Star Trek changing direction

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Yeah I don't think they'd hinge it on a conspiracy theory that much.

[CharlesPhipps]

It's a permanent shift to the future in Season 3, FYI. Something I kind of hate and feel like it betrays Discovery's actual fans to try to appeal to the haters. However, Kurtzman has always hated the fact DISCO breaks canon and has been trying to clean up the issue since he inherited the show. He's one of "those" nerds.

https://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2019/04/25/star-trek-discovery-breaking-free-canon/

Here's where he phrased some of it:

“Yes. We are jumping 950 years into the future for season three”

During that interview he cites canon a number of times.

“We love playing within canon. It’s a delight and a privilege. It’s fun to explore nooks and crannies of the universe that people haven’t fully explored yet. That being said, we felt strongly that we wanted to give ourselves an entirely new energy for season three with a whole new set of problems… We’re now completely free of canon, and we have a whole new universe to explore.”

When asked about any crossovers with characters from other Trek series Kurtzman says:

“There will be canonical references to everything that has happened in the various shows; we’re not erasing that. But we’re so far past that point that all of that is a very distant memory. We’re very excited to see how you put the elements of Star Trek in an entirely new universe”

[CaptainCalvinCat]

There's a flaw in so far in that arguement against "Just write a good story", that at least parts of what makes a good story is quantifiable, considerably more than with songs. Character-focusing, a clean telling of the story without much meandering, adheering to canon at least in the broad terms and avoiding to bring in elements that have no business being there (if your show is about a bunch of "highly developed" people, then you can't have them be bigots or not being called out for it and so on). So many mistakes of so many stories are visible if you just think about what happens on the screen, that they can be avoided. You can not manufacture a mega-hit, but you can protect yourself from pit-falls.

Point is: As much as you can't tell Mr. Krüger "Now, write a hit! NOW! Sit down and write a classic!", you can't tell people "Now, write a good Story! NOW! Here is your laptop, write something that pleases the masses."

It's kinda obvious, since everything that is written with a commercial background in mind ("must please enough people, that we can make money off of it") stands and falls with the people and the question, if they like the thing, that I've written, or not.

All those points, you wrote down, are relevant - which goes for songs as well, in that way, that the singer should not sing off key, that the story, the singer wants to bring across is understandable, that, if the story has a protagonist (e.g. "In the Ghetto"), the motivations are understandable - and yet: There is no guideline "How to create something, that pleases everyone."
In Germany, there is a saying: "Allen Menschen recht getan, ist eine Kunst, die niemand kann." - (Pleasing everyone is an art, that no-one masters.)

There will be detractors, there will be people, who say "I don't like how Mr. Krüger sings / Mr. Chrichton writes / Mr. Sonnenberg reviewed Jurassic Park II".

An artist / a journalist / a media critic is nothing, without his audience.
Just watched the "10 Year Anniversary"-Review of Calvin Dyson (youtube-Bond-Reviewer) and he rewatched and commented his first Bond-Review, which - of course - was "Doctor No" and he noticed, that his whole set-up was much like the Nostalgia Critic, which should not surprise, since Doug Walker was the go to - style. Overly yelly, overly unfair, pretentious, kind of an asshole - that's how he did it, that's how it was popular at that time, that's how more or less everyone, who wanted to be successfull, did it at the time.

I think, Lewis Lovhaug characterized his Linkara as "he's kind of an asshole". And even Chuck had his "angry asshole on the internet"-moments, but the blow in his reviews were softened, by him saying "I'm no XYZ, I'm just a viewer with an opinion". Contrary to the other reviewers, he said "I see things that way, but you can view them in a different way, we still can get along."

Point being: Back ten to twenty years ago, being the asshole-reviewer was the go-to-thing, the more nuanced, reflective reviews were there, but then the thing was either played for laughs or just as a gimmick. That means that there was one way of getting noticed: Being angry.
And in the "The return of the incredible Hulk"-review, that Nash, Linkara and Film Brain did - I still wait for the "The death of the incredible Hulk"-Review, by the way - Nash broke Linkaras remark down with "SO, basically: reviewers are assholes."

By the way, I never thought, that I'd be writing a post in Chucks board, where the word "asshole" appears that much, I'm sorry.


And yeah, as much as you cannot manufacture a mega hit - but can protect yourself from the pitfalls - you cannot manufacture a good story, because, as I said: There must be the audience for that. Concerning Star Trek: The audience was there in the late 80s to early 2000.
And then things changed. Sure, the ending of Voyager was very abrupt, and while I wouldn't go as far as say "The ending of Enterprise was an insult", I'd say that I was not happy with some creative decisions. Same goes for Nemesis, which I still would not count as one of the worst Star Treks that has ever been produced.
TBH: I have no worst Trek - they're all good to me, even Discovery and Picard. I watch them, I like them, I have my qualms with one or two creative decisions (*cough* Icheb, Hugh, Data and Thaddeus Riker *cough*), but I say "even these shows are not as bad as they could be".

