When I (a 44 y.o. straight ,white, male) subscribed to your channel, I was not sure how much I will disagree with you. But this video expresses EVERYTHING I am trying to say when interacting on this platform with other youtubers, channels, comments and chats. Thanks.
"The Pros and Cons of Modern Trek" - 1000 views " SJW ALEX KURTZMAN IS FINALLY DYING FROM CANCER LOL" - 11029484828 views We truly do live in a society.
@@optillian4182 Or how certain channels hate EVERYTHING...take Doctor Who...One channel went from HATE MOFFET to HATE CHIBNAL LOVE MOFFET to HATE SMITH LOVE SMITH HATE CAPALDI LOVE CAPALDI HATE WHITAKER...
I just don’t understand people who seem to have dedicated their lives to hating modern Star Trek. People that make the videos that constantly show up on my RUclips feed. To reply to every Star Trek or Kurtzman tweet with the same snark, regardless of the topic of the tweet. I didn’t like Enterprise when it aired and stopped watching it (I’ve since finished it - it’s not my favourite but it did get better - anyway just using it as an example) but I didn’t and don’t feel the need to post non stop online about how much I hate it. If there are small things stopping you from enjoying a show (like Jar Jar in TPM) I could see complaining because that’s a change they might be able to make, but if you just hate everything about the show.... what difference is it to you if it’s cancelled or if you just watch something else!
Yeah these folks are nuts, I thought I hated Rick Berman but holy shit I didn't know the meaning of the word guys like Midnight's Edge and Lorereloaded, Nerdrotic, they're utterly consumed. Edit: guess Lorereloaded has changed? quickly looked over his channel and it seems less right wing weirdo town...
The difference is that Enterprise wasn't so different and such a departure from the previous series of Trek. These new shows feel completely different from the ideals of Trek so that's why they're getting such a backlash. If you see modern Trek as more of a Trek reboot or alternate timeline than it would fit a little better and would not have been so criticized.
@@marcodavinci3150 I would argue the Xindi arc was very political, it was basically an examination of post 9/11, I think what you mean to say is politics you don't agree with are "too political", Star Trek has always been political.
That snark is heavily AstroTurf. They’ll start it and then all the edgy teens with zero empathy because their brains haven’t developed yet will be the reply guys. There’s been recent evidence of this type of foul play behind much so called conservative media
Its ok to dislike modern Trek, what's not ok is to dislike it because it has a gay couple and the main character is black. I tapped out of Discovery when the Klingons ate Georgiou, the most Star fleet character of the bunch at that point. Lower Decks is neat though. If Star Trek is pissing off the alt-right I'm fine with it continuing to do so.
@@CheeseypiPlays Just watch DS9, one of the highest rated star trek series. Diverse cast. Stories about prejudice, sexism, racism. There's a scene where two women kiss. And that was 25 years ago. The issue with new trek is bad writing and heavy handed woke agendas
A couple decades ago, it wasn't cool to be a Star Trek fan. Now the people who claim to be fans but dismiss anything new are ironically making it not cool again.
Ironically "fans" of Star Trek that are so hateful towards new things Star Trek actually probably make people less likely to want to openly talk about it and try and make you feel bad for simply enjoying stuff. Being completely against what it meant to part of the Star Trek fanbase and expecting people for liking different things. In the past if one person liked one show more than another they weren't chastised for it.
I remember the times when people didn't like TNG because it wasnt TOS or when said (sadly some still saying) that DS9 "is not star trek" etc. People always complained and will always complain. The only difference at current time is social media that blow everything out of proportion. Personally DS9 will always be my thing but I really loved STD S2 (and still hating S1!), I enjoyed the Kelvin timeline movies but I don't love them like TOS/TNG era movies. What I mean is everyone can find something to love in Star Trek so stop that stupid hatred people! Watch what you want and like but stop hating if someone else likes and love something else. At the end of the day *Star Trek is supposed to teach us tolerance!*
the jj films are objects a derision by fans because they were made by a person who admittedly didn't know or even like trek, so how could ANYTHING he turned out be good trek. good movies yes but not good trek. alex K is the same way he was only familiar with bad trek going in having worked for jj. so how can you expect him to come up with anything the even approaches good trek. i actually think if STD were a show more like the orville an homage to trek but not trek there would have fewer to no haters.
That tolerance has to apply to differing viewpoints too though, and being able to discuss things people like AND dislike without off-hand dismissal or judgement. Being a fellow DS9 fan, I'm sure you calmly explained what you enjoyed about it to people who didn't like it at the time, rather than labeling them hateful for not liking it or talking about what they didn't like about it - at least that's the impression of you I got from your comment.
I got an advertisement before I could watch the video, and THEN, I got a mid-roll ad at EXACTLY 0:59. Yes, that’s right. FIFTY-NINE SECONDS. Like, WTF?
The downside of modern Trek creators making themselves open and available to the public is that the haters also have access to them. Remember like a decade ago all the online communities wanted people to use their real identities because the the thought was If that's really you out there you're going to be far less likely to say hateful things? Yeah, well oh boy were they wrong! I know of a couple of designers that either left or radically shifted to mostly private their social media accounts after being attacked by people who's names were right out there! And it's not like these were young people who didn't know better--these were grown ass adults! Just because you think a ships' nacelles are too long that doesn't give you the right to hate speech and threats against people's families.
Hearing you say Beyond is one of your favourite Star Trek films made my heart sing because it's absolutely one of my favourites. Don't ask me to chose between it, First Contact and Undiscovered Country because I can't.
I've mentioned this before, but there are content creators out there who will actually lie and misrepresent these shows for the sole purpose of inflaming fan hatred and generating clicks. So while I'm not the biggest fan of Discovery, I have zero patience for anyone who says it "ruined Star Trek" or who blames all the world's problems on Alex Kurtzman and "SJWs". That is not constructive criticism, it's outrage farming.
Same. Please don't confuse people who simply dislike New Trek for plot/character/continuity reasons with idiots that complain about every woman and black person in fictional media.
Madalin Grama any other thing sure o would just walk away but this is Star Trek! I loved it before CBS and Kurtzman came along. I will continue to love after their gone and have moved on to something else.
No, don't worship Janeway. Sisko is the greatest Captain of all time! Actually do what you want. My favorite Captain will always be Benjamin Sisko but I can understand why others are favored. Just understand one thing. Sisko doesn't represent me in any way. I am a white man who thinks that the black captain is the best because he rose to the role and became more than he started out as. He suffered but recovered and saved the Alpha Quadrant. He was also the most interesting character. He was flawed and he did bad things for the right reasons but he also had heart. He even overcame his own prejudice and recommended Nog to Starfleet. So while he gave in to his dark side he also proved that one can overcome the darkness and when he does it gives hope that even with flaws, people can overcome them. At least that's the statement I get from his character.
I got to the point where you said some people don’t see Star Trek as political and that baffles me. Not because Star Trek specifically but due to genre. I have always thought of sci-fi as a political genre, and have seen it defined that way specifically. I find it insane that, even though everything is political, people don’t see it in a genre where that is part of its intentional seasoning.
Science Fiction has always been political. It has been a reflection of society. Frankenstein questioned whether just because technology can do something, should it? War of the World's showed that military might alone can't beat mankind. 1984 has obvious meanings.
I'm torn (as usual) on this subject. I've got ZERO problems with anyone who doesn't like Modern Trek that have REAL critiques like slow pacing in one part of a season, a particular character not really been allowed a lot of growth or grounded enough, dislodging of canon etc, those people should ABSOLUTELY be welcomed. It's only the Incel-ish, gate-keeping, Anti-SJW/Anti-Woke "fans" that i take issue with, and a lot of what they have to say comes from a blatantly (and almost pridefully) ignorant, spiteful, (sometimes) highly homophobic/transphobic and hateful frame of mind. The kind of people who complain about how Trek has now become too progressive and woke and believe that it has never been that way but clearly has since !966, problem is that they don't (or downright refuse) to realize the social commentary of Trek changes with the times.
This hate toward modern Star Trek is disturbingly like the hate directed toward "The Last Jedi:" same complaints disguised as criticisms, same comments, same vitriol and the same undertone of "the old stuff was better," followed by a lack of understanding of said old stuff beyond a superficial layer. I still remember hearing all of the complaints about how "Discovery" is "SJW Star Trek" and thinking "clearly, you've never watched 'Star Trek.' Fix that problem and watch 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield' and then tell me how they ruined Star Trek by making it SJW." Yeah, there are other episodes, but that one seemed to go out of its way to make the metaphor blatantly obvious.
This hate is like the Last Jedi because the hate comes from the same mentality and source, the Fandom Menace and the likes of GamerGate. People who are upset that “their spaces” are being invaded by unintelligent mainstream newbies. It is driven by a fear of growth and change, and most especially a childish insecurity over losing control, over their fave franchises outgrowing them and exploring new things.
Oh, you don't need to get political to dislike the last jedi - the characters were *equally* unlikable and undeveloped, and the mary sue archetype looong predates present day identity politics(and isn't universally disliked, like nausicaa of the valley of the wind).
This is the thing that kills me here... I'm tepid on the new Trek series (plural) and aggressively disliked TLJ, but not for any of the progressive themes or choices, I *like* those themes and choices, and they are very much at home in both franchises - I just don't like the way either is/was done. For Discovery (to focus on the "main" show), I enjoy watching the show as a sci-fi action show, but the writing is, well, as shallow as your average sci-fi action show. At no point in either season have I felt like the show makes me think about something in a different way, or even really think at all. The dilemmas are there to move the action along, not the other way around. It also bugs me that the science included is equally shallow, and is generally completely detached from real science in a way that the old series tried to avoid. With the old series, you can look into some of the science they touched on, and even though they obviously stretched that science for fiction, it had some basis in reality. The old shows felt like they were made for the people who liked science, the new shows feel like they're just made for people who have heard the word science before. I don't remember TLJ very well because I honestly lost interest in it very early into watching it. There was no suspension of disbelief at any point because the plot devices were so transparent and abrasive. It felt like every character was competing on who could do the least intelligent thing in every situation. At no point did anybody seem to make a reasonable decision in that story. I haven't seen writing that bad since Battlefield Earth. I don't care who was what color or what gender, nor do I care which expectations were subverted except for my one expectation that somebody, at some point would do something not hilariously, just... stupid. In both of these cases, I think there are very large and legitimate issues that are mostly ignored because some racist, sexist, abrasive jerks have decided they hate it for their own reasons, which somehow invalidates any legitimate criticism anyone outside their group may have. I've tried to express my problems with both franchises, only to be met with arguments against things I was not saying because I was assumed to be one of those people, and I don't like that at all. I *want* to see underrepresented people elevated. I *want* to see injustice highlighted. I *love* when a story goes somewhere I never expected. I just want all of that to be done well, intelligently, and in a way that *feels*, for lack of a better word, like it belongs in its respective franchise. To that point, I will say, the newer SW stuff does at least feel like Star Wars, even if it's bad, but the new ST stuff really just feels incredibly generic, and like outright abuse of the intellectual property.
As someone who dislikes some modern Star Trek (but not all), let me say thank you. I don't feel like there's a space for me. I'm told I must either like everything new or hate everything new. It's frustrating and alienating. Let me add, I found your channel recently and I've really enjoyed your content.
I cant say i love or hate CBS-Trek. For instance, i love the characters on Discovery; Saru is probably one of my favorite trek characters of all time now. Its just the story-lines aren't blowing me away. It kinda rubbed me the wrong way that both Disco season 2 and Picard season 1 ended with taking out some big A.I. Lower Decks hasn't made me laugh once, however i have fun just watching these little half hour adventures. For me personally, i dont think anything will ever de-throne TOS and TNG. But then thats the Trek i grew up on in the 80s.
I think that AI being used in DSC/PIC storylines is because that it's one of the biggest issues in science today - back in TOS and even most of the TNG era it was almost fantasy, now it's almost an imminent reality
@@indianatrekker26 I'd argue that it's pretty much fantasy to take down AI as easily as kirk did or that a sentient Android would be outsmarted by finger cuffs -
I just really wish Discovery had been set 20 years after Voyager. Had a lighter tone to it. had a cast who liked each other. Had familiar-looking style and technology and uniforms more in Trek's tradition. What's that, I'm describing Lower Decks? I had no idea!
Dunno if I qualify as a hater, but never managed to muster interest in Discovery because of the poor plot design, phoned in character archetypes, and all the holes in the narrative. It just didn't capture the concept of Trek as a universe for me. Thing with the old shows was that I could sit there and be critical about the entirety of the episode, that was a sort of purpose of their design in part with them always exploring perspectives. Discovery just didn't really do that in the same manner with it's push for a more railroaded narrative. Lead to problems in the end for me because they had to use several shark jumps already at the end of season 2 to solve the Control situation they'd built.
Honestly, the thing I love most about Trek is that ALL the shows are different. Old Trek, New Trek, Original Trek, and even each show within all the erras, are very different, and all have strengths and weaknesses in their own right. Star Trek itself is as diverse as it encourages its community to be, and that's why it's a franchise that has endured for more than 50 years.
My favorite Trek is TOS. And yes, I _know_ that it is horribly tainted by what was ubiquitous at the time, bit it _did try_ to move us forward. But more than that, it was a work of philosophical fiction at a level that (to my knowledge) never was seen on TV before or since. To do something like that _today_ would require a complete canon reboot. And no, I do not just mean an alternate timeline. I mean a COMPLETE canon reboot in which NOTHING from before (including the original series) would be canon by default. Why would such a complete canon reboot be needed? Because there are way too many things that were very progressive for the 1960s but are still just plain behind the times for the 2020s.
I think you hit the D-7 with the photon torpedo there...if you step back and look at them, every iteration/series of Trek is a product of its time (TAS is probably the oddball there), and showcases the good and bad of its particular era of creation. You also can clearly see the various steps and choices that were taken in each series to promote what the series execs thought audiences wanted vs. what made for good storytelling. You don't necessarily need to watch every Trek series and movie (since that's hundreds of hours of viewing), but feeding the current era's hate machine because someone likes something you don't is a good way to drive yourself, and everyone coming in contact with you, insane.
