You're viewing a single thread.
I love Disco but it's not exactly Trek.
Hell, the last season is basically the first season of Andromeda
I love Disco but it’s not exactly Trek.
Well, it sort of is due to it being a Star Trek show. That sentence is extremely gatekeepy. It assumes that Star Trek is definable in what type of show it creates (it isn't), is uniform in its types of shows (it isn't) and that anything different than status quo is not applicable. It's utterly nonsense and the same nonsense that was parroted about TNG, and DS9 and Voyager and Enterprise and every other show that wasn't TOS. Remember everyone whining about the Kelvin timeline and "ItS nOt ReAl StAr TrEk!" Sure seems like most of them are gone now and the movies are getting loved.
Star Trek goes out of its way to scream about diversity, to allow differences and celebrate those, and that not every path has to be the same. I don't understand the insistence that the shows themselves cannot be diverse either.
The themes of celebrating diversity are absolutely the same. The difference I see is mainly the cinematography, story structure, and pacing. SNW and Lower Decks are a lot closer to what Trek has been in those aspects than Discovery was.
Again: Not saying Disco is bad at all. (Except for having a reaction shot of every one of the dozens of people on the bridge any time anything interesting happens. Those irk me.)
EDIT: After further consideration, I've decided that Disco is Trek, but it's a series of Trek movies and not a series of TV episodes. But the last season is still the same premise as Andromeda.
My guy, that's nonsense. Suggesting that Discovery is too different to be Star Trek is just hilariously bad. That presumes that the cinemetography, story structure and pacing has been consistent with no dramatic changes across TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT or the Kelvin films.
That comparison just does not make sense. TOS and TMP couldn't be more different. Nevermind TAS or how dark DS9 is.
I'm not saying that you're saying Discovery is bad. I'm saying that you're suggestion that it isn't real Trek because there's too much variation is nonsense and an affront to the series that pushes diversity more than anyone else.
You might not have seen my edit, but I've changed to viewing it as a series of Trek movies rather than a TV series, which makes much more sense. Right down to the multiple reaction close ups.
Which I also just do not understand. Why can't the show just be a different type of show? Why must there be an argument needed to be made that it's either more of a movie or this entire discussion in general where it's not 'Real Trek'. TV has evolved. It's not quite the same as when syndication was readily availab.e. TV in general has moved into an era with shorter seasons and more linked together narratives.
I just cannot fathom in anyway whatsoever where the show being different causes such intense feelings in people that an argument needs to be made to distance itself from the rest of Star Trek in general. Star Trek screams diversity from the top to the bottom and fans seem to be fine with that until it touches the TV shows themselves and if it's not the exact same carbon copied and outdated format then it's a problem? I just do not get it. I didn't flip shit about DS9 and say that it was too dark to be part of Star Trek. (People wanna complain about Discovery starting that but all they did was carry the torch that was stuck in the promenade.) I just went "Neat! Inifinite Multitudes!"
I just cannot fathom in anyway whatsoever where the show being different causes such intense feelings in people that an argument needs to be made to distance itself from the rest of Star Trek in general.
People have expectations of things based on past experience. If those expectations aren't met some people won't like it. See also: Episodes 1-3 and 4-6 of Star Wars.
It’s not quite the same as when syndication was readily availab.e. TV in general has moved into an era with shorter seasons and more linked together narratives.
This is absolutely true, and the change in format is probably a big part of why it feels so different. Thanks to modern VFX, widescreen filming, and modern production techniques they could make it more cinematic. This is why it feels so different from shows that required glitter in water for the transporter effect and were shown on 13" CRT TVs.
Star Trek screams diversity from the top to the bottom and fans seem to be fine with that until it touches the TV shows themselves and if it’s not the exact same carbon copied and outdated format then it’s a problem?
I've never said the diversity was a problem, I said the cinematography, pacing, and story structure wasn't the same as other series. But I've realized that it's different from other series in the same way that TOS and TMP are radically different from each other in format while still being Star Trek.
But thank you for reminding me not to ever post an opinion on Discovery again because I'm gonna get into a flamewar with someone I like and respect and that makes me sad.
People have expectations of things based on past experience. If those expectations aren’t met some people won’t like it. See also: Episodes 1-3 and 4-6 of Star Wars.
Star Wars is probably not the best example considering literally everything since A New Hope has been complained about by fans in some regard. Empire Strikes Back was critically panned at release and even Return of the Jedi had some complaints. Then literally every movie since has had fans rabid. Moreover, Star Wars didn't paint itself as a paragon of diversity.
But thank you for reminding me not to ever post an opinion on Discovery again because I’m gonna get into a flamewar with someone I like and respect and that makes me sad.
I asked questions because I just did not get where you were coming from. You started all of this by saying that it wasn't real Trek. You don't get to complain when someone calls you out on gatekepeing behavior. I'm not getting into a flamewar over an opinion, I was questioning you over your gatekeeping because I find that to be antithetical to everything that Star Trek stands for. I'm sorry that you're upset here but you said that Star Trek Discovery wasn't real Star Trek and then are surprised that the dude who is named after a Discovery character and who is known for defending Discovery.... defended Discovery?
I forgot the rules. Sorry.
Alright man.
These points being interpreted as "gatekeeping" is wild.
The first comment was literally "I like Discovery but it's not real Trek".
That is textbook gatekeeping.
I disagree because someone sharing their opinion does not limit others from accessing the content. Edit if others aren't targeted during the opinion sharing
Someone saying "blue isn't a good color" doesn't make blue less accessible, and their opinion isn't authoritative in some access based way.
Gatekeeping to me would be flaming someone if they don't know some nuance about some character in one particular episode then saying they shouldn't be watching trek at all. They aren't a "real fan."
But we disagree on this most likely. I didn't @ you or reply to you directly as I didn't want to slap fight. I was just discussing with OP who has since deleted. So, dead thread I guess. To be clear: I was addressing the votes primarily.
The original statement surely is a weak opinion on its own, which was hashed out below.
I disagree because someone sharing their opinion does not limit others from accessing the content.
That's not what gatekeeping in fandom is. Gatekeeping is to claim that either some content is not real <franchise> or that some fan is not a real fan of <franchise> because of <opinion>. That is exactly what OP did by claiming that Discovery was not 'real Trek'. They then listed stuff that were personal opinions and ways that they felt about the show as an example of why it isn't Real Trek. They then changed tact entirely when the gatekeeping was pointed out and admitted they were wrong.
They were gatekeeping. This isn't a matter of opinion, that was a matter of fact. You can disagree with that but you'd be wrong. Gatekeeping has no business in any franchise, nevermind Star Trek.
Disclaimer: Only Trek I had watched beforehand was Lower Decks (loved it) and SNW (loved it) in that order. With that said, here are my opinions nobody asked for:
- S1 had its flaws but I was there for dark, depressing, and moody.
- SNW cast carried the fuck out of S2 and the plot was good too imo.
- First half of S3 was promising...but they fucked it up so utterly and completely in the second half that it was hard to take the rest of the show seriously afterwards.
spoiler
SPOILER START
They COMPLETELY lost me with the source of the burn, it was one of the dumbest things I've seen in a hot minute.They had me again with the Giorgio redemption stuff in S4(?), but it was all downhill from there.
SPOILER ENDI had to forward through starting from the second half of Season 4 just to get through it. It got so ridiculously boring. I was hoping it'd get better and I could watch normally again but it just didn't.
Watching TNG now and I'm loving it. Can be a bit slow sometimes but still enjoyable.
Edit: Does boost not do spoiler tags?
Ah, thanks! It was driving me mad