But yeah, the audience was there and then things changed. Might've something to do, with the times we lived in. The 90s were very different then the 00s, the 10s and I'm sure the 20s. The 90s were an era of opening up, of people getting together, of optimism - and Trek reflected that. Then, some assholes flew planes in the twin towers, which ended the era of optimism - and suddenly the same, optimistic Trek over on TNG, that made Deep Space Nine look grim, gritty and edgy, was looked at with scepticism and cynicism. And since the overall mood didn't change over the past 19 years, we're still in the "Well, look at the optimism of Star Trek in the 90s, oh, these sweet naive summerchilds"-mood and in order to reflect that, Trek becomes more darker and grittier.

And now people start to complain. Well, let me put it this way: if we hadn't looked at Trek with our "Oh, yeah, look at how self-important these guys talk down to the 20th century, in their fancy schmancy space ships"-attitude, we still might've have that Trek.

I just can't get over the fact we're supposed to take seriously the evil universe where everyone has goatees and it's actually now canonically darker than our main universe (like actually darker, humans from there are light sensitive here). It's a comic book plotline where we'd be supposed to be laughing at the shenanigans that, I dunno, Evil Peter Parker was doing and how he'd framed 616 Peter for all this awful stuff. We'd get a panel of him shielding his eyes when Mary Jane turned on a reading lamp with a caption like *Argh, the light in this universe is so strong. I can't let this woman see how an ordinary reading light affects me* and a terrible dialogue bubble like "Mary I just remembered I my Aunt wants me to water the garden before supper" and Mary thinking *Boy Peter is acting weird recently*

I can't do a sensible analysis of a character that comes from the Darkverse. Like he's there. It assassinated all character development. Make the Darkverse Dark Again. Yay.

Where would be the problem?
Personally, I'd have more of a problem if MJ would notice, that Evil Pete's reaction to the reading light would be, as you'd describe it, and would automatically say: "The way you react to my reading light suggests, that you're originating from an universe, that is darker than ours - you're a double of Pete! Admit it!"

Concerning "Trek and Politics" - I recommend Steve Shives videos, about "SJWs Invented Star Trek"[youtube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX1oYSNPV5k [/youtube] and "What Do Conservatives Actually Like About Star Trek?"
[youtube] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNNWWdsEYGg
[/youtube]

It's a permanent shift to the future in Season 3, FYI. Something I kind of hate and feel like it betrays Discovery's actual fans to try to appeal to the haters. However, Kurtzman has always hated the fact DISCO breaks canon and has been trying to clean up the issue since he inherited the show. He's one of "those" nerds.

https://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2019/04/25/star-trek-discovery-breaking-free-canon/

Here's where he phrased some of it:

“Yes. We are jumping 950 years into the future for season three”

During that interview he cites canon a number of times.

“We love playing within canon. It’s a delight and a privilege. It’s fun to explore nooks and crannies of the universe that people haven’t fully explored yet. That being said, we felt strongly that we wanted to give ourselves an entirely new energy for season three with a whole new set of problems… We’re now completely free of canon, and we have a whole new universe to explore.”

When asked about any crossovers with characters from other Trek series Kurtzman says:

“There will be canonical references to everything that has happened in the various shows; we’re not erasing that. But we’re so far past that point that all of that is a very distant memory. We’re very excited to see how you put the elements of Star Trek in an entirely new universe”

Well, my girlfriend and her mum, when it comes to a show, a movie, an opera, being rebooted and stripped of some parts, that made it unique, therefore creating something different, lesser: "Well, if you want to do that thing - that's okay, but you didn't have to destroy the other thing for it. Just do your own thing."

And maybe, that's an idea, one could write in Kurtzmanns guestbook: "If you want to do a trek-not-trek, that's fine, do it, but don't do it to trek. Do your own thing, call it "Starship Ellivro", call the Captain Recrem'dE and we're fine with it.

On the other hand - I can understand him. If I'd inherit a show, would try to work my ass off and I always hear people like Midnights edge moaning "Oh, that's not true to the canon, Klutzman can't do anything right", personally I'd said "Know what - frakk you. No honestly, frakk you, you impossible to please fanboys. Do your own little "fanfilms" and leave me alone!"
Perhaps, if I'd be really pissed off, even say something like: "You don't like this trek? Good - that means, that it is not meant for you."
And I'd double down on it, and say "Oh, by the way, next season? the Discovery is saving Kirk. And he'll be the girlfriend of Burnham. And then she dumps him, explaining, why Kirk's such a womanizer."

That's not, what Kurzman does - he says "Know what, frakk this, we're doing our own thing" and probably that's the best possible outcome.
Oh, of course the idiot with the bucket on his head still will bitch and moan, about "Klutzman" doing it wrong and stuff like that - but I always recommend people like these the almost salutary experience, that Doug Walker had with his "Demo Reel".