I know you were a person with excellent taste!!! DS9 has always been a favorite of mine since childhood and Enterprise grew on me!!! I've actually have used your views with some of my friends who have had a very narrow view about modern star trek. You and Steve Shives have been the voice of reason with Star Trek!!
I'm someone that appreciates both classic and modern Star Trek. There is room for everyone, because it's an inclusive environment, in the franchise fandom.
Totally agree with your sentiments. There is stuff that I don't like about some of the new Trek shows. However, I reject the pointless efforts of those who simply want to tear down modern Trek. I also have no time for those who are so arrogant and presumptuous to think that they can define what Trek is supposed to be and demand that everyone else must fall in line.
I've never had a problem with people that don't like modern Trek, I do have a problem with those that are adversarial about it, that call it "not Star Trek", those that spread baseless rumours about cancellations or firings, generally just toxicity. Not liking something is fine, normal even, but using that dislike to try and poison other people's enjoyment is wrong
Yeah, I'm fine with normal, basic criticisms, but some times the hyperbole of "DISCOVERY is killing CBS! LOWER DECKS WORST THING EVER!" Like, no, you might not like newer Trek, but all these ultra-upset Trek videos about how it's the worst... no. I've seen THE WORST of Trek. Discovery S1 may have flaws, but at no point did I feel absolutely icky like TNG S1E3 "Code of Honor". Now that was an episode where I could point at it and be like... "That, that's bad Trek. Disco/Kelvin-U/LowerDecks might not live up to your standards you set forward, but none of them went straight to Code of Honor levels of bad." If you like S1 TNG, more power to you. I have one of my favorite episodes "Conspiracy" in that season, but I'd rather watch so much more new Trek than the bland that was S1 TNG. But hey, that's just how I feel about it. And I'm glad folks might listen to that here. But seriously, I love "Conspiracy" a lot. It's a shame nothing every came of such a unique concept (outside of being some plot material for Star Trek Online, which was actually nice to see it get some acknowledgement).
I've been a fan of Star Trek all my life and I don't hate the new Trek but imo it just doesn't really fit with the original ideals of tbe franchise. If Discovery or Picard were just a generic scifi series, I could probably enjoy it on its own merits.
These are my feelings exactly. They're more akin to current TV tropes wrapped in Star Trek-esque guises than what Star Trek is to me. Star Trek began by standing out. Now, they're falling in line with what's hip.
DS9 is both my favorite and the best Trek qualitatively in my opinion. And I think part of what makes it so good, is that from the jump they weren't trying to be any other Trek, they decided, this is going to be a show with nuanced characters, and serious questions about the philosophy of the Federation. And Trek is at its best when they are trying something different. TNG didn't find it's footing until it stopped trying to ape TOS and did it's own thing, Enterprise didn't get good until the Xzinti arc, again when they stopped trying to ape TNG and TOS. And Voyager never got to be consistently good because they kept trying to be TNG in a different quadrant. Imagine Voyager could have been BSG reimagined before BSG, if only they stuck to the plot of the pilot. So Trek is at it's best when it explored contemporary issues using different story telling techniques which is why I don't understand when people say things like "it doesn't feel like Trek" What exactly does Trek feel like, because all those shows felt very unique at their best.
You know, maybe hating is not so much an issue as The Haters. 🤷🏽♀️ Again, you really hit the nail on the head with your points, Jessie. It’s always a delight to hear profound arguements in this age of cancel culture and haters hating like it’s an olympic sport.
Completely agree! I've been saying this for so long. It's so sad that anger is what gets you through the algorithm. You are a cut above the rest, keep your content coming!
I'm one of those weirdos who loves both classic Trek and new Trek. There's something I can find to enjoy in all of the series and all of the movies. I cherish those bits that I enjoy. I love them. It's a lot of fun. I get bummed out by everyone who craps all over any of the shows. I'm fine with criticisms. There's plenty you can find to improve in any of the shows. But the hate really gets to me too. A friend of mine who has not been a big fan of Trek recently watched Picard and Disco because he ran out of things to watch because of the lockdown. He really liked them and is getting into a lot more Trek now. I think that's great. Anyway, I'm done rambling. Love your videos!
I'm another fan who loves both classic Trek and new Trek. Am I a weirdo too? Well, I suppose that's unavoidable, being a Ravenclaw. (Remember Luna Lovegood?) 😆😆😆😆🖖
Another of those weirdos over here! I started watching in TNG, but even the shows I didn't care for as much (DS9, at the time, though I have more appreciation for it now), I could find things I liked. I really got my Trek-love going first with Voyager, then with the Reboot-verse, though...and I'm just reminded constantly of people nitpicking Reboot-verse to death because it wasn't how Trek worked, etc., while I was just excited to see things that called back to what I knew of TOS. Same thing when I watched Discovery and Picard: I could see the call-backs, see all the things that were being set up by things going on in Disco, all the things from TNG that built into Picard...I even loved Picard hearkening back to the events that sparked the Reboot-verse. My fiance and I, once we'd exhausted Disco and Picard, sat down and watched the entirety of TOS, and it actually made me so happy to see the links, the call-backs, the worldbuilding that started there, and made its way throughout all the later series, plus all the great character dynamics and things that set the stage for what would come. It's all connected, it all recognizes what came before, but adapts to a new concept, a growing and changing Federation. It's not a static universe, and that's what's great.
Jessie, I appreciate your intellectually honest message of how people with different opinions can come together and grow from diversity, as opposed to feeling personally threatened and lashing out as a way to validate one's self-esteem.
I wholeheartedly agree with the message of this video. I think it applies to all fandoms and not just Star Trek. Unfortunately,, as you say, the algorithm rewards rage-clickbait and controversy over calm and intelligent exchange of ideas. Also, I love the passion Star Trek fans have for Star Trek. It sounds like the kind of series that I should enjoy, based on what it's about. But I never really got into it. (Tried starting with Discovery. Perhaps that's the problem?)
For me. It is unfair, impossible, and unrealistic for newer trek to give me the same awe, wonder and brilliance of the original series. Even Next Generation had some episodes that had people calling me a hater. I fell in love with DS9 with the episode Duet. It was one of the best bottle episodes I can remember. I wonder what has happened to me as I’ve gotten older that I don’t have the same desire to rewatch Discovery, with the same passion as the other treks. Lower Decks has come the closest to bringing me that joy again. Lower Decks brings a joyfulness to the idea that you don’t have to be at the top of the ladder. That your life matters where you are. I appreciate what you bring to the table. I love your joy for the shows. You are right. The show gives the opportunity to accept and value others.
Well, let us be clear: Critic is always good thing. It helps to improve. But these people making hateful "toxic" videos don't do it because of it. This is another aspect of modern day populism, more rooted in politics. Being so loud (without real critics), like they are, is easier way to get more audience. Spreading hate and intolerance cannot be the Star Trek way. It is like this what fundamentalists do with religion. For them is dogma more important than true faith. I mostly ignore such people, but actually they are dangerous. Toxic is always dangerous. This their thing for me is like they are "right wing Star Trek fans", what is alone itself contradictory. Star Trek is political. It was and will always be. How can it be progressive if it's cemented in time? TOS was good for its time. But let us be honest. How it treated women, it can be considered sexist. And better not to say how it ignored LGBT and other minorities. I understand that they done so much they could (G. Takei said much about it on Star Trek day - who didn't has to watch/listen it), but as then so today Star Trek has to be with its time (time when it is created) and to speak about modern issues. Esthetics too - I don't know what's the problem about more modern panels and interfaces (like holographic, for example) and many other things being modernized. Do we have to keep ridiculous old fashion buttons and gauges from sixties, when we today have more sophisticated tech? Didn't they ask themselves why was Enterprise retrofitted for TOS movies? Maybe because of those things I said. And I don't get how anybody can hate Mike McMahan... I can understand when people say "cartoon is not my thing". But hate him or what this nice man does is not possible if you are Star Trek fan. So, these people are just exploiting some other people nostalgic memories from past, and are more loud - like adolescent bullies. Thankfully we have people like you, and some other. Sry. for my poor English... But I think (hope) it is understandable.
Thank you, so true! That’s where I think the issue is, saying ST is too “woke” or SJW just makes that opinion sound out of date with the times and sounds like they can’t accept change, that is ironically against the concept of ST, it’s meant to be about the future and projecting a mature, advanced civilisation.
I now completely avoid the "moden Trek hater" channels. I did watch some when they would complain that Discovery and Picard were two dark in tone, but when they all start complaining Lower Deck for being "too comedic", I realized that they would never be happy with any form of new Star Trek.
I dislike almost all Trek I've seen since Enterprise (hell, I'm not too impressed with it either) for a bunch of reasons but one of the main ones is that it's not progressive enough. Crowing about having gay characters in Disco annoyed me because it's like wanting praise for doing something Trek shoulda done decades ago, real progressive courage for today would have been to put a trans character or a Muslim on the bridge. It also feels much more Human and in particular American-centric than most of the earlier shows. DS9 had 2 humans in the main crew, Disco has 1 alien (and an alien pretending to be human ) and all the humans seem to be American. Feels like a step back from the universality that earlier Trek tried (sometimes ham-fistedly) to do.
@GozerTheTraveller I'm beyond baffled that apparently no-one stopped to think 'hmmm' what if we painted Jarati purple and made her a Violacean? Or what if Lorca was a Denobulan? But that'd make the show less human-centric and for some reason that's not cool right now :(
"DS9 had 2 humans in the main crew, Disco has 1 alien" Remember, Discovery is set in the same Starfleet as TOS, not DS9; how many aliens were there on the original Enterprise, or on any ship we ever saw in TOS? It's not a decision I agree with, but the logic is clear; Starfleet at the time was overwhelmingly human. "and all the humans seem to be American" Philippa Georgiou was/is Malaysian, Keyla Detmer is German, Bryce is Welsh and Nhan isn't human, she's Barzan. There are also the characters whose nationalities are thus far unconfirmed, but whose actors are of Nigerian (Owosekun), Puerto Rican (Dr. Culber), Sino-Mauritian (Rhys) or Indian (Landry) descent. There may very well be more non-American humans in the show than there are Americans; the only ones we know for fact are American are Lorca and Pike.
I dislike the modern Star Trek, but I'm not hostile toward it. I gave it a chance, but it's not for me. Anyone that likes it that's their prerogative. Although I heavily debate Trek, I will never be condescending, antagonistic or in anyway be disparaging towards other Trekkies. That's just stepping over the line of decorum and respecting other opines. Picard's thought provoking speech in The Drumhead, speaks volumes to this very issue and not with just Star Trek: You know, there some words I've known since I was a school boy. With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
Hear me out, I admit that if I were in charge of Discovery, it would’ve been set it after Nemesis to avoid ruining canon, the mutated Klingons would’ve been rewritten a been a completely new species, Lorca would’ve just been a guy with PTSD, Ash Tyler wouldn’t be a converted Klingon and Burnham would’ve been more interesting and I also admit I don’t like Alex Kurtzman, but do I blindly agree with everything the fandom menace says, hell no, for one thing, despite what the fandom menace says, I actually loved Lower Decks, I sometimes might even consider it a replacement for Discovery in my eyes, at least Mike McMahan knows what he’s doing, I actually liked that they got the look of the Klingons right, I actually liked the design of the Cerritos and I like to think of Mariner as a better version of Burnham in some ways, all I’m saying, don’t let the fandom menace ruin your love of Star Trek, just watch it for yourself and have your own opinions.
See I would have watched and enjoyed that show! I wish they hired people like you to write Discovery and not writers who's previous experience was writting for the Gilmore Girls! I really did not enjoy Season 1 and 2 but now that S3 is in the future I'm much more open to accepting whatever they come up with!
Marco Davinci it is always easy to fix what went wrong after the fact than come up with characters and stories from scratch. I think more fans and more writers should understand that concept.
"...got the look of the Klingons right," There is no 'right' there's only the creative interpretation by the designers and rest of the crew working on the intellectual property called Star Trek. If they decided that Klingons weren't actually Klingons at all but a puppet race for an even bigger bad called Klingons (this is an actual idea from Gene Roddenberry) they can do that and that's what Star Trek would be because they are the creators and we are not.And those DSC Klingon designs came directly from not only concept art from Star Trek The Motion Picture but ideas that Gene and Dorthy discussed for Star Trek: The Animated Series. Had they the time and budget, but mostly time, we could have seen radically different Klingons (compared to TOS) as far back as 1973. So you don't have to like the creative choice, there are plenty over the years I haven't liked, but you do have to acknowledge that as creators they have the right to change it to whatever they want. We're not watching historical documents 😉
@MGazT Entirely is a bit hyperbolic. Doing research for my TAS book I found that they used a lot of the references I did. They also have a pretty stringent vetting process so if it's on Memory Alpha odds are it's at least the agreed upon facts. Doesn't mean they can't be boring, but the great thing is they admit it and change their entires.
@@GeekFilter As I recall, they've always at least had canon, setting-plausible explanations for changes to Klingons and other races, in addition to the simple "Well, we finally have the makeup and prosthetic tech to do all this stuff!" factor. Like, the Klingons in TOS didn't have their TNG brow ridges and such due to a plague that altered their physical traits, while the extreme look of the Discovery Klingons is due to their being from a different racial group who were never exposed to the viral agent, and came from different and more inhospitable parts of Q'onos. Thus the more extreme features. They've done similar to explain why some Romulans have the facial ridges and others don't (Northern Romulans do, Southern don't), and so on, which also takes great steps to not make alien races a single monoculture, but rather more like Earth, where humans are affected by where their ancestors originally lived. Also, seeing as the whole "Klingon altered to appear physically and biologically human" was a thing in TOS (see "Trouble With Tribbles", where there's a spy revealed to be a similarly altered Klingon), why not set Discovery where it is--the peak of Klingon/Federation conflict--when they'd first be evolving that tactic, only for it to be presumed tossed by the wayside by the time we hit TOS, as the use of such sleeper agents had previously failed with Ash/Voq?
