STD - The War Without, The War Within

[Zoinksberg]

Midnight's Edge can go take a nap, for all I care. As do all his ilk that plague the Web. I like Discovery, and I like Star Trek. I don't care what some angry sourpusses on YouTube (or this forum) believe.

This is Star Trek, not a stupid religion. There's no such thing as "true fans", as if they were "true believers". Some like DSC, some don't. Some like VOY, some don't. Some like the kelvinverse, some do not. That does not make any of them more or less a Star Trek fan.

Did you really just write a paragraph about how "true fans" isn't a thing and we all like and dislike different things, preceded by a paragraph about how people who hate Discovery are "angry sourpusses" and "ilk that plague the Web"?

That's some top level failure to practice what you preach right there. If you really believed that it doesn't matter whether you do and don't like certain series' then you wouldn't care what other people refer to Discovery as.

And try to keep in mind that the comment doesn't mean "people who like Discovery are idiots". It means that this is a series made for people who don't like Star Trek. Which is at least partly true, when it was being developed they wanted to make it less like TNG-era Trek and something more like current successful franchises. Discovery was specifically made to bring new people in to the franchise, so it quite literally was designed for people who don't [already] like Trek. (and then hidden behind a pay wall, but that's just an example of how well this was thought out) It is not an indictment on Trek fans who do enjoy it.

[Jonathan101]

People still remember Buzz Aldrin, Lance Armstrong, and the astronauts who walked on the moon, and who was first. Why did that get transferred to Kirk and not Archer past the obvious, that Enterprise was a prequel series set after all those?

Little did the Soviets know that America beat them to the Moon by abusing steroids.

[SuccubusYuri]

People still remember Buzz Aldrin, Lance Armstrong, and the astronauts who walked on the moon, and who was first. Why did that get transferred to Kirk and not Archer past the obvious, that Enterprise was a prequel series set after all those?

Little did the Soviets know that America beat them to the Moon by abusing steroids.

Let's be fair, Archer's quarters definitely had a Stretch Armstrong in a space suit just offscreen the entire series.

[Madner Kami]

People still remember Buzz Aldrin, Lance Armstrong, and the astronauts who walked on the moon, and who was first. Why did that get transferred to Kirk and not Archer past the obvious, that Enterprise was a prequel series set after all those?

Little did the Soviets know that America beat them to the Moon by abusing steroids.

LOL

[Actarus]

Midnight's Edge can go take a nap, for all I care. As do all his ilk that plague the Web. I like Discovery, and I like Star Trek. I don't care what some angry sourpusses on YouTube (or this forum) believe.

This is Star Trek, not a stupid religion. There's no such thing as "true fans", as if they were "true believers". Some like DSC, some don't. Some like VOY, some don't. Some like the kelvinverse, some do not. That does not make any of them more or less a Star Trek fan.

Did you really just write a paragraph about how "true fans" isn't a thing and we all like and dislike different things, preceded by a paragraph about how people who hate Discovery are "angry sourpusses" and "ilk that plague the Web"?

People who dislike (or even hate) Discovery are not the sourpusses or the ilk that plague the Web. But those who are saying "this is what Trek should be and those who disagree are not real fans of Star Trek" , or that the writers and producers "hate the fans" or that pretends to talk for "all the fans," that are telling me "you are not a true fan of Star Trek" (or Star Wars for all that matters) are indeed detestable. Those who say "if you were a real fan, you wouldn't like Discovery". They are all like little Torquemadas defending the "true faith".

And try to keep in mind that the comment doesn't mean "people who like Discovery are idiots". It means that this is a series made for people who don't like Star Trek. Which is at least partly true, when it was being developed they wanted to make it less like TNG-era Trek and something more like current successful franchises. Discovery was specifically made to bring new people in to the franchise, so it quite literally was designed for people who don't [already] like Trek. (and then hidden behind a pay wall, but that's just an example of how well this was thought out) It is not an indictment on Trek fans who do enjoy it.

People who did not like Star Trek would not have paid the subscription to watch the show in the first place. Discovery was made precisely as the main event to sell CBS All Access subscriptions. It was betting on the Star Trek fandom to launch the streaming platform.

What I don't get is this fixation on TNG-era Trek. It's not the only incarnation of the franchise. TOS-era Trek is very different from TNG, and TMP-era Trek is also different. And now we also have Kelvin-era Trek and Discovery-era Trek. What makes TNG-era the definitive form of Trek? I absolutely loved TNG, DS9, Voyager and even Enterprise. But let's face it: it gave all it could, and that incarnation felt tired in Enterprise. Would it really have been better if they gave us more of the old?

[Makeshift Python]

I think the problem here is a problem that Trek fans expect better from their beloved franchise, and because of the mishandling of the direction of the series, namely that it's being created simply to sell CBS's all-access streaming service, we're not going to get that. Clever plots, tight continuity, and interesting characters take a backseat to that. And that's what it should be about, in the end. TOS, TNG, and DS9 proved that, otherwise they wouldn't have done so well. It really goes back to what I said about corporate greed.

Midnight's Edge on Youtube coined the perfect description of STD: it is Star Trek for people who don't actually like Star Trek.