And I so wished, that it had continued - not because "Demo Reel" would've been that great of a show - in all honesty, it was a dumpster fire from the beginning - but because of the sheer amount of irritation, Doug suddenly had to face.
Well, it is one thing to sit in front of a wall and point out, what is wrong, it is quite another to actually write something yourself, now, isn't it?

So, give "Midnights Edge" and the whole "Fandom menace" their own little Star Trek Show, they could try and frakk up.

Sorry, I went a bit on a tirade there.

[clearspira]

But yeah, the audience was there and then things changed. Might've something to do, with the times we lived in. The 90s were very different then the 00s, the 10s and I'm sure the 20s. The 90s were an era of opening up, of people getting together, of optimism - and Trek reflected that. Then, some assholes flew planes in the twin towers, which ended the era of optimism - and suddenly the same, optimistic Trek over on TNG, that made Deep Space Nine look grim, gritty and edgy, was looked at with scepticism and cynicism. And since the overall mood didn't change over the past 19 years, we're still in the "Well, look at the optimism of Star Trek in the 90s, oh, these sweet naive summerchilds"-mood and in order to reflect that, Trek becomes more darker and grittier.

And now people start to complain. Well, let me put it this way: if we hadn't looked at Trek with our "Oh, yeah, look at how self-important these guys talk down to the 20th century, in their fancy schmancy space ships"-attitude, we still might've have that Trek.

My answer to that is, eventually, some things have to be buried forever in order to prevent you from fucking a dead horse.

Corporations do not want to hear that of course. They want to make money from fucking that dead horse as long as they can. And fans do not want to hear that because of love, nostalgia, an urge to recapture what they once enjoyed. American TV shows tend to be very bad at this. British TV shows often last about two series and frequently leave fans wanting more. American TV shows go on for as long as they possibly can push it and leaves everyone thinking ''just die already. This is boring.'' (In other news, The Walking Dead is coming to an end soon).

I am of the opinion that Star Trek is currently in the same room as a rotting horse. It cannot please the old fans without the series looping back on itself, it cannot please the new fans because to do so would mean changing the show to unrecognisable levels. The best thing for Star Trek is probably for the whole thing to die - but that isn't happening because ''neyyyy''.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

But yeah, the audience was there and then things changed. Might've something to do, with the times we lived in. The 90s were very different then the 00s, the 10s and I'm sure the 20s. The 90s were an era of opening up, of people getting together, of optimism - and Trek reflected that. Then, some assholes flew planes in the twin towers, which ended the era of optimism - and suddenly the same, optimistic Trek over on TNG, that made Deep Space Nine look grim, gritty and edgy, was looked at with scepticism and cynicism. And since the overall mood didn't change over the past 19 years, we're still in the "Well, look at the optimism of Star Trek in the 90s, oh, these sweet naive summerchilds"-mood and in order to reflect that, Trek becomes more darker and grittier.

And now people start to complain. Well, let me put it this way: if we hadn't looked at Trek with our "Oh, yeah, look at how self-important these guys talk down to the 20th century, in their fancy schmancy space ships"-attitude, we still might've have that Trek.

My answer to that is, eventually, some things have to be buried forever in order to prevent you from fucking a dead horse.

Corporations do not want to hear that of course. They want to make money from fucking that dead horse as long as they can. And fans do not want to hear that because of love, nostalgia, an urge to recapture what they once enjoyed. American TV shows tend to be very bad at this. British TV shows often last about two series and frequently leave fans wanting more. American TV shows go on for as long as they possibly can push it and leaves everyone thinking ''just die already. This is boring.'' (In other news, The Walking Dead is coming to an end soon).

I am of the opinion that Star Trek is currently in the same room as a rotting horse. It cannot please the old fans without the series looping back on itself, it cannot please the new fans because to do so would mean changing the show to unrecognisable levels. The best thing for Star Trek is probably for the whole thing to die - but that isn't happening because ''neyyyy''.

It's really just a matter of how they do with the streaming shows. That's the new market right now and they're never going to go back to 90's style 26-episode seasons. As a sci-fi show they can't really afford to do a low-budget TNG format that focuses the teleplay on shakespearian melodrama and the occasional single or sequence of cheap special effects. They need to do it movie status which requires streaming subscription income. They would never be able to get advertisers/networks to pay as much as they do for just 13 episode seasons.

[Link8909]

Point is: As much as you can't tell Mr. Krüger "Now, write a hit! NOW! Sit down and write a classic!", you can't tell people "Now, write a good Story! NOW! Here is your laptop, write something that pleases the masses."

It's kinda obvious, since everything that is written with a commercial background in mind ("must please enough people, that we can make money off of it") stands and falls with the people and the question, if they like the thing, that I've written, or not.

All those points, you wrote down, are relevant - which goes for songs as well, in that way, that the singer should not sing off key, that the story, the singer wants to bring across is understandable, that, if the story has a protagonist (e.g. "In the Ghetto"), the motivations are understandable - and yet: There is no guideline "How to create something, that pleases everyone."
In Germany, there is a saying: "Allen Menschen recht getan, ist eine Kunst, die niemand kann." - (Pleasing everyone is an art, that no-one masters.)

