DIS - Perpetual Infinity

[Link8909]

Actions speak louder than words son.

The actions of running 3 Star Trek series and being involved in movies.

Pretty much, I think the issue is that he isn't making the Star Trek series YOU personally want clearspira, that because it's not ticking your own criteria of what makes Star Trek "Star Trek" it is bad and thus the people who's day job is to work on producing these series aren't "real fans" or "don't care".

What I like about Star Trek as a franchise is how broad the appeal of it is, with a universe filled with countless people and countless of aliens and planets, and with stories that can be told in any manner, there really isn't a wrong way of telling a Star Trek story, and with fans all over the world with wildly varying opinions and tasted, everyone has their own favourite episodes, series, and film, thus there really is no wrong way to enjoy Star Trek either, I'm up for discussing what works and what doesn't with any episode, series or film, but I'm not going to tell people their an idiot for not liking the same things I like.

Which is what I'm against and what has become an issue, which is gate-keeping, that if you like this Star Trek, or like it for a different reason, or in the case of the people who work on the franchise, then your not a "real fan", this is absolute rubbish and needs to stop, I may not personally like say Enterprise or Into Darkness, but I'm not going to say they aren't cannon or that they aren't "real Trek", and I'm not going to tell people that like them that they aren't "real fans" either.

And on a note, HOW do you determine who is a "real fan", how much information on the series they can list off the top of their head? the amount of merchandise they have? because I don't have that much merchandise or can't list Star Trek facts without the need of the Internet, so does that make me not a fan? and that if I wrote a Star Trek story that you personally didn't like does that also mean I'm not a "true fan?"

[CharlesPhipps]

At some point, I feel that fandom made a real weird turn.

No longer are fans content to just say something is BAD or GOOD or even if they like it/don't. They have the weird desire to say, "It is not the REAL product" or "It must be a huge financial failure."' I feel a bit like they're Klingons in that they claim, "A True Klingon would NEVER like Star Trek Discovery."

Which was always ridiculous to me because Worf's entire existential crisis came from the fact he was a Klingon faced with expectations of a society that sucked.

Maybe "real fans", casual fans, and disagreements among fans are a thing we should move away from. You may like different things about the franchise but we're all fans.

[Enterprising]

Uh, no.

https://trekmovie.com/2020/04/22/alex-kurtzman-hopes-gene-roddenberry-would-be-proud-of-star-treks-endurance/

I’m now at the point where I’m eating, breathing, dreaming Star Trek. And I love it! I love it for one reason. The work itself is very challenging, but it’s also some of the most satisfying work I’ve ever done, and I think that the reason why is because I’m recognizing and seeing in so many people that I meet how critically important it is to their lives. I see that Star Trek has influenced people’s lives in a real way. It’s not just a form of entertainment. It’s an inspiration for the kind of people they want to be, or the kinds of things they choose to pursue in their careers or the principles they want to live by. That’s put such a tremendous responsibility on our shoulders to deliver and to maintain that message.

A politician can waffle in a PR piece of all the "great work" they do and how much they "love" doing it. Doesn't make any of it at all true does it? You'll need to watch the making of documentary of Star Trek 2009, JJ & Klutzman are very forward in saying it was Orcci they turned to for all the "Trekkie" questions they had.

As for Roddenberry's view of the material, it's probably a good thing he's not around to see it as he would be absolutely affronted by it. Pointless f-bombs, full on eye gouging scenes, brainless plots that even make "Spock's Brian" a masterpiece of writing and worst of all, shows that merely follows trends & standards others did before, instead of trying to set them like they did in the past, and do their own thing.

"New" Star Trek doesn't give hope for the future, it isn't fun in the slightest way, and provides zero escapism. All it does is remind me the Star Trek world is now as shitty as the real one, and if I wanted that, I'll just watch Battlestar Galactica again, or turn on a news channel.

[CharlesPhipps]

A politician can waffle in a PR piece of all the "great work" they do and how much they "love" doing it. Doesn't make any of it at all true does it? You'll need to watch the making of documentary of Star Trek 2009, JJ & Klutzman are very forward in saying it was Orcci they turned to for all the "Trekkie" questions they had.

You realize that was 11 years ago, right?

As for Roddenberry's view of the material, it's probably a good thing he's not around to see it as he would be absolutely affronted by it. Pointless f-bombs, full on eye gouging scenes, brainless plots that even make "Spock's Brian" a masterpiece of writing and worst of all, shows that merely follows trends & standards others did before, instead of trying to set them like they did in the past, and do their own thing.

Roddenberry liquefied two crew members in the original movie.

"New" Star Trek doesn't give hope for the future, it isn't fun in the slightest way, and provides zero escapism. All it does is remind me the Star Trek world is now as shitty as the real one, and if I wanted that, I'll just watch Battlestar Galactica again, or turn on a news channel.

