  assumption that while we've already conquered much of this on our own, thus giving a bright future, we still have more to learn. It was never about making the future seem as bad as the present. It was about handling the present problems with the hope of the future. Take away that hope and it's just a reflection of right now, which is what every one else is already doing.
2) The final frontier, or "where no one has gone before" is more about us than about space. Space is the metaphor. I think, in my interpretation, this is exactly what Q was talking about in All Good Things. It's not about mapping star charts and nebula, it's about finding deeper and unknown aspects of our own humanity and potential.
3) Confronting, often times difficult, political, social, theological, etc dilemmas and challenging the viewer to go on that journey as well. Which is why Kirk, Spock, and Bones worked from the get go. They always had a bit of an ID, Ego, Superego element, even if they were often changing which represented what. It was the journey of examining these issues.
4) This is not what we want, but what we need. I think, but might be wrong, that it was Gene Roddenbery that said to give people what they need, not what they want. Star Trek wasn't (though it was in some more minor ways) about chasing and following social trends, but about doing what they think the people should be looking for. When you chase trends, you're just part of ever changing and ever fading zeitgeist of immediacy. When you strive for something beyond that, you tend to serve a different purpose. Star Trek used to inspire people to become officers, scientists, engineers, astronauts. Not because they wanted to give people what they want, but to give people what they didn't know they needed. How many people became astronauts because of Star Trek Into Darkness?

Then there's the tertiary stuff. The frosting on the cake that doesn't define the cake, but makes it more fun etc.
1) Space battles
2) Creative visuals
3) Good guys beating the bad guys
4) Excitement and thrills

I feel people have shifted the focus to the tertiary stuff, which almost all sci-fi also has. Which is what makes this, to me, Trek in name only. It has all that tertiary stuff that I can easily find a bunch of other places. Every thing about Star Trek for the last 10 years I can easily find in Star Wars, Firefly, Lost in Space (the new one) or one of the other dozens of Netflix original sci-fi shows. I feel people want crazy visuals and excitment and Star Trek is now trying to fill those needs. When people say they want Star Trek set in the distant future or to go to places where the laws of nature are all weird, it's just to get cool visuals. That's it. There's nothing to be learned or gained from that other than entertainment. And, maybe it's just me and maybe I'm way off, but to me Star Trek was more than just entertainment. Now? Since Abrams? Just entertainment.

Now, you can all dissect what I said and point out that Star Trek didn't always do all of those things and had moments that ran contrary to it, and you'd be missing my entire point. But this is why I say it's Trek in name only currently. Fun? Sure. Disco season 2 was a lot of fun. I hope the Pike show might be a bit more Trek, but I doubt it. With Pike Trek, I'm looking forward to fun sci-fi. I hope I'm wrong. Disco season 1 was just no fun at all. It was just modern typical sci-fi which I don't like much. Season 3 is off to a bad start but can always become fun the way season 2 did. Picard was just a complete mess of nonsense to me. I just don't think the people running Star Trek want to do Star Trek. They want to make a fun exciting product that the people want. But to me, that's never been what Star Trek was about.

That's pretty beautiful.

[DoctorAction]

Wow. Great post.

[SoundscapeMN]

It's been said many times before, but I still think it bares repeating,

The Orville is more or less doing Star Trek, how I prefer and like it.

It's a shame there likely will only be one more season, but better than none.

[El Barto]

It's been said many times before, but I still think it bares repeating,

The Orville is more or less doing Star Trek, how I prefer and like it.

It's a shame there likely will only be one more season, but better than none.

I don't think it's a particularly good show, but there's no question that Seth Macfarlane is much, much better at doing Star Trek than anybody at Paramount/CBS. He's done a couple of stories that rival the best of what ST had to offer, even if his way of telling them isn't really my bag.

[soupytwist]

It's been said many times before, but I still think it bares repeating,

The Orville is more or less doing Star Trek, how I prefer and like it.

It's a shame there likely will only be one more season, but better than none.

Doesn't this kind off prove the point that old format Trek isn't popular enough anymore.  The Orville has never really found a big enough audience depict starting out with a good time slot - and since then it's had to find a new home of hulu (which is a bit of a graveyard) and now it's ending,  whereas Disco announced a forth season before the third even aired.