There will be detractors, there will be people, who say "I don't like how Mr. Krüger sings / Mr. Chrichton writes / Mr. Sonnenberg reviewed Jurassic Park II".

An artist / a journalist / a media critic is nothing, without his audience.

Indeed, it’s never as simple as “just get good” and then suddenly your producing masterpieces, episodes like “The Best of Both Worlds” or “In the Pale Moonlight” were never written to be the best Star Trek episodes of all time, they were lighting in a bottle that had the right circumstances and the right audiences at the right time.

Also, one of the things I like about Star Trek as a franchise is that everyone has their favourite episode, series and film, but it can wildly vary from person to person, and that there really isn’t a wrong way of liking Star Trek.

Just watched the "10 Year Anniversary"-Review of Calvin Dyson (youtube-Bond-Reviewer) and he rewatched and commented his first Bond-Review, which - of course - was "Doctor No" and he noticed, that his whole set-up was much like the Nostalgia Critic, which should not surprise, since Doug Walker was the go to - style. Overly yelly, overly unfair, pretentious, kind of an asshole - that's how he did it, that's how it was popular at that time, that's how more or less everyone, who wanted to be successfull, did it at the time.

I think, Lewis Lovhaug characterized his Linkara as "he's kind of an asshole". And even Chuck had his "angry asshole on the internet"-moments, but the blow in his reviews were softened, by him saying "I'm no XYZ, I'm just a viewer with an opinion". Contrary to the other reviewers, he said "I see things that way, but you can view them in a different way, we still can get along."

Point being: Back ten to twenty years ago, being the asshole-reviewer was the go-to-thing, the more nuanced, reflective reviews were there, but then the thing was either played for laughs or just as a gimmick. That means that there was one way of getting noticed: Being angry.
And in the "The return of the incredible Hulk"-review, that Nash, Linkara and Film Brain did - I still wait for the "The death of the incredible Hulk"-Review, by the way - Nash broke Linkaras remark down with "SO, basically: reviewers are assholes."

By the way, I never thought, that I'd be writing a post in Chucks board, where the word "asshole" appears that much, I'm sorry.

I’m glad that some reviews have grown and matured beyond the “angry reviewer” shtick like Chuck and Lewis (two of my favourite reviewers) and that newer people have emerged to do things like video essays like Renegade Cut and FilmJoy.

I honestly do not care for reviews that are just people yelling at the camera about how something is “ThE wORsT THinG EvARR!!” like those that mass produce click-bait videos, or incredibly cynical reviews like Red Letter Media who just complain about everything they watch, and that they will ignore the positives and even make up problems, or just nit-picky reviews like Cinema Sins that think if you tally up all the “mistakes” trivial or otherwise you can score a works quality on that, and I hate that most will even insult or mock the people who made or were part of the creation of the work to “put them down” as it were, and that they will ignore or remove the context behind something in order to complain about it.

And yeah, as much as you cannot manufacture a mega hit - but can protect yourself from the pitfalls - you cannot manufacture a good story, because, as I said: There must be the audience for that. Concerning Star Trek: The audience was there in the late 80s to early 2000.
And then things changed. Sure, the ending of Voyager was very abrupt, and while I wouldn't go as far as say "The ending of Enterprise was an insult", I'd say that I was not happy with some creative decisions. Same goes for Nemesis, which I still would not count as one of the worst Star Treks that has ever been produced.
TBH: I have no worst Trek - they're all good to me, even Discovery and Picard. I watch them, I like them, I have my qualms with one or two creative decisions (*cough* Icheb, Hugh, Data and Thaddeus Riker *cough*), but I say "even these shows are not as bad as they could be".

Same, I really like Star Trek Discovery and Star Trek Picard, I think they're great, and like you said they do have flaws that I hope they improve on with future seasons, I want these series to improve and get better, and It’s disheartening to hear people like clearspira say “just let it die” because they personally don’t like it, it’s the equivalent of telling someone to never try.

But yeah, the audience was there and then things changed. Might've something to do, with the times we lived in. The 90s were very different then the 00s, the 10s and I'm sure the 20s. The 90s were an era of opening up, of people getting together, of optimism - and Trek reflected that. Then, some assholes flew planes in the twin towers, which ended the era of optimism - and suddenly the same, optimistic Trek over on TNG, that made Deep Space Nine look grim, gritty and edgy, was looked at with scepticism and cynicism. And since the overall mood didn't change over the past 19 years, we're still in the "Well, look at the optimism of Star Trek in the 90s, oh, these sweet naive summerchilds"-mood and in order to reflect that, Trek becomes more darker and grittier.

And now people start to complain. Well, let me put it this way: if we hadn't looked at Trek with our "Oh, yeah, look at how self-important these guys talk down to the 20th century, in their fancy schmancy space ships"-attitude, we still might've have that Trek.