As someone who dislikes a vast majority of the modern Star Trek era I'm often asked by my best friend who loves modern Star Trek why I keep watching it if I hate it. It's because I want to like modern Trek. I want to keep watching because I might end up watching my new favourite episode of Star Trek that I keep coming back to. Also we're getting the Captain Pike show that everyone wanted since Discovery season 2. I love the content you produce on this channel Jessie and I'm always excited to see you review the latest episode of Star Trek, your reviews are always positive even if you didn't enjoy it all that much.
The funny thing for me is that the other ST shows like Next Generation were not that good when they started. The Next Generation was more an extension of the original series with different actors until the third season. Then they found their own footing and became their own show. The other shows did flounder for their first seasons. Enterprise was hitting its stride when it got cancelled and don't get me started on the final episode. Discovery did not click with me but the reconstruction of the Federation sounds interesting. It might be what makes Discovery its own show. The hatred that some ST fans have for the new stuff has made me hate the term true fan. To me now "True Fan" means an A**hole snob that thinks their opinion matters more than everyone else and it is their job to spoil it for everyone else.
I can sum up the problem with discovery in one sentence: it's trying too hard to be cool. Trek is geeky! Trek isn't hip, Kurtzman and the new writers need to embrace the inherent geekiness of Star Trek.
I was looking up clips of Elnor on youtube (because he's my fav boy) and every time I clicked on the video there would be some comment from the same guy just saying how the show was stupid and everyone on it deserves to be fired. And it's really annoying and disheartening to see. It also sucks to go to clips from other shows and just see things like "This is real Star Trek. Not that modern crap." Like, forgetting that people watch these shows and enjoy them. I'm not saying that the shows are perfect (both have an issue with fleshing out the other characters because they overly focus on one) but so many people enjoy and like them. There's nothing wrong with that. Also, DS9 is my fav, I don't think TNG is as good as everyone says it is, ENT deserves to get picked up for another season to at least do a better wrap up then what we were given.
I was there at the dawn of the fifth series of Star Trek. It began in 2001 with the broadcast of the "Enterprise" pilot "Broke Bow", located deep in UPN space. Ok, joke ends, but this is going to be long. I remember all the fuss, the critics, the haters on the forums and the IRC channels (no social media back then). There were many so-called "hardcore" fans who continually attacked, criticized, boycotted the series over the course of its four seasons. The sentiment was very similar to what I'm witnessing today towards DSC, PIC, and LD, but in the absence of social media and RUclips, it was contained to tighter spaces. The criticism had less political polarization, but in other respects it was essentially identical. The concept of the prequel was frowned upon and obviously Berman and Braga were constantly accused of being rapists of the canon established by the previous series. I remember it like it was yesterday. Nitpicking was at full throttle: there was a lot of complaint about things like the not-so-disastrous first contact with the Klingons, the arrogant Vulcans (in truth, as they always had been), subspace comms, encounters with Ferengi, Borg and Romulans, technology too advanced compared to that of the Kirk era, etc. Those reactions didn't change much with the sudden narrative turn of the 3rd season, namely the Xindi arc, and even the 4th season, usually considered a marked improvement, wasn't exempt from criticism, mainly because each episode was accused of serving only to correct or explain the alleged previous discontinuities (but I remember the joy of many at the fact that B&B stepped aside, giving the helm to Manny Coto). Other criticisms were more justified, e.g. those directed at some lazy writing. The decline in creativity, especially in the first seasons, was evident, with the plots of many episodes effortlessly recycled from previous series, and the "franchise fatigue" became evident with Nemesis. Enterprise, in the end, was abandoned by a lot of these fans (but many today will deny this) and got prematurely cancelled. The world has changed a lot since then and, IMO, it's the socio-political angle that now poisons much of the current debate. I witness nonsense like "Fandom Menace", or conspiracy theories on supposed "liberal", "woke" "lgbt", "sjw" secret agendas, lol. Here on RUclips in particular this aspect is particularly bleak, that's true. I hear and read people saying that Star Trek was never political, that it should be an escape vehicle to a better future, not a vehicle for modern ideologies, commentary, etc. To me, however, these people seem to say something like: "we want Star Trek to be a perfect utopian future, but it must not contaminate or dare to disturb, or challenge, our present beliefs", even when it comes to racism, misoginy, xenophobia, inclusivity, perhaps revealing the intrinsic fears that some feel today towards our changing world and society. Since the re-launch of Star Trek in 2017 with Discovery, for me it has been a bit like reliving again the same reactions I experienced during Enterprise. I personally have been able to appreciate what has been done so far; I don't deny I remained embittered by certain narrative and stylistic choices that in my opinion could have been avoided. But this doesn't mean I continually spit hatred against the characters, the actors, the authors or the production company and I'm able to appreciate some of the efforts made so far. Past experience has allowed me to be more understanding and tolerant, even when confronted with some aspect of the new shows that I may not like. I believe they are maturing and improving with each passing year. Discovery seems to be on the way to find its own identity; Picard was an interesting insight into the post-Nemesis era and Lower Decks literally surprised me, because despite the comic twist, it was able to give me back that feeling of the good episodic-Trek of old that maybe was still missing in modern Trek. This is part of my viewpoint, and I already made it too long, sorry. I enjoyed the video :-)
Nowadays if you say you don’t care for the new Trek stuff people call you a Trump supporter! That is beyond cold! That’s a horrible thing to call anyone!
JJ Abrams made good sci-fi action movies, but he didn't make Star Trek movies. He made something else that killed Trek, cut off its face and wore it like a mask, whilst telling me it's Trek and I should love it but Like B'elanna I was horrified. And that trend continued in the shows that came after until this summer. Lower Decks is the most authenticly Trek new content we've gotten this millenium: It's hopeful, they go to planets, they encounter space mysteries, they use their phasers like multitools instead of exclusively as weapons, etc. I thought Trek was dead for good, that I would keep seeing its face worn by something despicable, but I'm getting real new trek again and I'm thrilled.
The best OG trek movies were basically revenge action films(TWOK & 1st Contact) - and no one told you luv modern trek - JJ used an existing trek trope(alternate universes) to give us a what if/different take on existing characters - and maybe rewatch OG trek, 99% of the time, phasers were used as weapons
@@SC-mq1eh your missing the point. what makes it different is that the action did not eclypse the story and instead inhanced it, by adding weight to the charactors actions. thats why there was violence in old trek/good trek. thats why wrathOK is the best of the ST movies.
I have no problem with hating modern Star Trek on qualitative grounds. I personally haven't liked much of Kurtzman era Trek, though I seem to have liked Picard more than most. What I don't understand, cannot understand, is people who claim to be Star Trek fans complaining that Star Trek has suddenly become SJW and virtue signalling. Star Trek has ALWAYS been SJW and virtue signalling. If you didn't notice that when you were a kid, maybe it's time for a binge and a reappraisal.
YASSS WORSHIP AT THE ALTER OF THE JANEWAY. But seriously, thanks for making this - I feel like there is little space for nuance discussion even within social justice oriented/feminist Trek spaces. Stan culture and the death of critical thinking at the alter of anti-intellectualism has really hurt fandom. So thanks for continuing to be a very needed voice against those tides. :).
My fave is also DS9. Enterprise...well I liked the mirror episodes. Honestly, I think one of the things too many people forget and honestly 'get wrong' about fandom is this idea that the way you're a fan of a thing is the ONLY way to be a "TRUE FAN"tm of a thing. All these things that have huge fandoms, like Trek, like Star Wars, like Marvel/DC or comics in general. The reason these things are so popular, and have endured so long in many cases, is because they are multi-layered. Because different people love the same thing for VASTLY different reasons. I'm gonna not use Trek for this example but I think it holds as well. Do you love Batman who is immensely anti-social and trusts no one and his only way of fighting crime is punching criminals in the face? Then you love Batman. Do you love Batman who is compassionate and who believes in reform and uses Wayne Industries money to invest in communities and fight crime socially? Then you love Batman. Both of those things ARE Batman, and you are a fan if you like either version or a mixture of the two, you're a fan of Batman. You can absolutely love one specific facet of these things, but it doesn't mean the other facets don't exist, or that people who love those are wrong, or love the thing any less.
I do not understand why people who claim to be Sci Fi fans attack and even dox people who are producing or acting in Sci Fi shows they do not like, do they not realize that decreases the amount of people who want to work on Sci Fi shows and take risks on them. A lot of Star Trek fans claim to want the Star Trek future, maybe to get there we should stop attacking each other. Live Long And Prosper! 🖖
This is definitely a video that needed to be made. As someone who grew up with Star Trek and, like you, got a lot of my values and beliefs from it, I was super excited when discovery was announced. But after a few episodes I just wasn't getting into it and made a lot of the arguments that have since become common about it (dark, tone, continuity) and yeah I turned into a bit of a new-trek hater. But the tone and language used by other new-trek critics, especially on RUclips always rubbed me up the wrong way, and then I came across your channel talking about Discovery's Captain Pike. You encouraged me to go back and start watching season 2, and while I didn't love it (still haven't finished it) I thought it was alright. I'm not really too interested in Picard, and can't watch Lower Decks cause I live in the UK. But I am looking forward to seeing Lower Decks, I'm excited for Strange New Worlds, I'm even wanting to watch Season 3 of Discovery. I know it might sound silly, but thank you. Your channel and the level headed, positive way you look at things really helped me rediscover a show that still means a lot to me. LLAP
I definitely do not like Discovery. However, I have never had a low opinion of people who do like Discovery, again, subjectivity and opinions at play. I am simply satisfied that I know why I don't like Discovery and the reasons are far too long and complex to place in a comment here. I do want to address the most common complaints since my mindset deviates from the 'standard hater'. 1) The only part I agree with is that I really don't believe Discovery follows any sort of established Star Trek canon. Trying to fit Discovery into the canon makes my head pulsate in pain (so I just gave up doing this after a few eps). 2) A lot of people complained about Sonequa Martin Green for some reason. I don't get this. She is a captivating presence and a great choice for a leading lady...I just wish she had some better lines. 3) Sooo many complaints on the obvious commentary on Trump's policies. I never had a problem with this. An artist should have the freedom to explore whatever topic they wish and make whatever argument they passionately believe in. My personal problem is that using Klingons as this stand-in allegory for (at the time) isolationist American policies made absolutely no sense. They revel in wars and conquering planets and expanding their Empire. If I were to write the same plot, I would have made Andorians the initial enemies, just for that shock factor. Hell, maybe even the Xindi - retracting their bases of operations until the 25th Century. Would explain their 23rd and 24th Century disappearance! 4) Accusing Michael Burnham of being a Mary Sue. Obviously impossible if almost every single person in season 1 hated her. This ended up making the show less engaging, unfortunately.
I really appreciate your insights and thoughtful videos. The Renegade Cut channel you mentioned did an excellent video on tribalism with fandom and Trek is no exception. Whatever criticism someone has I think it's important to realize that all opinions are personal. And I think it needs to be said more that the more original Trek is, the better the series. Constantly trying to fit into "canon" or re-tell stories with the same characters over and over is a disservice all around. Janeway, Sisko, and even Archer all had unique arcs and circumstances that made their characters memorable. But as you pointed out with Into Darkness and the final act falling flat, rehashing stories that were told and acted incredibly won't please anyone or add anything of real value
While I enjoyed Discovery as modern Sci-Fi, It still does not feel like Trek to me because I don't see any organization in it that show the goal - what we can be as opposed to what we are. I am GLAD some people love it because the more Trek the better for everyone. IDIC people, live IDIC and accept the differences.
I think it’s important to delineate that there is a difference to criticizing showrunners and runners for THEIR WORK and attacking who they are AS A PERSON. It is completely fair to say you don’t consider Alex Kurtzman a good writer or a good showrunner, you can debate his work and have judgments on that. But it is not okay to attack a person simply over you not liking what they wrote or created for entertainment, and call that person trash or idiot or killer or straight up making lies or wish harm upon them. No content creator is doing their jobs to actively or purposefully upset you. Question a writer’s story, debate it, analyze it, love it, or hate it. That’s all part of consuming entertainment. But spewing vitriol at a creator personally, attacking their beliefs or honor or dignity, calling them liars and destroyers, that’s just not okay. The numerous amount of times that I can find hate messages even under a simple birthday post for Alex Kurtzman is just sad. Even if you don’t like Kurtzman as a writer, surely it is still reasonable and expected to treat another human being with basic respect.
I’ve not seen discovery, Or Picard. Because they are not on the streaming services I pay for, I don’t pirate anymore because I am lazy. I would binge them instantly if they were on what I pay for.
What I like the most about your videos is that even when you do not like something, you never ever rant on it. You are always very civilized and explain what you opinion is base on. Please continue.
Thank you for sharing this in such an eloquent way! As someone who is pretty lukewarm toward Discovery (at least the first season, mostly for plot I thought was nonsensical reasons), I've always felt welcome and able to engage in your content without feeling the least bit defensive!
I hate modern Star Trek, but I don't WANT to hate modern Star Trek. And there are few things I have more contempt for than those "hater" youtubers who are pure scum. Despite (shudder) agreeing with some of their opinions in the broadest sense, I feel more more affinity and connection to people like you or Ketwolski or Shives who, despite liking what I consider to be lousy trek, are at least good, decent people who are opened minded and positive and not trash human beings and have legitimate affection for the material. Just as you write that you do have SOME criticisms about modern Trek, I agree that there are some things I also like about modern Trek and give it credit for, while disliking so much of it. And it's not a blanket opinion. I approach each new iteration of Trek with an open mind. I'm hopeful, no matter how many times I've been burned. I really WANT to like Star Trek. For the Abrams films, I'll say that "Star Trek" was a mixed bag. The first half of the movie is great, the second half lousy. But the cast is amazing and there are some thrilling moments in it. ST: ID is pure trash. "Beyond" is decent. Not amazing, like many claim, but at least competent. I don't like Discovery as a whole, but there have been individual episodes I liked and characters that I like. I like Saru, Stammets, Jet Reno, Tilly, Culber. But I don't really like Burnham and I think Empress Georgiou is arguably the worst character in Trek history. I think Picard was a stunning disappointment. And, as for "lower decks"....well, I think the show itself is ho hum, but there have been a few episodes that I found enjoyable (and a few I found terrible.) In any event, while it's fair to say that the majority of "Modern" Trek has left me cold, there's nothing I'd like more than to actually enjoy the franchise again. Hope springs eternal....