Also great post there Adami - don't agree with it all, but kudos for putting it out there.

[El Barto]

It's been said many times before, but I still think it bares repeating,

The Orville is more or less doing Star Trek, how I prefer and like it.

It's a shame there likely will only be one more season, but better than none.

Doesn't this kind off prove the point that old format Trek isn't popular enough anymore.  The Orville has never really found a big enough audience depict starting out with a good time slot - and since then it's had to find a new home of hulu (which is a bit of a graveyard) and now it's ending,  whereas Disco announced a forth season before the third even aired.

Also great post there Adami - don't agree with it all, but kudos for putting it out there.

It hammers home the point. To be fair, part of Orville's problem is that it's just s weird duck of a show. It's still very much the case that CBS/Paramount are in the money-making business, and they're catering to the masses. People want explosions rather than exploration.  I have not, and I don't think Adami has ever denied that we are in the minority here.

[Kotowboy]

I saw some of The Orville and it was just Family Guy in space

" The Orville is just like TNG "

Yeah I remember the episode where Riker kept making dick jokes.

[El Barto]

I don't recall anybody here saying Orville was just like TNG. I said that it was better at writing Star Trek stories than Star Trek is. And I'm right.

[Orbert]

The tone of The Orville was different, but for the most part the aesthetics and the stories themselves were very much like TNG.

[soupytwist]

I don't recall anybody here saying Orville was just like TNG. I said that it was better at writing Star Trek stories than Star Trek is. And I'm right.

Well The Orville if basically a rip off of TNG with a few words changed, a lot of the stories 'borrowed' heavily from Trek too.  So yeah it obviously close in tone to Trek because it doesn't have any ambition above that.....aside from a bit more comedy.   In terms of actual creative writing and humour peak Red Dwarf is far better sci fi show.

[YtseJam]

I don't recall anybody here saying Orville was just like TNG. I said that it was better at writing Star Trek stories than Star Trek is. And I'm right.

Well The Orville if basically a rip off of TNG with a few words changed, a lot of the stories 'borrowed' heavily from Trek too.  So yeah it obviously close in tone to Trek because it doesn't have any ambition above that.....aside from a bit more comedy.   In terms of actual creative writing and humour peak Red Dwarf is far better sci fi show.

...and I actually enjoyed it. Just like people say DT rips off bands like Rush because of the similarities. Who cares? It's still awesome. It's too bad Orville got derailed to Hulu because Hulu is like the armpit of Netflix but who knows, maybe it'll be their saving grace.

[Kotowboy]

I don't recall anybody here saying Orville was just like TNG. I said that it was better at writing Star Trek stories than Star Trek is. And I'm right.

Well The Orville if basically a rip off of TNG with a few words changed, a lot of the stories 'borrowed' heavily from Trek too.  So yeah it obviously close in tone to Trek because it doesn't have any ambition above that.....aside from a bit more comedy.   In terms of actual creative writing and humour peak Red Dwarf is far better sci fi show.

Yes RD series 6 was classic. 7 was awful 8 was better 9 was alright and 10 onwards has almost been classic RD. I havent seen the new special yet.

[El Barto]

I don't recall anybody here saying Orville was just like TNG. I said that it was better at writing Star Trek stories than Star Trek is. And I'm right.

Well The Orville if basically a rip off of TNG with a few words changed, a lot of the stories 'borrowed' heavily from Trek too.  So yeah it obviously close in tone to Trek because it doesn't have any ambition above that.....aside from a bit more comedy.   In terms of actual creative writing and humour peak Red Dwarf is far better sci fi show.

I wouldn't call it a ripoff, but there's no doubt they borrowed from plenty of ST (and other sci-fi) stories and tropes. I think what Seth was particularly good at was pulling from multiple bits and combining them into new stories. The best of the Orville episodes are often two or three previous ideas merged into a new story. The planet with the sunroof was a fine example. The planet was essentially Yonada (TOS-For the World is Hollow. . .), and the antagonist was the frequent sci-fi villain, the minister who's also the defender of the faith. You see him everywhere. One specific story and one widely used trope combined into a good, new episode.