That's basically what any fan says of a show/film they intensely dislike. I've heard that a lot by a subset of James Bond fans with CASINO ROYALE and the rest of Daniel Craig's run. They don't speak for Bond fans, and Midnight's Edge certainly doesn't speak for Star Trek fans.

This is why I'm so relieved of Chuck's levelheadedness with DISCOVERY, as opposed to what ME did where they simply screamed like a bunch of spoiled children at the microphones right after the premiere of the show "THIS VIOLATES TEH CANON!!!!!! I HATE HATE HATE HATTTEEEEEEE!!!" It's just so tiring, I can't understand how followers can get through any of their videos. Their "scoops" are even worse as they're not only incredibly super biased but in cases were false and just hide it under the "rumors" banner that fans unfortunately take as gospel anyway, which ME is well aware of and takes advantage of that.

At least from what I've gathered over their seething hatred of Kelvin films, DISCOVERY, and utter love for THE ORVILLE, it just looks to me that all they really want is Rick Berman's Star Trek, likely because that's what they grew up watching. With many different producers/writers taking a stab at Trek, you're more likely going to get a different spin than a regurgitating of an old style of television production. It's partly why I just can't get into THE ORVILLE because it just feels like I'm watching something a 90s nostalgia fest. I have my problems with DISCOVERY, but I appreciate that it looks more like a modern day television series with a more cinematic flair. But if their idea of a return of "real" Trek is Rick Berman style production, I'm afraid they're just going to end up hating everything Trek does from here on out. That Picard series is going to piss off so many people.

[Yukaphile]

Well, you'd have to be a fool to think it's as good as Season 1 DS9, or Season 1 Voyager. Or even, God help me, Season 1 Enterprise. Yes, that's the new high standard for this franchise. It's more pointless prequelism that doesn't take advantage of the opportunities that presents, and it's pandering to fans rather than trying to fire the imagination. Like making Michael Spock's half-sibling. That's superficially cool. What does it signify, past that? And the fact she was never mentioned once in TOS or the TOS movies? Same reason Archer was never mentioned once in any other show past the TNG retcon? You need to think this through, and the same problem with STD is the issues Chuck rails on in Voyager, and it's the reason this franchise is doomed to fail. Intellectual sloth. If people can't be intelligent while working on Trek rather than trying to maximize the bottom line, then the fans won't put up with it for long.

That was a corporate ploy, and yes, fans gave Enterprise a chance in the beginning. But they didn't stick around after they burned their bridges and abused their trust. And trust me, pal, you are the minority. We're focused on TNG and DS9 because that was the pinnacle of the franchise with tight continuity, intelligent writers, and engaging characters. STD isn't even consistent with the continuity of TOS anyway. Again, they cover up plot holes that would be problems in TOS with bullshit excuses (like expunging Michael's record or having Starfleet cover up contact with the Mirror Universe, taking the pioneering moment away from Kirk) or just ignore them. It's sucking all that was special from TOS into something inferior, and any sequel to TNG or DS9 will do the same. Those corporate money-grubbers need to just leave the franchise alone at this point. Let it die with dignity.

[Yukaphile]

Tbh, Chuck "being fair" to STD after he's screamed at Voyager and Enterprise feels grating and hypocritical. Voyager and Enterprise blow STD out of the water in terms of quality.

[Makeshift Python]

Tbh, Chuck "being fair" to STD after he's screamed at Voyager and Enterprise feels grating and hypocritical. Voyager and Enterprise blow STD out of the water in terms of quality.

You're not convincing me when those shows delivered episodes like "Threshold" or "A Night in Sickbay". DISCOVERY may not have had a bonafide classic like "City on the Edge of Forever" or "The Measure of a Man" yet, but it certainly hasn't franchise clunkers like those two shows delivered on.

[clearspira]

People who did not like Star Trek would not have paid the subscription to watch the show in the first place. Discovery was made precisely as the main event to sell CBS All Access subscriptions. It was betting on the Star Trek fandom to launch the streaming platform.

What I don't get is this fixation on TNG-era Trek. It's not the only incarnation of the franchise. TOS-era Trek is very different from TNG, and TMP-era Trek is also different. And now we also have Kelvin-era Trek and Discovery-era Trek. What makes TNG-era the definitive form of Trek? I absolutely loved TNG, DS9, Voyager and even Enterprise. But let's face it: it gave all it could, and that incarnation felt tired in Enterprise. Would it really have been better if they gave us more of the old?

Nope, TNG isn't different to TOS in the one way that matters: it gave us a bright future. A future where everyone is equal, everyone has an opportunity, everyone has forgotten their pathetic differences and have banded together in the spirit of bettering ourselves. The rest of the differences between TOS and TNG are irrelevant.
STD is Star Trek made for people who do not like Star Trek because it is dark and cynical as f-. It is explosions, titties, swearing, assholes and backstabbers.

And no, I will not admit that it gave all it could. What I will admit is that Berman and Braga gave all they could. They were old, not the concept.

What makes the TNG era the definitive era of Trek? Why would it have been better if they gave us more of the old? Gee, lets think: why in this era of Trump, Brexit, MeToo and all of the other crap would we want to watch a show with a hopeful future over watching the same dark trash as the world we are living in now. There is a reason why Orville is considered the be the unofficial sixth Trek series because it gets this.