Pretty much, and continuing on, if back when The Next Generation first started the people in-charge listened to people who said “just let it die”, we would have been deprived of all the good that would have come afterwards.

Well, my girlfriend and her mum, when it comes to a show, a movie, an opera, being rebooted and stripped of some parts, that made it unique, therefore creating something different, lesser: "Well, if you want to do that thing - that's okay, but you didn't have to destroy the other thing for it. Just do your own thing."

And maybe, that's an idea, one could write in Kurtzmanns guestbook: "If you want to do a trek-not-trek, that's fine, do it, but don't do it to trek. Do your own thing, call it "Starship Ellivro", call the Captain Recrem'dE and we're fine with it.

On the other hand - I can understand him. If I'd inherit a show, would try to work my ass off and I always hear people like Midnights edge moaning "Oh, that's not true to the canon, Klutzman can't do anything right", personally I'd said "Know what - frakk you. No honestly, frakk you, you impossible to please fanboys. Do your own little "fanfilms" and leave me alone!"
Perhaps, if I'd be really pissed off, even say something like: "You don't like this trek? Good - that means, that it is not meant for you."
And I'd double down on it, and say "Oh, by the way, next season? the Discovery is saving Kirk. And he'll be the girlfriend of Burnham. And then she dumps him, explaining, why Kirk's such a womanizer."

That's not, what Kurzman does - he says "Know what, frakk this, we're doing our own thing" and probably that's the best possible outcome.
Oh, of course the idiot with the bucket on his head still will bitch and moan, about "Klutzman" doing it wrong and stuff like that - but I always recommend people like these the almost salutary experience, that Doug Walker had with his "Demo Reel".

And I so wished, that it had continued - not because "Demo Reel" would've been that great of a show - in all honesty, it was a dumpster fire from the beginning - but because of the sheer amount of irritation, Doug suddenly had to face.
Well, it is one thing to sit in front of a wall and point out, what is wrong, it is quite another to actually write something yourself, now, isn't it?

So, give "Midnights Edge" and the whole "Fandom menace" their own little Star Trek Show, they could try and frakk up.

Sorry, I went a bit on a tirade there.

Absolutely, I honestly think if any of these yahoos were in-charge of the franchise it would be dead within a week.

And I honestly feel for Alex Kurtzman and everyone currently working on Star Trek, working day and night on multiple projects, and going by the dozens of interviews that they go on, are working on something they love, and put all they can into it, even in this current situation where it’s hard to do so, only to have people constantly complaining, harassing, gate-keeping, and just spreading hearsay and rumors, all in an attempt to discourage people for watching an supporting the new series.

If I was in Alex Kurtzman’s position and I got to work on my favorite franchise, only for people to treat me like I was the worst thing to happen, I’d have blown my brains out with a shotgun.

[CharlesPhipps]

I doubt Kurtzman cares because the irony of all the DISCO haters is that they seem to still be hate-watching it.

Which means that CBS gets what they want from them anyway. The hate on Discovery is free advertising because people don't avoid it, they still go and watch it. Like all the shade thrown at THE LAST OF US 2 just compelled its sales to skyrocket.

No such thing as bad publicity.

[CaptainCalvinCat]

I begin my post with two posts, written by cleanspira:

Making a star wars film for "the decade we are living in" was one of their biggest mistakes. This franchise thrives on nostalgia. That's why TFA is a flat out copy of ANH, that's why Solo and Rogue One are prequels - they know this, or at least Abrams does.

And in retrospect regarding subverting expectations, look at TLOU 2 that has made the exact same mistake. Fans do not want that. They want happy endings, with the good guys good and the bad guys bad until they redeem themselves or are killed by the good guys. That is how fiction has been written since the days of the Greeks and it works.

My answer to that is, eventually, some things have to be buried forever in order to prevent you from fucking a dead horse.

Corporations do not want to hear that of course. They want to make money from fucking that dead horse as long as they can. And fans do not want to hear that because of love, nostalgia, an urge to recapture what they once enjoyed. American TV shows tend to be very bad at this. British TV shows often last about two series and frequently leave fans wanting more. American TV shows go on for as long as they possibly can push it and leaves everyone thinking ''just die already. This is boring.'' (In other news, The Walking Dead is coming to an end soon).

I am of the opinion that Star Trek is currently in the same room as a rotting horse. It cannot please the old fans without the series looping back on itself, it cannot please the new fans because to do so would mean changing the show to unrecognisable levels. The best thing for Star Trek is probably for the whole thing to die - but that isn't happening because ''neyyyy''.

Well, a couple of months ago, you wrote, that

"making a star wars film for "the decade we are living in""

would have been

one of their biggest mistakes.

since this franchise would thrive

on nostalgia.

.
And you brought up "The last of us 2", which was subverting expectations, said, that fans didn't want that and that they

want happy endings, with the good guys good and the bad guys bad until they redeem themselves or are killed by the good guys. That is how fiction has been written since the days of the Greeks and it works.