I don't judge those who hate modern "Star Trek" by a long shot. I used to, but not anymore, and I do apologize to those who hate modern "Star Trek." After all, I know that I'm a believer in treating people the way I want to be treated. Despite "Prodigy" being my #1 current "Star Trek" show, I'm looking forward to season three of "Picard." My #1 golden-age "Star Trek" show is also my #1 *overall* "Star Trek" show: "The Next Generation."
Well said. Like you, I have my issues with some of Trek. Not just the new stuff, but the old stuff too. It's fine to have opposing opinions. It's not fine to get vehemently ragey about it. The moment someone starts ranting, they've lost the argument, IMO.
Hey there. I like Sonequa Martin-Green as a person and as an actor. I like her Walking Dead performance and she seems like a lovely person in interviews. I don't like the character of Michael Burnham though. And Discovery is basically the Burnham show, so it's not my favorite.
If Saru or Georgiou were the main characters or if Sonequa Martin-Green played a more emotive character I would probably like the show more. I'll watch S3 when it comes out, maybe the character will grow on me.
I have been an obsessive Trek-lover since I was 8 years old. I am one of those people who can name episode titles from a brief description and know the race of an alien seen in the background for 2 seconds. And I know that if I were to be the creator/showrunner of a Trek series, gate-keepers would respond by saying I didn't know anything about Trek and had never watched the previous series.
Oh thank you so much for finally getting this out there... It's a problem that runs deeper than just star trek though...I'm so sick of the channels and random 'fans' who just crowd and masterbate over the negative 'shock' titles that get inflated for views and clicks..
I don't really care for new trek, just not liking parts or the current direction the shows are being lead. That being said, I always love Jesse videos. You can still enjoy talking nerdy trek stuff even about the stuff you don't love. #positiveenergy
I don't hate modern Trek. I remember when Patrick Stewart was announced as TNG's captain. I took one look at a bald, middle-aged man and in one second it was obvious that the writers were going for the anti-Kirk. There would likely be no personal fight scenes like we saw between Kirk and Finnegan. No hot green alien babes for Picard to get involved with. Poor personal charisma vs. Kirk. And then I tried to watch one episode of TNG and everything I feared was confirmed. So be it. But I didn't hate it. I just didn't like it so I didn't watch TNG and also didn't judge those who did love TNG. Imagine a bald, middle-age Patrick Stewart being cast as the next James Bond while Sean Connery was still in his prime. That is how ridiculous the casting of Patrick Stewart was to me to sit in the captain's chair. That said, I am grateful to those who did like Patrick Stewart. Obviously I was in the minority of opinion and it had a great long run. And other Treks were spawned making Trek more popular. So I salute those whose opinions differed from mine and without whom Star Trek would have never flourished like it has.
@@LaurenceQuint Let me help you genius. Much has been made of Shatner's toupee that was used when he filmed TOS. Why was so much effort put into making a balding (in real life) Shatner look like he had a full, youthful natural head of hair in front of the camera? Because the Kirk character was written in such a way that he had a large number of former loves and was always open to the possibility of new YOUNG babes, alien or not. And like it or not, a youthful, full head of hair generally makes a man look more attractive and youthful especially to young women. I suspect this is still hard for you to understand so let's try it this way. One of the best TOS episodes everyone agrees was City on the Edge of Forever. Imagine a bald, middle-aged Patrick Stewart falling in love with a YOUNG, insanely gorgeous Joan Collins. Stewart would look like her father and creep everyone out trying to woo her. Understand yet? Well, maybe it wouldn't creep YOU out.
@MGazT Well said. Very interesting take. One of the reasons Shatner as Kirk was so compelling and added so much to TOS was the fact that his youth and leading-man good looks were in and of themselves great assets in creating fascinating stories with lots of extra layers of intrigue and tension. In City on the Edge of Forever, the story is possible ONLY because two very good looking YOUNG people meet. Kirk falls in love with Edith (stunningly beautiful Joan Collins). It is Kirk's youth, good looks and full head of hair that makes Edith's attraction to him believable and therefore makes one of best TOS episodes such a great drama with that gut-punch of an emotional ending. Imagine instead a bald, middle-age Patrick Stewart in this role with Joan Collins. Whether we admit it or not, it would be creepy since he would look like her father and his falling in love with her would look gross and her attraction to him would be totally unbelievable. Therefore, it is obvious that Patrick Stewart could have never played this role in one of the great iconic Star Trek episodes. That is why casting Patrick Stewart was such a disappointment to me and turned me off to modern Trek from the start. One look at him told me there could never be any amazing romantic episodes like City on the Edge of Forever. And that is what I wanted out of TNG.
I love your message here, this is really important message. I wish our politicians were able to build bridges like you are advocating. IDIC, respecting one another, sharing ideas, its important. Love you, Jessie!
The one thing I hate is people comparing modern trek to different unrelated series. For example, people compare ST:LD to Orville, even though they are not exactly related. Here is the thing, Orville is good because it has a few things required. It needed to not be in Star Trek, as half to all their jokes are based upon not being in trek, so comparing Lower Decks to something that has more freedom in jokes and aspects is wrong. To add on, Lower Decks has far more limitations, like a philosophy and set rules they must follow, limiting their potential. Also, comparing it to fan films is wrong. Fan films have even more luxury than actual Trek. They have less stress and criticism as they are not really a part of trek, nor canon, or made by something made by the company owning it. Because of this, they will not have as much hate, but the Trek they compare it with has to follow everything, like rules, philosophy, and really the fans expectations. Comparing is just wrong, as no subject is similar to another unless it was plagiarized. In my opinion, I didn't fully like Discovery, but I liked Picard, and I am loving everything about Star Trek Lower Decks, I just see that comparing is just, unfair as the subjects they compare it to have more limitations. The hate, is most the time dumb. I feel bad for the people pouring their heart and life into these Treks and having people demolish and destroy their hard work.
Great video. I really appreciate your approach to it. Unfortunately, I feel a tad targeted in this video, but understand where you're coming from. I think the best way to address those like me or even worse is to simply state that Trek isn't going to rinse or repeat itself. Times have changed. Trek has with it. This includes the special effects as well as story telling. Certain elements I'm on board with. People who also defend need to also realize that people like me don't go into any Trek to hate. If you do, you have an issue. I was as excited for Discovery and Picard as anyone. As for some of the click bait. I think every RUclipsr is victim to this. People don't like it, but it also gets people to interact. Fact of the matter is, very rarely do people click on videos that is Star Trek Review. Not unless you have a base. Regardless, rant aside, always love your insight and perspective.
@@JessieGender1 I am working to find a better balance on it. Too many channels are negative. I know of quite a few, in particular to new Trek. Unfortunately, most of the issues aren't the actual narrative but rather the politics. It's a mess. All I (or we) can do is be positive. Especially with Trek
I don't mind Discovery. There's a few things I like and a lot I dislike. But if people hate it so badly then just skip it. There's plenty of other ST options to watch or rewatch. It's not "ruining" anything 😂 and for the newer movies, I mean the first two were pretty good.
@Madalin Grama I have no idea what all that word salad is suppose to represent but, nevertheless, if you like new Trek, then you don't like true Trek, brigade that.
@@trekjudas That could be true as well. I will not deny it, but I grew up on all the original Trek shows before Abrams ruined it and die hard Trekkers detest new Trek because it misses the whole point of what Roddenberry was doing. For all you new "Trek" fans, Roddenberry is the guy who wrote the shows and movies.
There is a number of things which could be said about why contemporary Star Trek -- which is more correctly postmodern Trek than modern Trek -- is hated by so many Trek fans. I don't think the comparison to the resistance to TNG in 1987 is fair; both TNG and TOS (and TAS) were a realisation of Gene Roddenberry's vision because he was literally producing them. Like them or not, it's a fact that Abrams Trek and Kurtzman Trek are not Roddenberry's vision. Much like DS9 S1-2 is different from DS9 S3-7, or TNG S6 is different from S7. Different showrunners have different imaginations (or none). In my view, every Trek series or movie created after Roddenberry died is progressively worse, with the notable exception of Enterprise Season 4, which included the only half-decent Mirror Universe story post TOS (and I am eternally thankful TNG never bothered with it). We had Babylon 5 Trek, Gilligan's Island Trek, Phantom Menace Trek, then Franchise Reboot (TM) Trek, Logan Trek, Futurama Trek, and we're now soon going to experience Andromeda Trek. All derivatives, but none of the scifi or thoughtfulness. But... one thing where I strongly disagree is with the description of the polarisation of the fandom. When TNG came out there were endless debates in popular media of who would win in a fistfight between Picard and Kirk (the only correct answer is Picard, because he would delegate to Data); that was fandom polarisation. That's not what we have. Producers of contemporary Trek are creating an openly hostile fandom in opposition to them, because rather than welcome criticisms of their work as signs people still care and useful feedback, they openly and publicly mocked or personally attacked their critics. They don't mind as long as they can make money from this mere franchise and then move on to something else.
You know. The most irritating position of a controversial topic is being in the middle. Especially in geek culture where everyone has to be in one camp or the other. No third camp is valid for some people. I don't like Star Trek 2009 and most of Discovery and Picard so people will yell at me, "Get over old Star Trek," putting it lightly. Then the other camp calls me hypocritical or stupid for liking Into Darkness, Beyond, and Lower Decks. Sometimes being honest means being thrown into a lose/lose situation which is why I don't interact with online fandom that much anymore. I distanced myself from it.
I'm an original Trekkie, I saw the first series on NBC when it came out on American television. I loved that they were explorers (when I had grown up quite a bit) and not warriors trying to fight everything that they saw. I, quite recently, was asked to leave a Facebook forum about Star Trek all because I would not champion war in Star Trek. Your call for inclusion struck a chord in me, as I've been quite disappointed in the fact that later Trek war was all they seemed interested in. I have some hope that the new Trek show about Christopher Pike might restore my faith in Trek as a vision about the future, even as we seem to be descending into darkness ourselves.
Jessie: you have a great channel and I really enjoy it. I could listen to you talk about Trek all day and I hope you're feeling better after what you spoke about at the end of your Voyager video. 🖖🖖🖖
Your arguments are quite valid; for my part, however, I just can't watch Discovery Season 1, because I can't watch the Klingons without seeing the California Raisins, and it just...well,...bugs the @#* out of me.
I think your hitting an important part of why many folks aren't on board with Discovery, myself included. Yes, Star Trek is about sharing our ideals, sitting down and finding something better. It's been a great teacher over time, pulling back the noise around subjects and letting us look at the truth of things, and come to our own conclusions. Discovery in particular does not do that. It pushes the ideals of a rather aggressive movement today, and beats us over the head with them. On top of a main character that destroys the classic balance of how the show worked. Out of New Trek, I loved Star Trek Beyond, finding it one of the best of Kelvin timeline films. It got back to that maturity of the characters the old films developed. And found Picard a fairly good show. Not seen Lower Decks yet, my enthusiasm being low after the beating it's taken from Discovery, the only one I truly just can't stomach out of the new stuff. And it's sad, there are good elements. But they just have so little respect for the integrity of the setting, for the ideals behind Trek. And Burnham just grates on my nerves at this point. Might as well call it the Michael Burnham show instead of Discovery. Because that's how it comes off, as a power fantasy inside a Trek wrapper.
There are some things about Discovery I like (I haven’t seen Picard, Short treks or Lower Decks) but the things I don’t like about surrounding plot, sci-do vs sci-fantasy, focus or complete lack of focus on certain characters, or how it tries to mesh with previous canon (I think it does a terrible job at that, and in my head I’ll brush it aside as ‘non-canon’ while recognizing that it is canon in actuality). Like I said, there are aspects that I like though. Mia Kurshner as Amanda was amazing, Ethan Peck was an interesting and solid Spock. The awkwardness of Tilly resonates with me because I’m autistic, but she’s also really smart. I enjoyed the Kelvin movies and they definitely are “dark Trek” they still tell a good story and modernize Star Trek well, whereas for me, Discovery didn’t do that. I’m sad that I can’t have a constructive conversation with people about why I think A, B, or C doesn’t work, or why my very square “must mesh with canon” brain doesn’t like it. Instead it’s either “it’s bad because there are too many women, ~gays~ and TransTM, etc.” Or “There’s nothing but maybe the smallest detail wrong with Discovery.” Like, I guess i’m general I’m a 20-30% positive, the rest neutral or negative, and it’s not my jam, but if it’s someone else’s, have fun. And you’re right, it’s a TV show, there are other ACTUAL problems in the world like climate change, human rights and wealth disparities, among other things. Thanks for being kind and reasonable!
I love how this video isn't just about Star Trek, but about an idea that can be applied to ALL things.. Why do we always have to be Extreme, but meet in the middle. All POVs are valid and should be shared ( yea discord) In a Friendly way. ReSPect. 👽💞🌍💙❤🖖
Ira Behr still worked under Berman. I am aware that Berman's influence in DS9 was smaller than Voyager or Enterprise , but DS9 still falls under the Berman Era.
