Uhh, have you watched an actual episode of any Trek series? Or did my sarcasm detectors just fail?
Maybe have to run a level-1 diagnosis on the whole fucking array again :/
Star trek has nothing to do with your personally dislike of money. We live in the real world. My point is that we should post star trek shit in a star trek shit posting community. Don’t ruin this like so many other communities. I don’t want to see a single post about how your suffering, the worlds burning or anything else doom and gloom
i honestly don’t get why people refuse to let their dogs be on furniture like sofas, like either stop spending so much money on furniture or start cleaning your dogs paws, depending on the reasoning behind not letting them up.
like do they not want to cuddle with their pet? why have a pet then??
I’m curious, is there another word that have the same taboo status as the n-word? I’ve never heard of another word that can only be uttered if you have the right shade of skin. What a stupid world we live in, seriously.
I’m not speaking from any position of authority here, but I think it has more to do with being in the right culture, not the right skin color like some people imply.
There are urban white kids who grew up in the projects who use the same language as their black peers, and I think generally no one cares. However, when someone outside that culture uses that language, it’s not something they use for normal speech and there’s probably some other motivation behind it. It’s just like in a lot of people’s speech they say “bro” but it doesn’t mean brother. To people outside the culture it means black person, but they use it like others use “bro”. It doesn’t really mean anything.
Reiterating, I have very little experience with this. It’s just my observations. I’ve known black people who it’d be weird for them to use this language and seen white people who it’s just a normal part of their speech.
I don’t think it’s as removed from skin color as you think. If someone saw the white kids saying it and didn’t know they grew up in the projects, would they still not care? Conversely, if a bunch of black kids who grew up in an affluent household said it, would people be offended?
You’d likely know where they grew up by the manner of their speaking. The white kids from the projects are going to sound “urban” and the black affluent people are going to sound stereotypically “white”. I wouldn’t be offended (I’m white) but I would be surprised if the black people I know who do not use that language started using the n-word suddenly. It’s not a part of their normal language, so what caused them to suddenly start using it? Probably nothing good I would assume.
It also depends on the time and place. Those white kids from the projects would probably need to code switch when going to a job interview or something, for example, just like their black peers do. That language is context-dependents on whether it’s acceptable. It’s more than just being black.
Surely drinking water is one of the first things you do when you get up? How could you forget to do that (unless you have a medical issue which genuinely makes you forget to stay hydrated/not feel thirst or something like that)?
How could you forget to do that (unless you have a medical issue which genuinely makes you forget to stay hydrated/not feel thirst or something like that)?
One such disorder would be ADHD. ADHD has a lot more symptoms than people think. Sure, you’ve got the rambling speech/jumping topics/high speed talking but there is far more than that. One thing is that when we actually get into a ‘zone’, it’s way deeper than a neurotypical gets. It’s a pure fixation that’s known as a ‘hyperfixation’. When in this state the brain will start to dump important tasks to go after what you’re on. The most common task that gets dumped is basic bodily care. You won’t drink water, you’ll neglect eating, and you’ll often try to avoid using the bathroom by holding it until the last possible moment. You just don’t want to stop doing what you’re doing.
However even when not fixating the brain will still often dump that task. If you’re in a particularly ‘manic’ state, or more of an active state, you’ll just forget to drink water or to eat. It’s just not classified as something important to do. Example? I’m typing this out to you while only now realizing that the last time I drank any water was when I posted this comic strip 12 hours ago. Am I thirsty? Yes. My mouth is actually a little dry and it’s kind of uncomfortable. But I genuinely was forgetting that I needed to drink water.
Same but in Discovery. There’s a small moment with Tilly on the bridge where he plays a prank on her, within MINUTES of meeting her and beaming onto the ship. Then and there I fell in love with him… He was on screen for all of 5 minutes and I knew I’d die for him.
Doug Jones. Special effects. Visuals. Michelle Yeoh. Acting chops across the board. Bridge Officers getting more screentime. David fucking Cronenberg. Firmly establishing Kelvin timeline. Major LGBTQ+ representation for the first time in Trek (one off episodes don’t count). Una. Sharp increase in humor. The Enterprise. Culber returning. Tig Notaro! THAT Pike episode (You know the one. The big one.) USS Nog. Oded Fehr. Butterfly People (that’s just a personal favorite). Return of Space Cats.
I mean… there’s a lot of redeeming qualities of Discovery. It’s totally fine to not like Discovery, and to criticize it (respectfully) and the things you don’t like, but it’s a bit harsh to outright disregard the absolute slew of great things we’ve managed to get out of the show as well.
Suppose I cook you lobster ravioli as served at a Michelin-star restaurant. The filling is a perfect blend of lobster, salmon, egg white, basil, lemon zest, and seasoning. The poaching stock is expertly crafted from roasted lobster shell, carrots, celery, onions, tomato, and lemongrass, then deglazed with brandy, reduced, and strained till it’s perfect. Consider further that the pasta was made fresh by hand, and expertly stuffed, and served with lemon vinaigrette and tomato chutney, all prepared by an expert hand with fresh ingredients. It’s a perfect dish, one that has so many great things going on. It’s a balanced symphony of unique flavors interplaying perfectly.