Isn't that the literal definition of exhuming the dead "Emscherbrücher Dickkopp" (extinct German horse race, which I don't know, if it would have had any chance at a horse race) and frakking it until it neighs?

Weren't you saying "Yeah, people don't want new things?"

Point is: As much as you can't tell Mr. Krüger "Now, write a hit! NOW! Sit down and write a classic!", you can't tell people "Now, write a good Story! NOW! Here is your laptop, write something that pleases the masses."

It's kinda obvious, since everything that is written with a commercial background in mind ("must please enough people, that we can make money off of it") stands and falls with the people and the question, if they like the thing, that I've written, or not.

All those points, you wrote down, are relevant - which goes for songs as well, in that way, that the singer should not sing off key, that the story, the singer wants to bring across is understandable, that, if the story has a protagonist (e.g. "In the Ghetto"), the motivations are understandable - and yet: There is no guideline "How to create something, that pleases everyone."
In Germany, there is a saying: "Allen Menschen recht getan, ist eine Kunst, die niemand kann." - (Pleasing everyone is an art, that no-one masters.)

There will be detractors, there will be people, who say "I don't like how Mr. Krüger sings / Mr. Chrichton writes / Mr. Sonnenberg reviewed Jurassic Park II".

An artist / a journalist / a media critic is nothing, without his audience.

Indeed, it’s never as simple as “just get good” and then suddenly your producing masterpieces, episodes like “The Best of Both Worlds” or “In the Pale Moonlight” were never written to be the best Star Trek episodes of all time, they were lighting in a bottle that had the right circumstances and the right audiences at the right time.

Also, one of the things I like about Star Trek as a franchise is that everyone has their favourite episode, series and film, but it can wildly vary from person to person, and that there really isn’t a wrong way of liking Star Trek.

Indeed, indeed, Link, that's the whole point.
Of course, one could say "Yeah, let's play it safe" - and, tbh, sometimes this "playing it safe" might've been the way to go, because let's face it, some plot points are making me cringe. I'm not a big fan of the series love of killing characters, that we liked, left, right, and center - and I think, it was Linkara, who said "If you still have stories to tell with that character, don't kill him off."
There still might've been stories to tell with Icheb or with Hugh. So yeah, I'm a bit salty concerning that - and that's quite interesting, when you stop and think about the fact, that this episode was aired half a year ago, before Coronavirus hit us.

I’m glad that some reviews have grown and matured beyond the “angry reviewer” shtick like Chuck and Lewis (two of my favourite reviewers) and that newer people have emerged to do things like video essays like Renegade Cut and FilmJoy.

I honestly do not care for reviews that are just people yelling at the camera about how something is “ThE wORsT THinG EvARR!!” like those that mass produce click-bait videos, or incredibly cynical reviews like Red Letter Media who just complain about everything they watch, and that they will ignore the positives and even make up problems, or just nit-picky reviews like Cinema Sins that think if you tally up all the “mistakes” trivial or otherwise you can score a works quality on that, and I hate that most will even insult or mock the people who made or were part of the creation of the work to “put them down” as it were, and that they will ignore or remove the context behind something in order to complain about it.

Yeah, gotta say, sometimes this "screaming at the camera" was very irritating and to be honest, I watched the "Star Wars Episode one"-Review of Red Letter Media and closed the video - I think ten minutes after I started it. These clowns are definitely unlikeable, and to think that these people, as well as Doomcock and the other idiots of the so called "fandom menace" actually have watchers makes me loose faith in humanity.
I mean - Cinemasins at least has the counterchannel "cinemawins", which is a bit of an "I'm just a viewer with an opinion" - deal for me, but I agree, sometimes these people need to be mocked, too, in order to show them "hey, it's easy so bitch and moan, eh?"

Same, I really like Star Trek Discovery and Star Trek Picard, I think they're great, and like you said they do have flaws that I hope they improve on with future seasons, I want these series to improve and get better, and It’s disheartening to hear people like clearspira say “just let it die” because they personally don’t like it, it’s the equivalent of telling someone to never try.

Yeah the "let it die"-argument is not worth anything, if one said earlier "People don't want new things". And of course, Kurtzmann could say "Oh, User Clearspira on SFDebris says, we should let Star Trek die, hey guys, let's stop working, there are people, telling us to let Star Trek Die!"
Would he do it? Naaah - because Clearspira is right in one point: Of course it is about the Benjamins - or Gothic Church Windows - or whatever you have on your money.
Sure there is money to be made.

Pretty much, and continuing on, if back when The Next Generation first started the people in-charge listened to people who said “just let it die”, we would have been deprived of all the good that would have come afterwards.