Liked Picard. Discovery’s only issue is it's kinda forgettable. I literally remember nothing from it. JJ’s 2009 kinda shook me in a bad way. Hated into darkness. Beyond was fine. Loved Lower Decks
Yup, I really dislike Kurtzman Trek. I posted a lengthy response to one of your videos once, and shortly thereafter deleted it. I may dislike the Kurtzman-led Trek attempts, but I'm not a hater, because I don't hate anyone (one of my KY Senators may be an exception). But upon review and reflection of my comment, I could see that I was making the same kinds of noises as haters, even if I'd argue I was making them for better reasons. So, my intent may not negative, but I worried my impact could be. So I deleted it. It sounds like there were plenty to replace it, unfortunately. This video is a prime example of why I watch this Channel. You intuited that there are good, rational people on both sides of this issue (Ca-rap! I am NOT alluding to Charleston!) and addressed their concerns. I came to this Channel for the Star Trek, and stayed for the other commentary, both of which I don't always agree with, but I'm always intellectually engaged. I did gravitate to Nrdrtc and Ovrlrd initially, because I was trying to figure out why I was having such a hard time with the new shows. I didn't last long because what's the point of whining and complaining every single day about something you hate? But that's their schtick, apparently. Bottomline, I think Star Trek has a character and identity, just like a person. I admit it's not always consistent, but to me there's an obvious u-shaped curve of compliance; the heart is there. The news stuff shifts too far into non-compliance, for me. Just because a show or movie has Starfleet uniforms, pointy sideburns and bulging nacelles, doesn't make it Star Trek. In fact, I was able to enjoy Discovery Season 1 when I just thought of is as a sci-fi show and not Star Trek. That technique didn't work with the other shows, I'm afraid (or Discovery Season 2, which tried so hard to be more ST I couldn't ignore it). The movies (like the Star Wars sequels) can be enjoyed immensely the first viewing, but then I start thinking about them and.... Here's what I wonder when you (Ms. Gender) praise the new shows: What _wouldn't_ you like/consider ST?
To those who enjoy and like the currently-running _Trek_ series, you're welcome to them and you're welcome to your opinions. Really, someone _ought_ to enjoy works that a company is throwing so much money at. Could you imagine if they spent so much money and time on something and the response was... silence? Because nobody cared, much less liked or disliked it? Chilling. As for me, my biggest issue (although not the only one) with all three series is that they are so focused on spectacle. Special effects spectacle. Partisan, representation, and gender identity spectacle. Pessimistic the-big-organization-is-corrupt-and-evil spectacle. And likely more. This leaves little, if any, room for character exploration, growth, and development -- things that anchored _Trek_ since the beginning. Because at the root of classic _Trek_ is a collection of characters stories centered around ensemble casts. Everything else supported that. These were, for lack of better terms, very human stories that happened to take place on starships in space. You could have plunked down the characters in other similar settings and the story would still have been interesting. Even the ships themselves were sometimes their own characters. But not current _Trek_ Current _Trek_ , when it focuses on any of the characters, tends to focus on one or two in a series. The rest are just there, but it presents a challenge to come up with their names, nevermind something about them as people, or their personal lives. _Trek_ let you learn about its central characters. Current _Trek_ wants to move as quickly as possible from one action to another, which, unfortunately, doesn't give anybody the time or space to _breathe_ . So while I did watch season 1 of _Disc_ , I found it incredibly difficult to watch. Partly because the cinematographer refused to settle down, and partly because the characters were emotionally difficult to watch. And because I don't want to use my time on any other Contests of Jerks, I decided to not bother with _Picard_ , where the legendary Starfleet career officer is derided at every turn instead of honoured, where Starfleet continues to turn on its own values, and where the Romulans are space elf refugees or spymasters. Not to mention the use of hard drugs, poverty, and the callousness regarding life and death from characters like Seven of Nine. Both these series have become very strange to me. I cannot watch them. I also decided to drop _Lower Decks_ after episode 4, since it returned to its old formula of the characters missing the point by lightyears, and because the show writers just can't seem to stop putting elevating Mariner at the cost of whatever self-respect Boimler might have left (which, after over a year of working with her, can't be all that much). The biggest pain for me is that there are so many stories they could explore for _Trek_ that would engage a wide audience and keep them interested. Stories about the operations of Section 31 and Temporal Investigations? The voyages of _USS Titan_ or _USS Challenger_ ? The fallout of the Hobus Supernova and how the Romulans would eventually get their groove back (maybe even the rise of the Romulan Republic)? Sela's story after she can no longer be a thorn in Picard's side, maybe a journey of her accepting her humanity? And if we want to peer into the past, what about the rise (and fall) of the T'kon or Iconian Empires? The voyages of _Enterprises B_ and _C_ ? Or Sulu as he captained _Excelsior_ ? The rise of the Borg? There are so many fascinating possibilities, and games like _STO_ can only explore so many of them.
Thank you very much for those words. First, I am indeed not a fan of the new Star Trek shows for several reasons. But I do feel welcome here and when I want to inform myself about things or directions or interpretations of those new shows, I do come here to get a different perspective to my own and I like it very much. Thank you again for providing informations and interpretations to me.
Great video once again. I used to often get sucked into algorithm rabbit holes and now try to actively resist that. Polarisation is ubiquitous these days and the damage needs to be addressed more, even if it is about “ pop culture”. Btw some of the things you mentioned (previous video on this topic and podcast) links don’t appear in the info section. I could search for these myself but feeling lazy!
I hate modern Star Trek. It's really brought out the Nazis in the fandom. Real talk, I actually haven't watched Discovery or Picard, but they both look fine to me.
Although I do disagree with some of your opinions on modern Trek Jessie, I really appreciate your positive vibes and appreciate that you let us speak our minds here. P.s: i also do love when you call out the new Trek when it fails! ;)
However that happened: lower decks somehow feels most like old star trek of all the new shows. It's probably the story structure. All the other new shows have season arcs.
Hey Jessie, just wanted to say I really enjoy your channel and your non-hyperbolic take on various things. As for modern Trek, I don't watch it for the simple reason I won't pay for a streaming service over and above my cable bill. So I don't really have an opinion on them. I like the new movies though. Anyway, take care and live long and prosper.
I'm not exactly a fan of Discovery Season 1 and 2, rather dislike it tbh, but I see high potential in Season 3. Picard is a great premise that feels it could've been much better as a movie or limited series. Lower Decks, I really don't like it but I acknowledge it's not actually bad it's just not my thing. Strange New Worlds sounds AMAZING and I want it yesterday. The Kelvin trilogy I can see why a lot of Trekkies don't like those movies, but I like 09 a lot and I really LOOOOOVE Beyond! If not for Kelvin, a lot of people my age might not have ever gotten into Star Trek. I'm currently in the middle of DS9, I'm enjoying it so much. I enjoyed TOS and TNG a lot. And if not for STAR TREK 09 I probably would've never gotten any curiosity and checked out this amazing franchise that I just shrugged off as "space pulp" despite being a huge Star Wars fan
I don’t know that I’d call myself a modern Star Trek “hater” because I believe in giving things chances before judging them. However, I would call myself someone who believes the differences between say, so-called “Berman Trek” and so-called “modern” Trek are stark and have a lot to do with the difference between style over substance. I don’t hate discovery and I don’t hate...everything...about Picard. But I think the modern films/TV properties of Trek have generally failed to give consistent complex morality plays. Now, obviously Star Trek wasn’t ALL cerebral philosophical conflicts...but the best of it wasn’t afraid to delve into it. Modern Trek doesn’t have the moral ambiguity in problem-solving that TOS and TNG had. I don’t have a problem with the actors or even characters of Discovery, for instance- but those people have so much better things to say and offer this Trek property rather than showering each other with praise all the time. When will these characters have differences of opinion and perspective that propel a story’s conflict? I don’t hate modern Star Trek - but it’s clear that the priorities are just in areas other than those that to me represent Trek at its best. Nuanced morality plays about tough decisions.
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. I'd rather live in a world with Discovery, Picard and Voyager than in a world with no Star Trek at all. The world changes and trek changes with it. Appreciate the change even if you don't agree with it. Just let people like what they like.
I like two out of the three Kelvin Timeline movies but I've only seen one season of Discovery and I didn't like it. However I know that many different opinions can exist on any franchise. Plus the Prime time line was far from perfect as well. For example; Voyager (in terms of pure quality) was diet TNG, Star Trek Enterprise was half bad and half good enough, there are four objectively bad Star Trek (The Motion Picture 1979, The Final Frontier 1989, Insurrection 1997, and Nemesis 2002) films. Even TNG first two seasons were barely watchable.
When I (a 44 y.o. straight ,white, male) subscribed to your channel, I was not sure how much I will disagree with you. But this video expresses EVERYTHING I am trying to say when interacting on this platform with other youtubers, channels, comments and chats. Thanks.
Well put. I strongly dislike that the algorithm rewards hyperbole.
Yeah it literaly pipelines people doing earnest seeking of info---> to the far right
“How Did Trek Get Away With This??? (REACTION!!!)”
"The Pros and Cons of Modern Trek" - 1000 views
" SJW ALEX KURTZMAN IS FINALLY DYING FROM CANCER LOL" - 11029484828 views
We truly do live in a society.
@@optillian4182 Or how certain channels hate EVERYTHING...take Doctor Who...One channel went from HATE MOFFET to HATE CHIBNAL LOVE MOFFET to HATE SMITH LOVE SMITH HATE CAPALDI LOVE CAPALDI HATE WHITAKER...
I just don’t understand people who seem to have dedicated their lives to hating modern Star Trek. People that make the videos that constantly show up on my RUclips feed. To reply to every Star Trek or Kurtzman tweet with the same snark, regardless of the topic of the tweet. I didn’t like Enterprise when it aired and stopped watching it (I’ve since finished it - it’s not my favourite but it did get better - anyway just using it as an example) but I didn’t and don’t feel the need to post non stop online about how much I hate it. If there are small things stopping you from enjoying a show (like Jar Jar in TPM) I could see complaining because that’s a change they might be able to make, but if you just hate everything about the show.... what difference is it to you if it’s cancelled or if you just watch something else!
Yeah these folks are nuts, I thought I hated Rick Berman but holy shit I didn't know the meaning of the word guys like Midnight's Edge and Lorereloaded, Nerdrotic, they're utterly consumed.
Edit: guess Lorereloaded has changed? quickly looked over his channel and it seems less right wing weirdo town...
The difference is that Enterprise wasn't so different and such a departure from the previous series of Trek. These new shows feel completely different from the ideals of Trek so that's why they're getting such a backlash. If you see modern Trek as more of a Trek reboot or alternate timeline than it would fit a little better and would not have been so criticized.
@@marcodavinci3150 I would argue the Xindi arc was very political, it was basically an examination of post 9/11, I think what you mean to say is politics you don't agree with are "too political", Star Trek has always been political.
That snark is heavily AstroTurf. They’ll start it and then all the edgy teens with zero empathy because their brains haven’t developed yet will be the reply guys. There’s been recent evidence of this type of foul play behind much so called conservative media
Vontux yeah I saw him going that way glad to hear he came to his senses . Lots of it is pandering for clicks from the rabid suburban hate base
Its ok to dislike modern Trek, what's not ok is to dislike it because it has a gay couple and the main character is black. I tapped out of Discovery when the Klingons ate Georgiou, the most Star fleet character of the bunch at that point. Lower Decks is neat though. If Star Trek is pissing off the alt-right I'm fine with it continuing to do so.
Star Trek was always woke ffs. That's not the issue.
@@hahahah9527 It's certainly some people's issue
@@CheeseypiPlays Just watch DS9, one of the highest rated star trek series. Diverse cast. Stories about prejudice, sexism, racism. There's a scene where two women kiss. And that was 25 years ago.
The issue with new trek is bad writing and heavy handed woke agendas
@@hahahah9527 you're an idiot
@@hahahah9527 the issue is just the bad writing, Star Trek has been heavy-handed lots of times my dude now fuck off back to a chan wojack.
A couple decades ago, it wasn't cool to be a Star Trek fan. Now the people who claim to be fans but dismiss anything new are ironically making it not cool again.
Ironically "fans" of Star Trek that are so hateful towards new things Star Trek actually probably make people less likely to want to openly talk about it and try and make you feel bad for simply enjoying stuff. Being completely against what it meant to part of the Star Trek fanbase and expecting people for liking different things. In the past if one person liked one show more than another they weren't chastised for it.
I remember the times when people didn't like TNG because it wasnt TOS or when said (sadly some still saying) that DS9 "is not star trek" etc. People always complained and will always complain. The only difference at current time is social media that blow everything out of proportion.
Personally DS9 will always be my thing but I really loved STD S2 (and still hating S1!), I enjoyed the Kelvin timeline movies but I don't love them like TOS/TNG era movies. What I mean is everyone can find something to love in Star Trek so stop that stupid hatred people! Watch what you want and like but stop hating if someone else likes and love something else. At the end of the day *Star Trek is supposed to teach us tolerance!*
the jj films are objects a derision by fans because they were made by a person who admittedly didn't know or even like trek, so how could ANYTHING he turned out be good trek. good movies yes but not good trek. alex K is the same way he was only familiar with bad trek going in having worked for jj. so how can you expect him to come up with anything the even approaches good trek.
i actually think if STD were a show more like the orville an homage to trek but not trek there would have fewer to no haters.
That tolerance has to apply to differing viewpoints too though, and being able to discuss things people like AND dislike without off-hand dismissal or judgement. Being a fellow DS9 fan, I'm sure you calmly explained what you enjoyed about it to people who didn't like it at the time, rather than labeling them hateful for not liking it or talking about what they didn't like about it - at least that's the impression of you I got from your comment.
@@SheonEver I only loose my temper for racists other than that I'm cool. Anybody is free to belive and anjoy anything he/she wants :))
I got an advertisement before I could watch the video, and THEN, I got a mid-roll ad at EXACTLY 0:59. Yes, that’s right. FIFTY-NINE SECONDS. Like, WTF?
The downside of modern Trek creators making themselves open and available to the public is that the haters also have access to them. Remember like a decade ago all the online communities wanted people to use their real identities because the the thought was If that's really you out there you're going to be far less likely to say hateful things? Yeah, well oh boy were they wrong! I know of a couple of designers that either left or radically shifted to mostly private their social media accounts after being attacked by people who's names were right out there! And it's not like these were young people who didn't know better--these were grown ass adults!
Just because you think a ships' nacelles are too long that doesn't give you the right to hate speech and threats against people's families.
Hearing you say Beyond is one of your favourite Star Trek films made my heart sing because it's absolutely one of my favourites. Don't ask me to chose between it, First Contact and Undiscovered Country because I can't.