The crewmember being subjected to stupid and arbitrary rules on a strange planet is a common enough theme in sci-fi, and ST certainly ran with it. I don't recall a planet being governed by astrology before, though. Same with the Facebook planet. New spins on old stories. Kelly becomes God was a combination of Wink of an Eye (VOY) and Prime Directive (TNG). Not sure there's any ripoff there, and an excellent episode. Seth's made no secret of this being an homage to ST, but I think he deserves some credit for crafting some excellent stories, even if many of the ideas do have roots in the ST universe.

[jammindude]

EB nailed it. I love that show. I wish it was going to be with us longer.

If Seth can find a way to release a complete series boxed set, I’ll be first in line.

[soupytwist]

I don't recall anybody here saying Orville was just like TNG. I said that it was better at writing Star Trek stories than Star Trek is. And I'm right.

Well The Orville if basically a rip off of TNG with a few words changed, a lot of the stories 'borrowed' heavily from Trek too.  So yeah it obviously close in tone to Trek because it doesn't have any ambition above that.....aside from a bit more comedy.   In terms of actual creative writing and humour peak Red Dwarf is far better sci fi show.

I wouldn't call it a ripoff, but there's no doubt they borrowed from plenty of ST (and other sci-fi) stories and tropes. I think what Seth was particularly good at was pulling from multiple bits and combining them into new stories. The best of the Orville episodes are often two or three previous ideas merged into a new story. The planet with the sunroof was a fine example. The planet was essentially Yonada (TOS-For the World is Hollow. . .), and the antagonist was the frequent sci-fi villain, the minister who's also the defender of the faith. You see him everywhere. One specific story and one widely used trope combined into a good, new episode.

The crewmember being subjected to stupid and arbitrary rules on a strange planet is a common enough theme in sci-fi, and ST certainly ran with it. I don't recall a planet being governed by astrology before, though. Same with the Facebook planet. New spins on old stories. Kelly becomes God was a combination of Wink of an Eye (VOY) and Prime Directive (TNG). Not sure there's any ripoff there, and an excellent episode. Seth's made no secret of this being an homage to ST, but I think he deserves some credit for crafting some excellent stories, even if many of the ideas do have roots in the ST universe.

I don't actually think there has been one really great original story in the Orville....however where it does get credit is it's characters, whereas old Trek characters tend to be at bit one dimensional and pretty much never  grow or evolve as people, the Orville crew generally have been.  That's basically why I watch it it's a shame these characters are trapped in such a derivative Trek universe.

[soupytwist]

I don't recall anybody here saying Orville was just like TNG. I said that it was better at writing Star Trek stories than Star Trek is. And I'm right.

Well The Orville if basically a rip off of TNG with a few words changed, a lot of the stories 'borrowed' heavily from Trek too.  So yeah it obviously close in tone to Trek because it doesn't have any ambition above that.....aside from a bit more comedy.   In terms of actual creative writing and humour peak Red Dwarf is far better sci fi show.

Yes RD series 6 was classic. 7 was awful 8 was better 9 was alright and 10 onwards has almost been classic RD. I havent seen the new special yet.

If you mean series 1 - 6 was classics?  I agree.  The new Dave stuff is better than series 7 and 8 but I  think it's still quite away from the peak to be honest.   The film special is OK it has two really, really funny sequences that are classic RD.....the cat people though are crap.

[Kotowboy]

I'll probably see it at some point.

Yes The first 6 series of Red Dwarf were great.

7 with Kochanski was just awful. Duct Soup is the single worst episode of RD ever. I wouldn't be shocked if it was a bottle episode.

8 was a little better. Back To Earth was fun. Everything on Dave has been pretty decent and has the charm of the classic series..

But after 30 years together they're still making the same Smeghead quips to each other. I know it wouldn't be RD without all the insults

But now it just feels tacked on.

I want to see the last two series again. Wasn't Back To Earth considered Series 10 and that they skipped 9 altogether to make up for 8 not really having an ending ?

[DoctorAction]

Classic Red Dwarf was just fantastic. Some of the latter stuff has been ok but it's not kept me in. I might spin the recent special soon.

