Every Year is the Year of Star Trek

Chat about non-baseball topics. No political discussions!
Post Reply
User avatar
thrill
bronoun enthusiast
Posts: 30369
Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Location: barely online

Re: Every Year is the Year of Star Trek

Post by thrill »

Watched SNW. As many have said, it is extremely Roddenberry, but with awesome production value.

Michael
GRB Founder
Posts: 35384
Joined: December 31 69, 6:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Every Year is the Year of Star Trek

Post by Michael »

thrill wrote:
May 10 22, 11:54 am
Watched SNW. As many have said, it is extremely Roddenberry, but with awesome production value.
Yeah and I love it. It's so old school is feels strangely refreshing. I hope SNWs becomes the backbone of new star trek shows going forward. I totally understand why they started with more modern serialized star trek, but I don't think they've figured out that format yet. IMO SNWs is exactly what the franchise desperately needed.

Trek is back, baby!

User avatar
AdmiralKird
MBA, CPA, CFA, CFP, JD, PE, MD
Posts: 9688
Joined: March 7 07, 4:50 pm
Location: Tycho Crater, Luna

Re: Every Year is the Year of Star Trek

Post by AdmiralKird »

The first was good, the second was great, the third is shaky and concerning. I'm glad the first few episodes have shown there is still hope for Star Trek as there is an emphatic fervor around the show, and I have hope in the individual episode writers, but I am concerned the Discovery/Picard team is going to do things like mandating mystery box secrets for characters and cliched backstories and altering scripts to have more Whedonism dialogue. You can tell where their proverbial hand has dipped down and altered this or that from what the original writer was doing just based on whiplash two-line tone shifts. Coupled with the fact episodic shows these days tend to forward-weight their best episodes for online critic reviews, I'm not holding my breath past episode 5.

User avatar
thrill
bronoun enthusiast
Posts: 30369
Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Location: barely online

Re: Every Year is the Year of Star Trek

Post by thrill »

Michael wrote:
May 19 22, 1:26 pm
thrill wrote:
May 10 22, 11:54 am
Watched SNW. As many have said, it is extremely Roddenberry, but with awesome production value.
Yeah and I love it. It's so old school is feels strangely refreshing. I hope SNWs becomes the backbone of new star trek shows going forward. I totally understand why they started with more modern serialized star trek, but I don't think they've figured out that format yet. IMO SNWs is exactly what the franchise desperately needed.

Trek is back, baby!
I used to make jokes with my only IRL Star Trek loving friend that the future must have incredible mood stabilizing drugs because these characters go through insane existential trauma constantly and just shake it off by the time the next episode comes around. Other than Picard crying in his brother's vineyard after Wolf 359, they never acknowledge the affect of this trauma. I thought it was funny until ST Discovery turned into the version of the show where all they do is wallow in the trauma. Star Trek has always been very "of the times" and Disco is continuing that tradition (because apparently examining trauma is the millennial generation's biggest/only? contribution to society), but it doesn't make for very entertaining escapist viewing. I just hope SNW can continue to move on from dwelling on Pike's inevitable doom, not wallow in the trauma, and just have fun space adventures with their friends. I can't take Discovery anymore. I got to the episode in the most recent season where they were doing social commentary on how zoomers struggle to work in teams due to poor socialization and Tilly gives them a big group therapy mission and just couldn't take it. Had to tap out.

User avatar
AdmiralKird
MBA, CPA, CFA, CFP, JD, PE, MD
Posts: 9688
Joined: March 7 07, 4:50 pm
Location: Tycho Crater, Luna

Re: Every Year is the Year of Star Trek

Post by AdmiralKird »

thrill wrote:
May 23 22, 12:51 pm
(because apparently examining trauma is the millennial generation's biggest/only? contribution to society),
woah woah woah woah. Goldsman, Kurtzman, and Chabon are not millennials. They're Boomer, Gen X, and Boomer.

User avatar
thrill
bronoun enthusiast
Posts: 30369
Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Location: barely online

Re: Every Year is the Year of Star Trek

Post by thrill »

AdmiralKird wrote:
May 24 22, 2:07 am
thrill wrote:
May 23 22, 12:51 pm
(because apparently examining trauma is the millennial generation's biggest/only? contribution to society),
woah woah woah woah. Goldsman, Kurtzman, and Chabon are not millennials. They're Boomer, Gen X, and Boomer.
But millennials are the target demo and I'm sure the writers room is chalk full.