I've mentioned this before, but there are content creators out there who will actually lie and misrepresent these shows for the sole purpose of inflaming fan hatred and generating clicks. So while I'm not the biggest fan of Discovery, I have zero patience for anyone who says it "ruined Star Trek" or who blames all the world's problems on Alex Kurtzman and "SJWs". That is not constructive criticism, it's outrage farming.
I think you probably meant to say patience not patients, they are two very different things.
My reasons for not liking Kurtzman’s take on Trek are nerdy, not political!
Same. Please don't confuse people who simply dislike New Trek for plot/character/continuity reasons with idiots that complain about every woman and black person in fictional media.
Same 🙌
Madalin Grama I don’t care for a lot of his creative decisions. There’s no deeper sinister motive to it than that.
Madalin Grama any other thing sure o would just walk away but this is Star Trek! I loved it before CBS and Kurtzman came along. I will continue to love after their gone and have moved on to something else.
yes!
No, don't worship Janeway. Sisko is the greatest Captain of all time!
Actually do what you want. My favorite Captain will always be Benjamin Sisko but I can understand why others are favored. Just understand one thing. Sisko doesn't represent me in any way. I am a white man who thinks that the black captain is the best because he rose to the role and became more than he started out as. He suffered but recovered and saved the Alpha Quadrant. He was also the most interesting character. He was flawed and he did bad things for the right reasons but he also had heart. He even overcame his own prejudice and recommended Nog to Starfleet. So while he gave in to his dark side he also proved that one can overcome the darkness and when he does it gives hope that even with flaws, people can overcome them. At least that's the statement I get from his character.
@@jackolantiltin3938 and don't forget portrayed by Scott B. (Just woke up and I will butcher his name) Archer is a fine choice.
Janeway will always be the best at living up to the Prime Directive and Federation rules!
I got to the point where you said some people don’t see Star Trek as political and that baffles me. Not because Star Trek specifically but due to genre. I have always thought of sci-fi as a political genre, and have seen it defined that way specifically. I find it insane that, even though everything is political, people don’t see it in a genre where that is part of its intentional seasoning.
Science Fiction has always been political. It has been a reflection of society. Frankenstein questioned whether just because technology can do something, should it? War of the World's showed that military might alone can't beat mankind. 1984 has obvious meanings.
I'm torn (as usual) on this subject.
I've got ZERO problems with anyone who doesn't like Modern Trek that have REAL critiques like slow pacing in one part of a season, a particular character not really been allowed a lot of growth or grounded enough, dislodging of canon etc, those people should ABSOLUTELY be welcomed.
It's only the Incel-ish, gate-keeping, Anti-SJW/Anti-Woke "fans" that i take issue with, and a lot of what they have to say comes from a blatantly (and almost pridefully) ignorant, spiteful, (sometimes) highly homophobic/transphobic and hateful frame of mind. The kind of people who complain about how Trek has now become too progressive and woke and believe that it has never been that way but clearly has since !966, problem is that they don't (or downright refuse) to realize the social commentary of Trek changes with the times.
This hate toward modern Star Trek is disturbingly like the hate directed toward "The Last Jedi:" same complaints disguised as criticisms, same comments, same vitriol and the same undertone of "the old stuff was better," followed by a lack of understanding of said old stuff beyond a superficial layer.
I still remember hearing all of the complaints about how "Discovery" is "SJW Star Trek" and thinking "clearly, you've never watched 'Star Trek.' Fix that problem and watch 'Let That Be Your Last Battlefield' and then tell me how they ruined Star Trek by making it SJW." Yeah, there are other episodes, but that one seemed to go out of its way to make the metaphor blatantly obvious.
This hate is like the Last Jedi because the hate comes from the same mentality and source, the Fandom Menace and the likes of GamerGate. People who are upset that “their spaces” are being invaded by unintelligent mainstream newbies. It is driven by a fear of growth and change, and most especially a childish insecurity over losing control, over their fave franchises outgrowing them and exploring new things.
Weirdly I liked the last jedi because it felt more star treky and dislike Kurtzmans trek because it feels starwarsy.
Oh, you don't need to get political to dislike the last jedi - the characters were *equally* unlikable and undeveloped, and the mary sue archetype looong predates present day identity politics(and isn't universally disliked, like nausicaa of the valley of the wind).
This is the thing that kills me here... I'm tepid on the new Trek series (plural) and aggressively disliked TLJ, but not for any of the progressive themes or choices, I *like* those themes and choices, and they are very much at home in both franchises - I just don't like the way either is/was done.
For Discovery (to focus on the "main" show), I enjoy watching the show as a sci-fi action show, but the writing is, well, as shallow as your average sci-fi action show. At no point in either season have I felt like the show makes me think about something in a different way, or even really think at all. The dilemmas are there to move the action along, not the other way around. It also bugs me that the science included is equally shallow, and is generally completely detached from real science in a way that the old series tried to avoid. With the old series, you can look into some of the science they touched on, and even though they obviously stretched that science for fiction, it had some basis in reality. The old shows felt like they were made for the people who liked science, the new shows feel like they're just made for people who have heard the word science before.
I don't remember TLJ very well because I honestly lost interest in it very early into watching it. There was no suspension of disbelief at any point because the plot devices were so transparent and abrasive. It felt like every character was competing on who could do the least intelligent thing in every situation. At no point did anybody seem to make a reasonable decision in that story. I haven't seen writing that bad since Battlefield Earth. I don't care who was what color or what gender, nor do I care which expectations were subverted except for my one expectation that somebody, at some point would do something not hilariously, just... stupid.
In both of these cases, I think there are very large and legitimate issues that are mostly ignored because some racist, sexist, abrasive jerks have decided they hate it for their own reasons, which somehow invalidates any legitimate criticism anyone outside their group may have. I've tried to express my problems with both franchises, only to be met with arguments against things I was not saying because I was assumed to be one of those people, and I don't like that at all. I *want* to see underrepresented people elevated. I *want* to see injustice highlighted. I *love* when a story goes somewhere I never expected. I just want all of that to be done well, intelligently, and in a way that *feels*, for lack of a better word, like it belongs in its respective franchise. To that point, I will say, the newer SW stuff does at least feel like Star Wars, even if it's bad, but the new ST stuff really just feels incredibly generic, and like outright abuse of the intellectual property.
As someone who dislikes some modern Star Trek (but not all), let me say thank you. I don't feel like there's a space for me. I'm told I must either like everything new or hate everything new. It's frustrating and alienating.
Let me add, I found your channel recently and I've really enjoyed your content.
I cant say i love or hate CBS-Trek. For instance, i love the characters on Discovery; Saru is probably one of my favorite trek characters of all time now. Its just the story-lines aren't blowing me away. It kinda rubbed me the wrong way that both Disco season 2 and Picard season 1 ended with taking out some big A.I. Lower Decks hasn't made me laugh once, however i have fun just watching these little half hour adventures. For me personally, i dont think anything will ever de-throne TOS and TNG. But then thats the Trek i grew up on in the 80s.
The 2nd season had a nonsensical storyline
I totally agree with what you said as i feel the same way!
I think that AI being used in DSC/PIC storylines is because that it's one of the biggest issues in science today - back in TOS and even most of the TNG era it was almost fantasy, now it's almost an imminent reality
@@SC-mq1eh well, to be fair, TOS covered that quite a bit as well. How many times did Kirk outsmart a computer, making it destroy itself?
@@indianatrekker26
I'd argue that it's pretty much fantasy to take down AI as easily as kirk did or that a sentient Android would be outsmarted by finger cuffs -
I just really wish Discovery had been set 20 years after Voyager. Had a lighter tone to it. had a cast who liked each other. Had familiar-looking style and technology and uniforms more in Trek's tradition. What's that, I'm describing Lower Decks? I had no idea!
Dunno if I qualify as a hater, but never managed to muster interest in Discovery because of the poor plot design, phoned in character archetypes, and all the holes in the narrative.
It just didn't capture the concept of Trek as a universe for me. Thing with the old shows was that I could sit there and be critical about the entirety of the episode, that was a sort of purpose of their design in part with them always exploring perspectives. Discovery just didn't really do that in the same manner with it's push for a more railroaded narrative. Lead to problems in the end for me because they had to use several shark jumps already at the end of season 2 to solve the Control situation they'd built.
Honestly, the thing I love most about Trek is that ALL the shows are different. Old Trek, New Trek, Original Trek, and even each show within all the erras, are very different, and all have strengths and weaknesses in their own right. Star Trek itself is as diverse as it encourages its community to be, and that's why it's a franchise that has endured for more than 50 years.
My favorite Trek is TOS. And yes, I _know_ that it is horribly tainted by what was ubiquitous at the time, bit it _did try_ to move us forward. But more than that, it was a work of philosophical fiction at a level that (to my knowledge) never was seen on TV before or since.
To do something like that _today_ would require a complete canon reboot. And no, I do not just mean an alternate timeline. I mean a COMPLETE canon reboot in which NOTHING from before (including the original series) would be canon by default.
Why would such a complete canon reboot be needed? Because there are way too many things that were very progressive for the 1960s but are still just plain behind the times for the 2020s.
I think you hit the D-7 with the photon torpedo there...if you step back and look at them, every iteration/series of Trek is a product of its time (TAS is probably the oddball there), and showcases the good and bad of its particular era of creation.
You also can clearly see the various steps and choices that were taken in each series to promote what the series execs thought audiences wanted vs. what made for good storytelling.
You don't necessarily need to watch every Trek series and movie (since that's hundreds of hours of viewing), but feeding the current era's hate machine because someone likes something you don't is a good way to drive yourself, and everyone coming in contact with you, insane.
I know you were a person with excellent taste!!! DS9 has always been a favorite of mine since childhood and Enterprise grew on me!!! I've actually have used your views with some of my friends who have had a very narrow view about modern star trek. You and Steve Shives have been the voice of reason with Star Trek!!
I'm someone that appreciates both classic and modern Star Trek. There is room for everyone, because it's an inclusive environment, in the franchise fandom.
Totally agree with your sentiments. There is stuff that I don't like about some of the new Trek shows. However, I reject the pointless efforts of those who simply want to tear down modern Trek. I also have no time for those who are so arrogant and presumptuous to think that they can define what Trek is supposed to be and demand that everyone else must fall in line.
I've never had a problem with people that don't like modern Trek, I do have a problem with those that are adversarial about it, that call it "not Star Trek", those that spread baseless rumours about cancellations or firings, generally just toxicity. Not liking something is fine, normal even, but using that dislike to try and poison other people's enjoyment is wrong
Yeah, I'm fine with normal, basic criticisms, but some times the hyperbole of "DISCOVERY is killing CBS! LOWER DECKS WORST THING EVER!" Like, no, you might not like newer Trek, but all these ultra-upset Trek videos about how it's the worst... no. I've seen THE WORST of Trek. Discovery S1 may have flaws, but at no point did I feel absolutely icky like TNG S1E3 "Code of Honor". Now that was an episode where I could point at it and be like... "That, that's bad Trek. Disco/Kelvin-U/LowerDecks might not live up to your standards you set forward, but none of them went straight to Code of Honor levels of bad." If you like S1 TNG, more power to you. I have one of my favorite episodes "Conspiracy" in that season, but I'd rather watch so much more new Trek than the bland that was S1 TNG. But hey, that's just how I feel about it. And I'm glad folks might listen to that here.
But seriously, I love "Conspiracy" a lot. It's a shame nothing every came of such a unique concept (outside of being some plot material for Star Trek Online, which was actually nice to see it get some acknowledgement).
Janeway in “Scientific Method”: YOU CAN’T KILL MY CREW - THAT’S MY JOB!
I worship Janeway as a reckless agent of chaos
I've been a fan of Star Trek all my life and I don't hate the new Trek but imo it just doesn't really fit with the original ideals of tbe franchise. If Discovery or Picard were just a generic scifi series, I could probably enjoy it on its own merits.
These are my feelings exactly. They're more akin to current TV tropes wrapped in Star Trek-esque guises than what Star Trek is to me. Star Trek began by standing out. Now, they're falling in line with what's hip.
DS9 is both my favorite and the best Trek qualitatively in my opinion. And I think part of what makes it so good, is that from the jump they weren't trying to be any other Trek, they decided, this is going to be a show with nuanced characters, and serious questions about the philosophy of the Federation. And Trek is at its best when they are trying something different. TNG didn't find it's footing until it stopped trying to ape TOS and did it's own thing, Enterprise didn't get good until the Xzinti arc, again when they stopped trying to ape TNG and TOS. And Voyager never got to be consistently good because they kept trying to be TNG in a different quadrant. Imagine Voyager could have been BSG reimagined before BSG, if only they stuck to the plot of the pilot. So Trek is at it's best when it explored contemporary issues using different story telling techniques which is why I don't understand when people say things like "it doesn't feel like Trek" What exactly does Trek feel like, because all those shows felt very unique at their best.
You know, maybe hating is not so much an issue as The Haters. 🤷🏽♀️
Again, you really hit the nail on the head with your points, Jessie. It’s always a delight to hear profound arguements in this age of cancel culture and haters hating like it’s an olympic sport.
i cant stand how everything gets so polarizing. it drives me crazy. if you like things being polarized then you can just....
Completely agree! I've been saying this for so long. It's so sad that anger is what gets you through the algorithm. You are a cut above the rest, keep your content coming!
I'm one of those weirdos who loves both classic Trek and new Trek. There's something I can find to enjoy in all of the series and all of the movies. I cherish those bits that I enjoy. I love them. It's a lot of fun.
I get bummed out by everyone who craps all over any of the shows. I'm fine with criticisms. There's plenty you can find to improve in any of the shows. But the hate really gets to me too.
A friend of mine who has not been a big fan of Trek recently watched Picard and Disco because he ran out of things to watch because of the lockdown. He really liked them and is getting into a lot more Trek now. I think that's great.
Anyway, I'm done rambling. Love your videos!