Oh, except I used cheap, nasty, frozen lobster and it’s still raw. Oops. Are you still going to eat your ravioli anyway? No. It doesn’t matter how many great things are very much still actually happening, there’s no point in eating it now. It’s ruined. All of it.
Bad writing is the raw shellfish of media. It doesn’t matter how good everything else about the show is, because if it’s written badly, everything is ruined. It’s the one thing that can’t be forgiven and taints everything it touches at the source. Good intentions don’t make up for raw shellfish.
Well there goes 90% of the show, so no, you get the long version now.
We’re both standing in the middle of a soundstage (lit like a European discotheque), and you whisper-talk at me at a volume 0.01% louder than the score:
“I’d love to hear some of these examples of badwriting in the show! You can feel free to skip all of the overwrought metaphors.”
and I respond
“Well if I skip the ‘overwrought metaphors’, I seriously doubt I’ll have anything left to talk about!” then you say something about how hard this is on you emotionally, I quietly affirm that I’m here for you, then you bitterly reject it, and then I pinch off a pithy-sounding bon mot that’s actually nonsense, and walk off, leaving you standing stock-still in the grip of Powerful Emotions. Then we repeat all of this six more times, taking breaks for vomit-inducing scenes where 15,000 suicidally depressed animators shove every single item in the effects library onto the screen.
But seriously, I know you’re just sea lioning. It’s not possible to ask that question in good faith. Imagine if I snottily asked you to give me an example of bad writing in 1994’s It’s Pat, you would tell me “uh, fucking everything, piss off” and you’d be right to.
I know, because there wasn’t a typo the first time I wrote it. You see, gotchas like that usually work better when I haven’t already used the term before in a comment that you previously responded to. Don’t worry though, this in no way affects my impression of your ability to pay attention to what passes in front of your eyeballs.
I do, however, take it as an admission that you had to resort to making fun of me to have something to say, just like how I already expect your next comment to be an attempt at affecting aloof detachment.
I was waiting also, and a little annoyed at the facetious replies. However, I’m going to make a (very cheap) attempt (that plagiarises heavily from the first hit on a search):
Invincible main character: Michael Burnham survives even the most extreme hardship, where anyone else would have died.
Perpetually high stakes: everything’s always life or death, in a somewhat escalating way where they don’t leave room to establish normal crew life. I would speculate the producers do this so as to avoid “boring” episodes - but such episodes do have significant value in fleshing out a rich and complete world.
Michael Burnham is everything: she’s always central to the core plot, everything is centred around her perspective.
Lack of professionalism: the characters are more emotive, sure, but their emotions often come before their careers as Starfleet professionals. Starfleet is supposed to be this ideal society, but the characters don’t really portray this. They’re more like modern day people living in a Starfleet world.
Inconsistent character development: many characters should have developed and progressed from the experiences we’ve witnessed them go through, but they still stick to some of their Flanderised tropes.
Incompetent crew: everyone’s clueless until the main character (Michael) tells them what the solution is.
Inconsistent technology: the show is set in the early days of Star Trek, yet is more flashy and modern looking than much of 90s Trek.
I would add that, while you could maybe apply some of the criticisms against Michael Burnham towards other captains and commanders in other series, the difference is that they were in commanding roles, and thus inherently central. It generally feels that Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, etc would divert attention away from themselves to their crew, as if to promote them, while Burnham always seems to be jumping into the limelight for herself.
There were a few points I skipped because I didn’t really agree with them, and some of the ones I included no doubt could be applied to other Trek shows, but I’d still say that Discovery has plenty of flaws worth highlighting. That doesn’t mean it’s a terrible show, but it’s far from the best example of Star Trek, in my opinion.
Starfleet, and Star Trek, do not have an singular feeling or vibe and honestly this criticism doesn’t hold any legs once you start getting into it. I’ve mentioned this elsewhere but every series (with the exception of TNG and VOY) all have their own individual themes and vibes. TOS is very campy while the TOS movies swing from campy to outright war, hostilities and loss. TNG (and VOY) are primarily explorative and philosophical while having their own episodes of strangeness. DS9’s entire theme is built around hostility and hatred between races that blows up into a full on war with extreme loss and casualties. Enterprise combines a variety of different themes from other shows while tackling the hardships of trying something for the first time. Not a single one of them share the exact same vibe across them all. They do share the same ideals, however, and Discovery is included in that. Just because the show focuses more on action/flashy scenes than others doesn’t mean that it isn’t Star Trek and it doesn’t diminish those traits which run integral to the entire show. Discovery doesn’t focus on war anymore than DS9 does, in fact it focuses on it less given the fact that it was one season in comparison to the multi-season arc for DS9. The core concepts of sacrifice for the good of all, hope, the quest for peace, wanting a better future, trying to do what’s best for all and (arguably most importantly) personal growth? They all exist in the show and while were buried a little in Season 1 (before becoming more visible in 2 and onwards) it’s still there.
As for ‘teeny sci-fi show’, why? The show outright tackles some pretty harsh subject matter and brutal decisions.