I strongly disagree. I believe it's the optimistic politically relevant stories we need right now. DISCOVERY and PICARD are about standing up for what you know is right and that when you do, the world actually gets better.

[Enterprising]

You realize that was 11 years ago, right?

Yes I do, which makes his ignorance of Star Trek all the worse because he's had plenty of time to learn it if he cared to. I'd happily bet my house on most members of this forum to run circles round Kluztman when it comes to Star Trek knowledge. Who initially called his "Strange new world" series "Enterprise" before someone told him that was done before, and his bragging about these new up-coming characters as being a "first" for Star Trek, despite Star Trek doing those characters decades ago already.

Roddenberry liquefied two crew members in the original movie.

That was not the case, Robert Wise put that in, and said so in the director's edition commentary as a means of trying to add some tension. Putting that fact aside for arguments sake, did the movie open to this scene, and the camera focused right on the bodies so you can see every little horrid detail in the glory of 4k? Star Trek has dipped into violence and horror elements before, but done only up to a certain degree, usually with a bit of class, and being actually relevant to telling the story. As an example, we didn't need to see the skin physically fall off Spock to expose some of his innards, as to do so would have distracted from his final scene with Kirk. The makeup they did conveyed enough visually he was about to die.

I strongly disagree. I believe it's the optimistic politically relevant stories we need right now. DISCOVERY and PICARD are about standing up for what you know is right and that when you do, the world actually gets better.

Citations needed. In STD's pilot alone we have: starting of a war, mutiny, betrayal, execution of a prisoner, injured crewman blown out to space for the lols, and the beginnings of the "Burham is always right" trope. So optimistic and uplifting!

[CharlesPhipps]

Yes I do, which makes his ignorance of Star Trek all the worse because he's had plenty of time to learn it if he cared to.

This is where I can nicely tear your argument apart because the first two seasons of STAR TREK DISCOVERY and later PICARD are continuity porn to an almost ridiculous degree (I'm not even going to attempt to discuss Lower Decks, which requires an Trek encyclopediac knowledge to get half the jokes).

Elements of Star Trek incorporated into DISCO season 1:

* Khaless
* Orions
* Mudd (2 episodes)
* Tribbles
* Sarek
* Mirror Universe
* Surgically altered Klingons

And this is all in ten episodes.

That was not the case, Robert Wise put that in, and said so in the director's edition commentary as a means of trying to add some tension. Putting that fact aside for arguments sake, did the movie open to this scene, and the camera focused right on the bodies so you can see every little horrid detail in the glory of 4k? Star Trek has dipped into violence and horror elements before, but done only up to a certain degree, usually with a bit of class, and being actually relevant to telling the story. As an example, we didn't need to see the skin physically fall off Spock to expose some of his innards, as to do so would have distracted from his final scene with Kirk. The makeup they did conveyed enough visually he was about to die.

Frankly, I think you're misremembering things because my memories of Star Trek are full of horrifying things like the Phage alien wearing the face of a dead crew member, guys getting merged with spiders, the Borg performing nightmare surgery on people, Data getting half his skin blown off in First Contact, those disgusting geriatric aliens in Insurrection, and other examples of Body horror that was only restricted by standards and practices.

Yes, All-Access is PG-13 instead of PG. Star Trek has dabbled in PG-13 before.

Citations needed. In STD's pilot alone we have: starting of a war, mutiny, betrayal, execution of a prisoner, injured crewman blown out to space for the lols, and the beginnings of the "Burham is always right" trope. So optimistic and uplifting!

Have you considered your holodeck may be broken? It's difficult to believe anyone with a functioning positronic matrix can think that Burnham is right in the pilot since the entire episode is about her repeated fuck-ups. You can talk about "Savior Burnham" AFTER the pilot but her actions in the pilot are a parade of idiocy.

* In her first scene, Burnham fails to figure out a way to contact Shenzhou and needs Georgiou to do it.
* Burnham fails Georgiou's test that asks what she'd do if marooned.
* Burnham's plan for a "Vulcan Hello" means nothing because the Klingons are already on their way here to kill everyone.
* Burnham screws up the Vulcan Neck Pinch and Georgiou recovers in a minute.
* Burnham doesn't actually get to fire against the Klingons before she's taken down.
* No one obeys her mutiny
* Her mission with Georgiou to capture T'Kuvma is a complete failure.
* Burnham kills T'Kuvma explitcly AFTER saying that killing him will martyr him for his cause and cause the war to continue.
* She doesn't defend herself at her court martial because of the enormity of her screw up.

In the entire history of Star Trek, no captain or main character has such an enormously poor performance. That's why it's a redemption story. She let her fear and hatred of Klingons cloud her judgement. She starts as Valaris and moves to become Spock.