Very true - and we don't know, what the creators have in mind for the new season of Discovery. I mean, we're in the 29th century now - at least that looks like the possibility of getting to know about that, what Star Trek was from the beginning "Exploring strange new worlds, new lifeforms and new civilizations" and "boldly going where no one has gone before". And to that I say "Yeah, shut up and take my money". I mean in "Strange new worlds" (a.k.a. the Pike Series), we still have the Prequel Problem, meaning "You can't get too fancy, because some idiots might bitch and moan about how that's not fitting to the holy canon". In Picard, it is highly unlikely, that we will get the "exploring" part, because Picard is in its core a character-drama - I haven't seen Lower Decks, because the Rick and Morty Style is very offputting to me, but I heard, that they are the guys, who do the stuff, that happens after first contact, right? So no "exploring strange new worlds", there.
Discovery is the show, that you want to see, if you want to see the really groundbreaking stuff.

Although I have to say, that "Ship in the far future" is a bit "Andromeda-ian" to me, which only supports my theory, that, you could connect the three successful Roddenberry-vehicles into one storyline.
You could tweak "Earth: final Conflict" into a show, that happens on a third-world-war-torn earth after the landing of the Vulcans. You could show us, how the population handled the knowledge of us being not alone, you could even tell the story of Kincaid and his band of rebels, who think, that they're saving humanity, because the Vulcans act strange and Boon thinks, that they want to destroy us - one could use the familiarity of the Vulcans, because we, the audiance ultimately know, that they might be a bit unlikeable, sometimes, but are no threat to us vis-a-vis the uncertainty of humanity after the big catastrophe of World War III.

Then of course there is Star Trek - we don't need to talk about that.

And then there is Andromeda.
In my head-canon the Commonewalth could be the federation and some race inside the federation - say: the Klingons - are unhappy with the fact, that the Federation negotiated a treaty with another race - say, for shits and giggles: The Borg. So, the Klingons put together a plan, lure the flagship into an ambush near a black hole and ship and captain seem to be lost, although they're just frozen in time for 1000 years or so.
When the Captain reawakens, the Federation is gone and they have to work, in order to get it back.

Absolutely, I honestly think if any of these yahoos were in-charge of the franchise it would be dead within a week.

And I honestly feel for Alex Kurtzman and everyone currently working on Star Trek, working day and night on multiple projects, and going by the dozens of interviews that they go on, are working on something they love, and put all they can into it, even in this current situation where it’s hard to do so, only to have people constantly complaining, harassing, gate-keeping, and just spreading hearsay and rumors, all in an attempt to discourage people for watching an supporting the new series.

If I was in Alex Kurtzman’s position and I got to work on my favorite franchise, only for people to treat me like I was the worst thing to happen, I’d have blown my brains out with a shotgun.

Oh, it would be absolutely hilarious to watch them fail at producing their own Trek content, that doesn't deal with bitching and moaning, about how one producer is killing the franchise or killing the childhood of these idiots.
Because, then I'd make my own youtube-channel, put a bucket on my head, probably a hat, too and then I'd make videos like "DOOMCOCK DESTROYS THE FRANCHISE" or "HOW MIDNIGHTS EDGE IS TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND, WHAT FANS WANT" or "NERDROTIC KILLS MY CHILDHOOD!" or something like that.

Concerning Kurtzman: I concur, that I feel for the guy. Unfortunately, we live in a day and age, where everyone with a computer and an internet-connection can yell at the internet, how shitty content is.

I doubt Kurtzman cares because the irony of all the DISCO haters is that they seem to still be hate-watching it.

Which means that CBS gets what they want from them anyway. The hate on Discovery is free advertising because people don't avoid it, they still go and watch it. Like all the shade thrown at THE LAST OF US 2 just compelled its sales to skyrocket.

No such thing as bad publicity.

That's true, Charles, and that is absolutely hilarious, too.
Couple of months ago, I said:

I mean, the Blockbuster Buster did the same thing concerning the DCEU - he said: "I'll never talk about it, again."

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=st7TIeAws2k[/url]

And if these Deppen (idiots) hate Discovery that much, then there is a simple solution: "Don't watch it!"
I mean, if Nerdrotic is correct about Doctor Who's ratings dropping, then the British do it right. They don't like the show - great, they watch something different. But not the smart guys, that hate on Discovery - nooo, they watch it and later, on Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, they cry about how bad the show would be.
Well, stop watching it, you frakking dingbats.
It's not as if Kurtzman would be standing behind them, Burnham pointing a Phaser at them and Xena threatening to throw her Chakram - yeah, Kurtzman and Orci are involved in the Xena-Franchise - so no one is forcing them to watch it.

[Link8909]

Indeed, indeed, Link, that's the whole point.

Of course, one could say "Yeah, let's play it safe" - and, tbh, sometimes this "playing it safe" might've been the way to go, because let's face it, some plot points are making me cringe. I'm not a big fan of the series love of killing characters, that we liked, left, right, and center - and I think, it was Linkara, who said "If you still have stories to tell with that character, don't kill him off."