Lastly, if it’s a “good show overall” then why did you literally open with saying that Pike was “THE redeeming factor” of the show?
I have to strongly disagree with your premise there. Star Trek and Starfleet do have a singular underlying theme throughout, as defined by Gene Roddenberry. Yes, each series is different, but there is a thread throughout that binds them, a code of morals that someone in the crew always brings everyone back to every episode, even if a character strays. Even the other species have their traits that generally stay consistent. This maybe started to diminish with DS9 and Voyager, after Roddenberry passed, however others don’t quite grab a hold of that thread well at all - specifically Enterprise and Discovery. The J J Abrams films also somewhat, although they follow TOS closely enough that it still fits.
It’s not the action/flashy scenes (which were never what made Star Trek great, and frankly HDR and bloom are all too often overdone these days, like if Michael Bay did lens flare), it’s the interactions between the characters. And overall it’s a feeling, something that’s really hard to put into words, but recognisable when it’s there.
As for ‘teeny sci-fi show’, why?
Again, the interactions between the characters. You’ll have to forgive me for not having it fresh in my memory, I haven’t seen Discovery for a while (dropped Sky TV and with that lost the only device logged into my mum’s Netflix) but generally to me it felt like most other CBS shows in the way characters interact, and how so many of them focus on hooking up with each other to the detriment of their duties. It’s cheap and lazy drama, in my eyes. SNW even still has a little of this around Spock, but in general it feels like CBS finally listened and relaxed on the reins a little bit, allowing it to be a “proper” Trek show.
You did bring up a bunch of things in your previous comment that make me want to go back and re-watch Discovery, though, so I’ll be doing that soon.
Lastly, if it’s a “good show overall” then why did you literally open with saying that Pike was “THE redeeming factor” of the show?
I never claimed that Star Trek didn’t share the same theme. I said it still holds the traits and beliefs of Star Trek and stays to those values. I also said that every show has its own distinct feeling and vibe while still sharing those beliefs. The traits are kept consistent, the code of morals consistent, it’s outright false to say that they do not stick by it or stand by it. It’s also wrong to say it doesn’t “grab ahold of that well” because it’s an opinion, not objective truth.
The interactions between the characters
There is no hint of “teeny” behavior in the show or in the way they interact with each other. There just isn’t. Everyone treats one another like an adult (once the show gets going). As mentioned, the only “teeny” behavior you could possibly claim is them displaying emotion more than other shows. You also say “So many are interested in hooking up instead of their duties” which is just an outright lie. Burnham is the only one who ever seeks an active relationship and at no point does it ever supersede her duties.
Because I was speaking in hyperbole.
I do not believe you. You started this off by saying that Pike is the only redeemable part of the show. Then you say that Discovery is well done. Then you say it isn’t well done, it’s “teeny” and “cheap and lazy”. You also claim that the show is missing some completely immeasurable “feeling”, say their traits aren’t consistent and are then attempting to gatekeep what is and isn’t star trek by saying it “doesn’t feel proper”. There’s no consistency at all.
Everything you just said was opinion and you attempted to pass it off as fact. I have absolutely zero interest in ever engaging with someone who is gatekeeping and insistent on saying something isn’t real Trek while claiming things about the show that are factually inaccurate. I have no place in my life for such negative behavior. Like I said before. If someone wants to not like Discovery that’s fine but lying about the show and attempting to gatekeep it by saying it isn’t real Trek or doesn’t understand it? Yeah, that’s not okay behavior. I’m just going to pass entirely on all that. Bye.
There is no hint of “teeny” behavior in the show or in the way they interact with each other.
I wasn’t saying the characters were behaving teeny, rather the show seems to be aimed more towards teenagers, along with most of CBS’ other lineup.
Everything you just said was opinion and you attempted to pass it off as fact.
I would think it’s abundantly obvious that it’s an opinion, nowhere did I claim it was fact, and nor did I gatekeep or say you didn’t understand anything. You’re getting far too aggressive here, I’m sorry if I touched a nerve, but I am entitled to my opinion on the shows just as much as you are. In my opinion, Enterprise and Discovery don’t feel like proper Trek. I’m sorry if I didn’t articulate that very well, but that doesn’t give you the right to berate me and belittle me over an opinion on a fictional franchise.
I actually had a great deal of respect for you going into this. I mentioned how I was going to re-watch Discovery in light of what you said, and I was hoping to get your opinion on some other shows, as you clearly have a different way of looking at things than me and I’m interested in that insight. All I did was criticise a show. In return, you criticised me, personally.
Stamets is an internet celebrity, bro. He was right to stomp on your personhood, you had the temerity to disagree with his august opinions of his favorite network TV shows. Shame on you.
This is me 5 times a day when I go fill up my water bottle, I get an email, use the bathroom or do something else quickly and go back to my desk and 15 minutes later go to drink water and realize I left it upstairs by the fridge.
Sounds like lots of folks who could take advantage of SmartTags/Airtags and the “notify when left behind” function. Tuck/Clip a tag in thing that needs to go with. Get electronically yelled at if you get to far.
startrek.website
Top