To address your other issues:
* Georgiou is established repeatedly as an exemplary captain who exists to save people and find peaceful solutions.
* Georgiou saves a race from extinction in the opening five minutes.
* The Admiral is incisistant on doing everything to avoid a war. When the Klingon's betray him, he detonated his starship and takes down T'Kuvma's flagship for six months. He shows thus peacefulness but not stupidity.
* Starfleet is shown repeatedly to be only interested in science and exploration, not conquest or war.

And as for the guy blown out an airlock - what Star Trek have you watched that Redshirts don't die horribly?

[Link8909]

You realize that was 11 years ago, right?

Yes I do, which makes his ignorance of Star Trek all the worse because he's had plenty of time to learn it if he cared to. I'd happily bet my house on most members of this forum to run circles round Kluztman when it comes to Star Trek knowledge. Who initially called his "Strange new world" series "Enterprise" before someone told him that was done before, and his bragging about these new up-coming characters as being a "first" for Star Trek, despite Star Trek doing those characters decades ago already.

Was this said in an interview or reported officially? or was this hear from someone who's dad works a CBS?

While I agree that if you are in-charge of a franchise (or just creating anything in general) you have to care about it, and from the interviews Alex Kurtzman is very passionate about, you don't need to be an uber-expert, besides it's not just him, there are dozens of writers, directors, and other executive producers that all have a say on the final produce.

And keep in mind while I'm a fan of Star Trek and could properly list more facts about Star Trek than Alex Kurtzman, that doesn't mean I'm qualified to be an executive producer of an entire franchise.

[Link8909]

Frankly, I think you're misremembering things because my memories of Star Trek are full of horrifying things like the Phage alien wearing the face of a dead crew member, guys getting merged with spiders, the Borg performing nightmare surgery on people, Data getting half his skin blown off in First Contact, those disgusting geriatric aliens in Insurrection, and other examples of Body horror that was only restricted by standards and practices.

Yes, All-Access is PG-13 instead of PG. Star Trek has dabbled in PG-13 before.

Pretty much, Star Trek has never shied away from telling dark stories before, I'd even argue that stuff from The Original Series would give Discovery and Picard a run for its money in terms of dark story telling, the fact that The Original Series has a HUGE body count is enough of an indicator that the series had an edge to it, which I love it for.

Honestly when I hear people complaining about how the new Star Trek series is too dark, it comes across as one of those parents that complain about how TV or Video Games are too violent and are hurting the sensibility's of their children, basically Marge Simpson.

[Link8909]

Have you considered your holodeck may be broken? It's difficult to believe anyone with a functioning positronic matrix can think that Burnham is right in the pilot since the entire episode is about her repeated fuck-ups. You can talk about "Savior Burnham" AFTER the pilot but her actions in the pilot are a parade of idiocy.

* In her first scene, Burnham fails to figure out a way to contact Shenzhou and needs Georgiou to do it.
* Burnham fails Georgiou's test that asks what she'd do if marooned.
* Burnham's plan for a "Vulcan Hello" means nothing because the Klingons are already on their way here to kill everyone.
* Burnham screws up the Vulcan Neck Pinch and Georgiou recovers in a minute.
* Burnham doesn't actually get to fire against the Klingons before she's taken down.
* No one obeys her mutiny
* Her mission with Georgiou to capture T'Kuvma is a complete failure.
* Burnham kills T'Kuvma explitcly AFTER saying that killing him will martyr him for his cause and cause the war to continue.
* She doesn't defend herself at her court martial because of the enormity of her screw up.

In the entire history of Star Trek, no captain or main character has such an enormously poor performance. That's why it's a redemption story. She let her fear and hatred of Klingons cloud her judgement. She starts as Valaris and moves to become Spock.

To address your other issues:
* Georgiou is established repeatedly as an exemplary captain who exists to save people and find peaceful solutions.
* Georgiou saves a race from extinction in the opening five minutes.
* The Admiral is incisistant on doing everything to avoid a war. When the Klingon's betray him, he detonated his starship and takes down T'Kuvma's flagship for six months. He shows thus peacefulness but not stupidity.
* Starfleet is shown repeatedly to be only interested in science and exploration, not conquest or war.

And as for the guy blown out an airlock - what Star Trek have you watched that Redshirts don't die horribly?

I've got nothing to add that I've already said before, pretty much agree with all this.

[CharlesPhipps]

Also, T'Kuvma isn't a prisoner they kill. T'Kuvma has killed Georgiou by that point. Now, if Burnham had been NOT a screw up, she would have stunned T'Kuvma and captured him anyway. But she is and he's remembered centuries later in Star Trek: Online as "The Unforgettable."

Yes, Burnham kills T'Kuvma for vengeance in the heat of the moment but we've seen Worf do that plenty of times.

It was also a combat situation, not an execution. I don't think anyone outside of gunfighters in the Old West objects to shooting someone in the back during a fight.