I'm another fan who loves both classic Trek and new Trek. Am I a weirdo too? Well, I suppose that's unavoidable, being a Ravenclaw. (Remember Luna Lovegood?) 😆😆😆😆🖖
Another of those weirdos over here! I started watching in TNG, but even the shows I didn't care for as much (DS9, at the time, though I have more appreciation for it now), I could find things I liked. I really got my Trek-love going first with Voyager, then with the Reboot-verse, though...and I'm just reminded constantly of people nitpicking Reboot-verse to death because it wasn't how Trek worked, etc., while I was just excited to see things that called back to what I knew of TOS. Same thing when I watched Discovery and Picard: I could see the call-backs, see all the things that were being set up by things going on in Disco, all the things from TNG that built into Picard...I even loved Picard hearkening back to the events that sparked the Reboot-verse. My fiance and I, once we'd exhausted Disco and Picard, sat down and watched the entirety of TOS, and it actually made me so happy to see the links, the call-backs, the worldbuilding that started there, and made its way throughout all the later series, plus all the great character dynamics and things that set the stage for what would come. It's all connected, it all recognizes what came before, but adapts to a new concept, a growing and changing Federation. It's not a static universe, and that's what's great.
A fourth has appeared!!!😀. Discovery was my first. Enjoying the third season and DS9 at mo
Jessie, I appreciate your intellectually honest message of how people with different opinions can come together and grow from diversity, as opposed to feeling personally threatened and lashing out as a way to validate one's self-esteem.
I wholeheartedly agree with the message of this video. I think it applies to all fandoms and not just Star Trek.
Unfortunately,, as you say, the algorithm rewards rage-clickbait and controversy over calm and intelligent exchange of ideas.
Also, I love the passion Star Trek fans have for Star Trek. It sounds like the kind of series that I should enjoy, based on what it's about. But I never really got into it. (Tried starting with Discovery. Perhaps that's the problem?)
I detest modern Trek, but love your channel! People who cannot tolerate other opinions are part of why things are so tense these days.
For me. It is unfair, impossible, and unrealistic for newer trek to give me the same awe, wonder and brilliance of the original series. Even Next Generation had some episodes that had people calling me a hater. I fell in love with DS9 with the episode Duet. It was one of the best bottle episodes I can remember.
I wonder what has happened to me as I’ve gotten older that I don’t have the same desire to rewatch Discovery, with the same passion as the other treks.
Lower Decks has come the closest to bringing me that joy again.
Lower Decks brings a joyfulness to the idea that you don’t have to be at the top of the ladder. That your life matters where you are.
I appreciate what you bring to the table. I love your joy for the shows. You are right. The show gives the opportunity to accept and value others.
Well, let us be clear: Critic is always good thing. It helps to improve. But these people making hateful "toxic" videos don't do it because of it. This is another aspect of modern day populism, more rooted in politics. Being so loud (without real critics), like they are, is easier way to get more audience. Spreading hate and intolerance cannot be the Star Trek way. It is like this what fundamentalists do with religion. For them is dogma more important than true faith.
I mostly ignore such people, but actually they are dangerous. Toxic is always dangerous. This their thing for me is like they are "right wing Star Trek fans", what is alone itself contradictory. Star Trek is political. It was and will always be. How can it be progressive if it's cemented in time? TOS was good for its time. But let us be honest. How it treated women, it can be considered sexist. And better not to say how it ignored LGBT and other minorities. I understand that they done so much they could (G. Takei said much about it on Star Trek day - who didn't has to watch/listen it), but as then so today Star Trek has to be with its time (time when it is created) and to speak about modern issues.
Esthetics too - I don't know what's the problem about more modern panels and interfaces (like holographic, for example) and many other things being modernized. Do we have to keep ridiculous old fashion buttons and gauges from sixties, when we today have more sophisticated tech? Didn't they ask themselves why was Enterprise retrofitted for TOS movies? Maybe because of those things I said.
And I don't get how anybody can hate Mike McMahan... I can understand when people say "cartoon is not my thing". But hate him or what this nice man does is not possible if you are Star Trek fan.
So, these people are just exploiting some other people nostalgic memories from past, and are more loud - like adolescent bullies.
Thankfully we have people like you, and some other.
Sry. for my poor English... But I think (hope) it is understandable.
Thank you, so true! That’s where I think the issue is, saying ST is too “woke” or SJW just makes that opinion sound out of date with the times and sounds like they can’t accept change, that is ironically against the concept of ST, it’s meant to be about the future and projecting a mature, advanced civilisation.
I now completely avoid the "moden Trek hater" channels. I did watch some when they would complain that Discovery and Picard were two dark in tone, but when they all start complaining Lower Deck for being "too comedic", I realized that they would never be happy with any form of new Star Trek.
I dislike almost all Trek I've seen since Enterprise (hell, I'm not too impressed with it either) for a bunch of reasons but one of the main ones is that it's not progressive enough. Crowing about having gay characters in Disco annoyed me because it's like wanting praise for doing something Trek shoulda done decades ago, real progressive courage for today would have been to put a trans character or a Muslim on the bridge. It also feels much more Human and in particular American-centric than most of the earlier shows. DS9 had 2 humans in the main crew, Disco has 1 alien (and an alien pretending to be human ) and all the humans seem to be American. Feels like a step back from the universality that earlier Trek tried (sometimes ham-fistedly) to do.
@GozerTheTraveller I'm beyond baffled that apparently no-one stopped to think 'hmmm' what if we painted Jarati purple and made her a Violacean? Or what if Lorca was a Denobulan? But that'd make the show less human-centric and for some reason that's not cool right now :(
"DS9 had 2 humans in the main crew, Disco has 1 alien"
Remember, Discovery is set in the same Starfleet as TOS, not DS9; how many aliens were there on the original Enterprise, or on any ship we ever saw in TOS? It's not a decision I agree with, but the logic is clear; Starfleet at the time was overwhelmingly human.
"and all the humans seem to be American"
Philippa Georgiou was/is Malaysian, Keyla Detmer is German, Bryce is Welsh and Nhan isn't human, she's Barzan. There are also the characters whose nationalities are thus far unconfirmed, but whose actors are of Nigerian (Owosekun), Puerto Rican (Dr. Culber), Sino-Mauritian (Rhys) or Indian (Landry) descent. There may very well be more non-American humans in the show than there are Americans; the only ones we know for fact are American are Lorca and Pike.
@@CorvusBelli01 no, not at all. if it was the same starfleet as TOS, it would look more like it though.
I dislike the modern Star Trek, but I'm not hostile toward it. I gave it a chance, but it's not for me. Anyone that likes it that's their prerogative. Although I heavily debate Trek, I will never be condescending, antagonistic or in anyway be disparaging towards other Trekkies. That's just stepping over the line of decorum and respecting other opines.
Picard's thought provoking speech in The Drumhead, speaks volumes to this very issue and not with just Star Trek:
You know, there some words I've known since I was a school boy. With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
Hear me out, I admit that if I were in charge of Discovery, it would’ve been set it after Nemesis to avoid ruining canon, the mutated Klingons would’ve been rewritten a been a completely new species, Lorca would’ve just been a guy with PTSD, Ash Tyler wouldn’t be a converted Klingon and Burnham would’ve been more interesting and I also admit I don’t like Alex Kurtzman, but do I blindly agree with everything the fandom menace says, hell no, for one thing, despite what the fandom menace says, I actually loved Lower Decks, I sometimes might even consider it a replacement for Discovery in my eyes, at least Mike McMahan knows what he’s doing, I actually liked that they got the look of the Klingons right, I actually liked the design of the Cerritos and I like to think of Mariner as a better version of Burnham in some ways, all I’m saying, don’t let the fandom menace ruin your love of Star Trek, just watch it for yourself and have your own opinions.
See I would have watched and enjoyed that show! I wish they hired people like you to write Discovery and not writers who's previous experience was writting for the Gilmore Girls! I really did not enjoy Season 1 and 2 but now that S3 is in the future I'm much more open to accepting whatever they come up with!
Marco Davinci it is always easy to fix what went wrong after the fact than come up with characters and stories from scratch. I think more fans and more writers should understand that concept.
"...got the look of the Klingons right," There is no 'right' there's only the creative interpretation by the designers and rest of the crew working on the intellectual property called Star Trek. If they decided that Klingons weren't actually Klingons at all but a puppet race for an even bigger bad called Klingons (this is an actual idea from Gene Roddenberry) they can do that and that's what Star Trek would be because they are the creators and we are not.And those DSC Klingon designs came directly from not only concept art from Star Trek The Motion Picture but ideas that Gene and Dorthy discussed for Star Trek: The Animated Series. Had they the time and budget, but mostly time, we could have seen radically different Klingons (compared to TOS) as far back as 1973. So you don't have to like the creative choice, there are plenty over the years I haven't liked, but you do have to acknowledge that as creators they have the right to change it to whatever they want. We're not watching historical documents 😉
@MGazT Entirely is a bit hyperbolic. Doing research for my TAS book I found that they used a lot of the references I did. They also have a pretty stringent vetting process so if it's on Memory Alpha odds are it's at least the agreed upon facts. Doesn't mean they can't be boring, but the great thing is they admit it and change their entires.
@@GeekFilter As I recall, they've always at least had canon, setting-plausible explanations for changes to Klingons and other races, in addition to the simple "Well, we finally have the makeup and prosthetic tech to do all this stuff!" factor. Like, the Klingons in TOS didn't have their TNG brow ridges and such due to a plague that altered their physical traits, while the extreme look of the Discovery Klingons is due to their being from a different racial group who were never exposed to the viral agent, and came from different and more inhospitable parts of Q'onos. Thus the more extreme features. They've done similar to explain why some Romulans have the facial ridges and others don't (Northern Romulans do, Southern don't), and so on, which also takes great steps to not make alien races a single monoculture, but rather more like Earth, where humans are affected by where their ancestors originally lived.
Also, seeing as the whole "Klingon altered to appear physically and biologically human" was a thing in TOS (see "Trouble With Tribbles", where there's a spy revealed to be a similarly altered Klingon), why not set Discovery where it is--the peak of Klingon/Federation conflict--when they'd first be evolving that tactic, only for it to be presumed tossed by the wayside by the time we hit TOS, as the use of such sleeper agents had previously failed with Ash/Voq?
As someone who dislikes a vast majority of the modern Star Trek era I'm often asked by my best friend who loves modern Star Trek why I keep watching it if I hate it. It's because I want to like modern Trek. I want to keep watching because I might end up watching my new favourite episode of Star Trek that I keep coming back to.
Also we're getting the Captain Pike show that everyone wanted since Discovery season 2.
I love the content you produce on this channel Jessie and I'm always excited to see you review the latest episode of Star Trek, your reviews are always positive even if you didn't enjoy it all that much.
The funny thing for me is that the other ST shows like Next Generation were not that good when they started. The Next Generation was more an extension of the original series with different actors until the third season. Then they found their own footing and became their own show. The other shows did flounder for their first seasons. Enterprise was hitting its stride when it got cancelled and don't get me started on the final episode.
Discovery did not click with me but the reconstruction of the Federation sounds interesting.
It might be what makes Discovery its own show.
The hatred that some ST fans have for the new stuff has made me hate the term true fan. To me now "True Fan" means an A**hole snob that thinks their opinion matters more than everyone else and it is their job to spoil it for everyone else.
I can sum up the problem with discovery in one sentence: it's trying too hard to be cool. Trek is geeky! Trek isn't hip, Kurtzman and the new writers need to embrace the inherent geekiness of Star Trek.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 Thanks, that was funny! All hail geeky Trekkies!
@@Donnagata1409 until recently being a Trekkie was synonymous with being a geek.
@@Donnagata1409 They need to embrace the nerdy aspects of Star Trek.
I was looking up clips of Elnor on youtube (because he's my fav boy) and every time I clicked on the video there would be some comment from the same guy just saying how the show was stupid and everyone on it deserves to be fired. And it's really annoying and disheartening to see. It also sucks to go to clips from other shows and just see things like "This is real Star Trek. Not that modern crap." Like, forgetting that people watch these shows and enjoy them. I'm not saying that the shows are perfect (both have an issue with fleshing out the other characters because they overly focus on one) but so many people enjoy and like them. There's nothing wrong with that.
Also, DS9 is my fav, I don't think TNG is as good as everyone says it is, ENT deserves to get picked up for another season to at least do a better wrap up then what we were given.
I was there at the dawn of the fifth series of Star Trek. It began in 2001 with the broadcast of the "Enterprise" pilot "Broke Bow", located deep in UPN space. Ok, joke ends, but this is going to be long. I remember all the fuss, the critics, the haters on the forums and the IRC channels (no social media back then). There were many so-called "hardcore" fans who continually attacked, criticized, boycotted the series over the course of its four seasons.
The sentiment was very similar to what I'm witnessing today towards DSC, PIC, and LD, but in the absence of social media and RUclips, it was contained to tighter spaces. The criticism had less political polarization, but in other respects it was essentially identical. The concept of the prequel was frowned upon and obviously Berman and Braga were constantly accused of being rapists of the canon established by the previous series. I remember it like it was yesterday. Nitpicking was at full throttle: there was a lot of complaint about things like the not-so-disastrous first contact with the Klingons, the arrogant Vulcans (in truth, as they always had been), subspace comms, encounters with Ferengi, Borg and Romulans, technology too advanced compared to that of the Kirk era, etc.
Those reactions didn't change much with the sudden narrative turn of the 3rd season, namely the Xindi arc, and even the 4th season, usually considered a marked improvement, wasn't exempt from criticism, mainly because each episode was accused of serving only to correct or explain the alleged previous discontinuities (but I remember the joy of many at the fact that B&B stepped aside, giving the helm to Manny Coto). Other criticisms were more justified, e.g. those directed at some lazy writing. The decline in creativity, especially in the first seasons, was evident, with the plots of many episodes effortlessly recycled from previous series, and the "franchise fatigue" became evident with Nemesis. Enterprise, in the end, was abandoned by a lot of these fans (but many today will deny this) and got prematurely cancelled.