But the old stuff, God, so many amazing lines. "We ran out of cows' milk ages ago..." 

[Kotowboy]

" Dogs milk lasts way longer than cows milk..."

" Why is that ? "

" No bugger will drink it..."


-----

" Go to blue alert "

" Are you sure ? It will mean changing the bulb.."

[DoctorAction]

 

[Adami]

Second episode out.


Possibly worse than the last one.

[ReaperKK]

I thought the exact opposite

Adami do you think you'll stick with the show no matter how bad it gets or is there a point where you'll give it up?

[Adami]

I thought the exact opposite

Adami do you think you'll stick with the show no matter how bad it gets or is there a point where you'll give it up?

To be fair, at some point bad is just bad. I’d be happy to say they’re close enough in badness.

[Polarbear]

Just watched ep.2.

Overall not bad, but didn't like it as much as the previous one. I'm still very invested in the mysteries they have set up for this season. I like that we get small tidbits of lore little bit at the time, rather than it being puked all over us from the get go.

That courier guy called Saru a "V'Draysh" captain, so it got me thinking if this "V'Draysh" is a some sort of future subfaction of the Federation. Interesting stuff, but I guess we have to wait and see.

[DoctorAction]

Was nice to see the ship and cast again but bit of a head-scratcher, that one.

[Adami]

I remember when the parasitic ice (don't get me started) was eating the ship as they tried to escape. I kept thinking, ohhhhhh it's Star Trek...they're going to analyze the ice and figure some cool science/tech way to find a way ou.........no? They're just gonna push harder on the gas and hope it works? Dammit.

Edit: On my huge rewatch, just starting Season 3 of ToS and we're on Spock's Brain. I'd rank Discovery above this episode, if it helps. 

[Kotowboy]

I finally got around to Spock's Brain and..

..it wasn't the hilarious disaster I was expecting.

It was nowhere near as terrible as Threshold or Code Of Honor Or Stardust City Rag. It was FINE...

Typical 60s Star trek silly. But not AWFUL.

[Kotowboy]

I thought the exact opposite

Adami do you think you'll stick with the show no matter how bad it gets or is there a point where you'll give it up?

I read that it was as bad as Stardust City Rag - which is a terrible terrible episode.

But it was nowhere near. I actually enjoyed it and loved all the scenes aboard Disco.

Got excited when I thought Giorgiou might die but she didn't. She's not my fave character. That's not a slight on Michelle Yeoh either. I just don't like Mirror Giorgiou. **

And as for the surprise ending. Fair play. I didn't expect that this early. I'm hoping this season is what the creators imagined from the beginning but

Michael Fuller or whoever ( the original showrunners were booted for being controlling bullies - so who knows what they demanded be set up ? )

S2 of Disco felt like they were trying to course correct and now S3 feels like where the show shoulda been all along. Let's see..




** And Yeoh plays Prime and Mirror Giorgiou so different - I genuinely sometimes forget that they're the same actor.

[Adami]

I thought the exact opposite

Adami do you think you'll stick with the show no matter how bad it gets or is there a point where you'll give it up?

Just noticed the question.

I'll stick with it. They showed enough signs of making a decent show (even if still not very Trek) in season 2 that I'll keep it going. It's just an hour a week a few months a year. Not much of a commitment.

[Kotowboy]

I both prefer waiting a week between episodes and don't.

I mean - on the plus side - if all 15 episodes were up at once - I would binge watch them all and have to wait a year or so.

On the down side - I also HATE cliffhangers. It's just a cheap way of getting you to come back.

[Adami]

I finally got around to Spock's Brain and..

..it wasn't the hilarious disaster I was expecting.

It was nowhere near as terrible as Threshold or Code Of Honor Or Stardust City Rag. It was FINE...

Typical 60s Star trek silly. But not AWFUL.

It's really bad. It's not a hilarious disaster at all. It's just bad. Not the kind of bad you laugh at or watch cause it's so bad. It's just not a good episode at all. I dunno how to compare it to the Picard episode. They're both very bad for VERY different reasons. Hard to compare.

I'd say it's worse, but not much, than Code of Honor. Those two are pretty close.