There still might've been stories to tell with Icheb or with Hugh. So yeah, I'm a bit salty concerning that - and that's quite interesting, when you stop and think about the fact, that this episode was aired half a year ago, before Coronavirus hit us.

I get what you mean, I still think Star Trek Picard is fantastic, I do agree that the killing off some characters was a mistake, while I wasn't attached to Icheb, and I see what they were going for, and the scene itself was well acted and the a effects well done, it still was an unnecessary death only to motivate Seven, and ultimately was a senseless death, Hugh was better because he died saving the XB's and could become a martyr figure for future stories, the only deaths I do like in Star Trek Picard is with both Data and Picard himself, they were both done very tastefully, with Picard I love his sacrifice and resurrection, and it was nice to finally and properly say goodbye to Data, his final moments of him growing older and looking at his former Captain while "Blue Skies" played was beautiful and brought tears to my eyes.

I do hope however that deaths like those don't become a trend in Star Trek Picard, and that we see more reoccurring characters that are doing well for themselves without unnecessary tragedy striking them.

[Link8909]

Very true - and we don't know, what the creators have in mind for the new season of Discovery. I mean, we're in the 29th century now - at least that looks like the possibility of getting to know about that, what Star Trek was from the beginning "Exploring strange new worlds, new lifeforms and new civilizations" and "boldly going where no one has gone before". And to that I say "Yeah, shut up and take my money". I mean in "Strange new worlds" (a.k.a. the Pike Series), we still have the Prequel Problem, meaning "You can't get too fancy, because some idiots might bitch and moan about how that's not fitting to the holy canon". In Picard, it is highly unlikely, that we will get the "exploring" part, because Picard is in its core a character-drama - I haven't seen Lower Decks, because the Rick and Morty Style is very offputting to me, but I heard, that they are the guys, who do the stuff, that happens after first contact, right? So no "exploring strange new worlds", there.
Discovery is the show, that you want to see, if you want to see the really groundbreaking stuff.

Although I have to say, that "Ship in the far future" is a bit "Andromeda-ian" to me, which only supports my theory, that, you could connect the three successful Roddenberry-vehicles into one storyline.
You could tweak "Earth: final Conflict" into a show, that happens on a third-world-war-torn earth after the landing of the Vulcans. You could show us, how the population handled the knowledge of us being not alone, you could even tell the story of Kincaid and his band of rebels, who think, that they're saving humanity, because the Vulcans act strange and Boon thinks, that they want to destroy us - one could use the familiarity of the Vulcans, because we, the audiance ultimately know, that they might be a bit unlikeable, sometimes, but are no threat to us vis-a-vis the uncertainty of humanity after the big catastrophe of World War III.

Then of course there is Star Trek - we don't need to talk about that.

And then there is Andromeda.
In my head-canon the Commonewalth could be the federation and some race inside the federation - say: the Klingons - are unhappy with the fact, that the Federation negotiated a treaty with another race - say, for shits and giggles: The Borg. So, the Klingons put together a plan, lure the flagship into an ambush near a black hole and ship and captain seem to be lost, although they're just frozen in time for 1000 years or so.
When the Captain reawakens, the Federation is gone and they have to work, in order to get it back.

I'm really looking forward to Strange New Worlds and I personally don't thing it being a prequel is a problem, most of the things Captain Kirk and the USS Enterprise discovers in The Original Series aren't really brought up again in future, so I'd love to see Captain Pike's Five Year Mission to be just as extortionary as Kirk's, and from interviews it looks like they're running with the fact that Pike knows his fate, so its not only the audience that know what will happen to Pike, and it will be interesting to see that play out, I'm also looking forward to seeing a younger Spock, fleshing out Number One and the rest of the USS Enterprise crew of that time, it's honestly great that we are getting the Star Trek series that could have been from the very start.

While I've only seen the first episode of Lower Decks and can't watch anymore because I'm stuck in England, I already love it, I do get the comparisons to Rick and Morty (which I have a love/hate relationship with), and while I don't normally compare different series to one-another to see which is better, I'd actually say based on what I've seen, Lower Decks is a better version of Rick and Morty, not only does the series have the crazy Sci-Fi elements that I enjoy, but unlike Rick and Morty, all the characters in Lower Decks are all very likeable and enjoyable to watch, they're all just good people.

I do agree that Picard will properly not be exploring deep space anytime soon, I'm ok with that as I feel it's focus should be on character-drama and political intrigue, I'd honestly wager that with Season 2 they'll be focused on either Romulan or more Android Shenanigans.

I've not seen Andromeda so I'll be going into Season 3 of Discovery oblivious to any comparisons, but this is still new ground for the franchise to tread and it'll be exciting to see what's instore.

Honestly, Star Trek Prodigy and Star Trek Section 31 are the two series I'm not sure on, with Prodigy there's simply not enough information to have an opinion on, and I personally think Section 31 works as a foil to the heroes rather than being the heroes for lack of a better term, there is potential for the series but again their isn't enough information yet.