I was mostly being sarcastic, but it is something I've noticed. It's a good thing, but I'm not sure we are moving on past the recognition/examination part very well.

User avatar
Jocephus
99% conan clips
Posts: 63659
Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm

Re: Every Year is the Year of Star Trek

Post by Jocephus »


User avatar
AdmiralKird
MBA, CPA, CFA, CFP, JD, PE, MD
Posts: 9688
Joined: March 7 07, 4:50 pm
Location: Tycho Crater, Luna

Re: Every Year is the Year of Star Trek

Post by AdmiralKird »

thrill wrote:
May 24 22, 10:30 am
AdmiralKird wrote:
May 24 22, 2:07 am
thrill wrote:
May 23 22, 12:51 pm
(because apparently examining trauma is the millennial generation's biggest/only? contribution to society),
woah woah woah woah. Goldsman, Kurtzman, and Chabon are not millennials. They're Boomer, Gen X, and Boomer.
But millennials are the target demo and I'm sure the writers room is chalk full.

I was mostly being sarcastic, but it is something I've noticed. It's a good thing, but I'm not sure we are moving on past the recognition/examination part very well.
There is nooooo way Discovery was built for millennials, at least by any producer with a lick of sense.

A Millennial went from Age 3 to through attending college with TNG->Enterprise on TV. Almost no millennials have even seen the original Star Trek because it was practically off-the air for two decades - completely. I never in my recollection saw an original star trek ever while channel surfing in the 90's and 00's. You could find a TNG, DS9, or Voyager Star Trek every single night. Gene Roddenberry's Andromeda played like the plague in syndication in the early 00's. I've seen every I Love Lucy, Bewitched, I Dream of Jeannie, etc. etc, but Star Trek was never on TV. It wasn't until the remastered dvds and streaming that it was even available.

Yet the first thing these buffoons did when they started to make new Star Trek was to set it in the TOS era. No millennial wanted this. This stuff isn't by millennials nor for millennials. Then someone did a market study after two seasons and went "shiiiitt they've never even seen this stuff? Lets get Patrick Stewart back and do like a Game of Thrones in Space for them", but everyone who wants that was already watching The Expanse. And the Picard version was dirt terrible written by people where only one of the top 4 executives had even seen TNG-era stuff outside of the movies. It's completely panned by audiences after two seasons.

This ain't on us by a country mile. If anything Lower Decks is magnitudes more the millennial-ism show.

As far as the "examining trauma" theme in shows for the past 10 years, I've never noticed it as an ever-present theme outside of the norm.

User avatar
thrill
bronoun enthusiast
Posts: 30369
Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Location: barely online

Re: Every Year is the Year of Star Trek

Post by thrill »

Well we definitely both agree that Discovery has been weirdly produced, isn't very good, and it sucks that they set two of the new shows as TOS prequels rather than building a post-Voyager show. It was especially stupid that they created a game-changing tech like the spore drive before TOS. Never made any kind of sense from a continuity/realism perspective. [expletive], they're thousands of years in the future right now in Disco, and the crux of last season and the three episodes I've seen of the newest season is that no one can get dilithium and use warp tech, despite the spore drive being superior, sustainable, and extant in their reality. I like SNW a lot, so far, but I think it's stupid that it, too, is a prequel. I think it's stupid that we have a new Spock and Uhura, even though I like the show. I think it's stupid that they built a show around Pike, a character with a canonized expiration date. Just make new show with new characters with writers that know how to make them compelling.

I actually liked Enterprise quite a bit because they did a prequel that actually made some logical sense.

Michael
GRB Founder
Posts: 35384
Joined: December 31 69, 6:00 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Every Year is the Year of Star Trek

Post by Michael »

I agree it would have been better if it had a different timeframe, but at this point the franchise desperately needed a solid hit and going this route was the easiest way to get there.
AdmiralKird wrote:
May 22 22, 3:49 am
The first was good, the second was great, the third is shaky and concerning.
I thought episode 3 was so-so as well. Honestly most trek shows are pretty bad season 1. Even after season one you get some episodes that are stinkers. That's how it goes with episodic trek so I'm not really concerned. The most important thing is I think they mostly nailed the tone, characters and format.

Post Reply