The world has changed a lot since then and, IMO, it's the socio-political angle that now poisons much of the current debate. I witness nonsense like "Fandom Menace", or conspiracy theories on supposed "liberal", "woke" "lgbt", "sjw" secret agendas, lol. Here on RUclips in particular this aspect is particularly bleak, that's true. I hear and read people saying that Star Trek was never political, that it should be an escape vehicle to a better future, not a vehicle for modern ideologies, commentary, etc. To me, however, these people seem to say something like: "we want Star Trek to be a perfect utopian future, but it must not contaminate or dare to disturb, or challenge, our present beliefs", even when it comes to racism, misoginy, xenophobia, inclusivity, perhaps revealing the intrinsic fears that some feel today towards our changing world and society.
Since the re-launch of Star Trek in 2017 with Discovery, for me it has been a bit like reliving again the same reactions I experienced during Enterprise. I personally have been able to appreciate what has been done so far; I don't deny I remained embittered by certain narrative and stylistic choices that in my opinion could have been avoided. But this doesn't mean I continually spit hatred against the characters, the actors, the authors or the production company and I'm able to appreciate some of the efforts made so far. Past experience has allowed me to be more understanding and tolerant, even when confronted with some aspect of the new shows that I may not like. I believe they are maturing and improving with each passing year. Discovery seems to be on the way to find its own identity; Picard was an interesting insight into the post-Nemesis era and Lower Decks literally surprised me, because despite the comic twist, it was able to give me back that feeling of the good episodic-Trek of old that maybe was still missing in modern Trek.
This is part of my viewpoint, and I already made it too long, sorry. I enjoyed the video :-)
Nowadays if you say you don’t care for the new Trek stuff people call you a Trump supporter! That is beyond cold! That’s a horrible thing to call anyone!
JJ Abrams made good sci-fi action movies, but he didn't make Star Trek movies. He made something else that killed Trek, cut off its face and wore it like a mask, whilst telling me it's Trek and I should love it but Like B'elanna I was horrified. And that trend continued in the shows that came after until this summer. Lower Decks is the most authenticly Trek new content we've gotten this millenium: It's hopeful, they go to planets, they encounter space mysteries, they use their phasers like multitools instead of exclusively as weapons, etc. I thought Trek was dead for good, that I would keep seeing its face worn by something despicable, but I'm getting real new trek again and I'm thrilled.
The best OG trek movies were basically revenge action films(TWOK & 1st Contact) - and no one told you luv modern trek -
JJ used an existing trek trope(alternate universes) to give us a what if/different take on existing characters - and maybe rewatch OG trek, 99% of the time, phasers were used as weapons
i love the vidiian reference.😅
@@SC-mq1eh your missing the point. what makes it different is that the action did not eclypse the story and instead inhanced it, by adding weight to the charactors actions. thats why there was violence in old trek/good trek. thats why wrathOK is the best of the ST movies.
I have no problem with hating modern Star Trek on qualitative grounds. I personally haven't liked much of Kurtzman era Trek, though I seem to have liked Picard more than most. What I don't understand, cannot understand, is people who claim to be Star Trek fans complaining that Star Trek has suddenly become SJW and virtue signalling. Star Trek has ALWAYS been SJW and virtue signalling. If you didn't notice that when you were a kid, maybe it's time for a binge and a reappraisal.
YASSS WORSHIP AT THE ALTER OF THE JANEWAY. But seriously, thanks for making this - I feel like there is little space for nuance discussion even within social justice oriented/feminist Trek spaces. Stan culture and the death of critical thinking at the alter of anti-intellectualism has really hurt fandom. So thanks for continuing to be a very needed voice against those tides. :).
My fave is also DS9. Enterprise...well I liked the mirror episodes.
Honestly, I think one of the things too many people forget and honestly 'get wrong' about fandom is this idea that the way you're a fan of a thing is the ONLY way to be a "TRUE FAN"tm of a thing.
All these things that have huge fandoms, like Trek, like Star Wars, like Marvel/DC or comics in general.
The reason these things are so popular, and have endured so long in many cases, is because they are multi-layered.
Because different people love the same thing for VASTLY different reasons.
I'm gonna not use Trek for this example but I think it holds as well.
Do you love Batman who is immensely anti-social and trusts no one and his only way of fighting crime is punching criminals in the face? Then you love Batman.
Do you love Batman who is compassionate and who believes in reform and uses Wayne Industries money to invest in communities and fight crime socially? Then you love Batman.
Both of those things ARE Batman, and you are a fan if you like either version or a mixture of the two, you're a fan of Batman.
You can absolutely love one specific facet of these things, but it doesn't mean the other facets don't exist, or that people who love those are wrong, or love the thing any less.
I do not understand why people who claim to be Sci Fi fans attack and even dox people who are producing or acting in Sci Fi shows they do not like, do they not realize that decreases the amount of people who want to work on Sci Fi shows and take risks on them.
A lot of Star Trek fans claim to want the Star Trek future, maybe to get there we should stop attacking each other.
Live Long And Prosper! 🖖
Favourite shows DS9 and ENT. I knew I loved you.
ENT? I respect everyone.
This is definitely a video that needed to be made.
As someone who grew up with Star Trek and, like you, got a lot of my values and beliefs from it, I was super excited when discovery was announced. But after a few episodes I just wasn't getting into it and made a lot of the arguments that have since become common about it (dark, tone, continuity) and yeah I turned into a bit of a new-trek hater. But the tone and language used by other new-trek critics, especially on RUclips always rubbed me up the wrong way, and then I came across your channel talking about Discovery's Captain Pike. You encouraged me to go back and start watching season 2, and while I didn't love it (still haven't finished it) I thought it was alright.
I'm not really too interested in Picard, and can't watch Lower Decks cause I live in the UK. But I am looking forward to seeing Lower Decks, I'm excited for Strange New Worlds, I'm even wanting to watch Season 3 of Discovery.
I know it might sound silly, but thank you. Your channel and the level headed, positive way you look at things really helped me rediscover a show that still means a lot to me. LLAP
I definitely do not like Discovery. However, I have never had a low opinion of people who do like Discovery, again, subjectivity and opinions at play. I am simply satisfied that I know why I don't like Discovery and the reasons are far too long and complex to place in a comment here.
I do want to address the most common complaints since my mindset deviates from the 'standard hater'.
1) The only part I agree with is that I really don't believe Discovery follows any sort of established Star Trek canon. Trying to fit Discovery into the canon makes my head pulsate in pain (so I just gave up doing this after a few eps).
2) A lot of people complained about Sonequa Martin Green for some reason. I don't get this. She is a captivating presence and a great choice for a leading lady...I just wish she had some better lines.
3) Sooo many complaints on the obvious commentary on Trump's policies. I never had a problem with this. An artist should have the freedom to explore whatever topic they wish and make whatever argument they passionately believe in. My personal problem is that using Klingons as this stand-in allegory for (at the time) isolationist American policies made absolutely no sense. They revel in wars and conquering planets and expanding their Empire. If I were to write the same plot, I would have made Andorians the initial enemies, just for that shock factor. Hell, maybe even the Xindi - retracting their bases of operations until the 25th Century. Would explain their 23rd and 24th Century disappearance!
4) Accusing Michael Burnham of being a Mary Sue. Obviously impossible if almost every single person in season 1 hated her. This ended up making the show less engaging, unfortunately.
I also agree with you: Star Trek Beyond is a fantastic movie.
I really appreciate your insights and thoughtful videos. The Renegade Cut channel you mentioned did an excellent video on tribalism with fandom and Trek is no exception. Whatever criticism someone has I think it's important to realize that all opinions are personal. And I think it needs to be said more that the more original Trek is, the better the series. Constantly trying to fit into "canon" or re-tell stories with the same characters over and over is a disservice all around. Janeway, Sisko, and even Archer all had unique arcs and circumstances that made their characters memorable. But as you pointed out with Into Darkness and the final act falling flat, rehashing stories that were told and acted incredibly won't please anyone or add anything of real value
Star trek has been a big part of my life and I wouldn't be able to share it with my best friend if it wasn't for Lower decks.
While I enjoyed Discovery as modern Sci-Fi, It still does not feel like Trek to me because I don't see any organization in it that show the goal - what we can be as opposed to what we are. I am GLAD some people love it because the more Trek the better for everyone. IDIC people, live IDIC and accept the differences.
I think it’s important to delineate that there is a difference to criticizing showrunners and runners for THEIR WORK and attacking who they are AS A PERSON.
It is completely fair to say you don’t consider Alex Kurtzman a good writer or a good showrunner, you can debate his work and have judgments on that. But it is not okay to attack a person simply over you not liking what they wrote or created for entertainment, and call that person trash or idiot or killer or straight up making lies or wish harm upon them. No content creator is doing their jobs to actively or purposefully upset you.
Question a writer’s story, debate it, analyze it, love it, or hate it. That’s all part of consuming entertainment. But spewing vitriol at a creator personally, attacking their beliefs or honor or dignity, calling them liars and destroyers, that’s just not okay.
The numerous amount of times that I can find hate messages even under a simple birthday post for Alex Kurtzman is just sad. Even if you don’t like Kurtzman as a writer, surely it is still reasonable and expected to treat another human being with basic respect.
I’ve not seen discovery, Or Picard. Because they are not on the streaming services I pay for, I don’t pirate anymore because I am lazy. I would binge them instantly if they were on what I pay for.
What I like the most about your videos is that even when you do not like something, you never ever rant on it. You are always very civilized and explain what you opinion is base on. Please continue.
Thank you for sharing this in such an eloquent way! As someone who is pretty lukewarm toward Discovery (at least the first season, mostly for plot I thought was nonsensical reasons), I've always felt welcome and able to engage in your content without feeling the least bit defensive!
I hate modern Star Trek, but I don't WANT to hate modern Star Trek. And there are few things I have more contempt for than those "hater" youtubers who are pure scum. Despite (shudder) agreeing with some of their opinions in the broadest sense, I feel more more affinity and connection to people like you or Ketwolski or Shives who, despite liking what I consider to be lousy trek, are at least good, decent people who are opened minded and positive and not trash human beings and have legitimate affection for the material.
Just as you write that you do have SOME criticisms about modern Trek, I agree that there are some things I also like about modern Trek and give it credit for, while disliking so much of it.
And it's not a blanket opinion. I approach each new iteration of Trek with an open mind. I'm hopeful, no matter how many times I've been burned. I really WANT to like Star Trek.
For the Abrams films, I'll say that "Star Trek" was a mixed bag. The first half of the movie is great, the second half lousy. But the cast is amazing and there are some thrilling moments in it.
ST: ID is pure trash. "Beyond" is decent. Not amazing, like many claim, but at least competent.
I don't like Discovery as a whole, but there have been individual episodes I liked and characters that I like. I like Saru, Stammets, Jet Reno, Tilly, Culber. But I don't really like Burnham and I think Empress Georgiou is arguably the worst character in Trek history.
I think Picard was a stunning disappointment. And, as for "lower decks"....well, I think the show itself is ho hum, but there have been a few episodes that I found enjoyable (and a few I found terrible.)
In any event, while it's fair to say that the majority of "Modern" Trek has left me cold, there's nothing I'd like more than to actually enjoy the franchise again. Hope springs eternal....
I don't judge those who hate modern "Star Trek" by a long shot. I used to, but not anymore, and I do apologize to those who hate modern "Star Trek." After all, I know that I'm a believer in treating people the way I want to be treated. Despite "Prodigy" being my #1 current "Star Trek" show, I'm looking forward to season three of "Picard." My #1 golden-age "Star Trek" show is also my #1 *overall* "Star Trek" show: "The Next Generation."
Well said. Like you, I have my issues with some of Trek. Not just the new stuff, but the old stuff too. It's fine to have opposing opinions. It's not fine to get vehemently ragey about it. The moment someone starts ranting, they've lost the argument, IMO.
Hey there. I like Sonequa Martin-Green as a person and as an actor. I like her Walking Dead performance and she seems like a lovely person in interviews. I don't like the character of Michael Burnham though. And Discovery is basically the Burnham show, so it's not my favorite.
If Saru or Georgiou were the main characters or if Sonequa Martin-Green played a more emotive character I would probably like the show more. I'll watch S3 when it comes out, maybe the character will grow on me.
I have been an obsessive Trek-lover since I was 8 years old. I am one of those people who can name episode titles from a brief description and know the race of an alien seen in the background for 2 seconds. And I know that if I were to be the creator/showrunner of a Trek series, gate-keepers would respond by saying I didn't know anything about Trek and had never watched the previous series.
Oh thank you so much for finally getting this out there... It's a problem that runs deeper than just star trek though...I'm so sick of the channels and random 'fans' who just crowd and masterbate over the negative 'shock' titles that get inflated for views and clicks..
I don't really care for new trek, just not liking parts or the current direction the shows are being lead. That being said, I always love Jesse videos. You can still enjoy talking nerdy trek stuff even about the stuff you don't love. #positiveenergy
I don't hate modern Trek. I remember when Patrick Stewart was announced as TNG's captain. I took one look at a bald, middle-aged man and in one second it was obvious that the writers were going for the anti-Kirk. There would likely be no personal fight scenes like we saw between Kirk and Finnegan. No hot green alien babes for Picard to get involved with. Poor personal charisma vs. Kirk. And then I tried to watch one episode of TNG and everything I feared was confirmed. So be it. But I didn't hate it. I just didn't like it so I didn't watch TNG
and also didn't judge those who did love TNG.
Imagine a bald, middle-age Patrick Stewart being cast as the next James Bond while Sean Connery was still in his prime. That is how ridiculous the casting of Patrick Stewart was to me to sit in the captain's chair.
That said, I am grateful to those who did like Patrick Stewart. Obviously I was in the minority of opinion and it had a great long run. And other Treks were spawned making Trek more popular.
So I salute those whose opinions differed from mine and without whom Star Trek would have never flourished like it has.
Connery was bald when he was Bond.
@@LaurenceQuint When Connery was playing Bond, was he bald on camera like Stewart was on TNG? And was Shatner bald on camera when he played Kirk?
@@Chuck_Hooks The point is that you disliking Picard based on the baldness of the actor is insanely stupid.
@@LaurenceQuint Let me help you genius. Much has been made of Shatner's toupee that was used when he filmed TOS. Why was so much effort put into making a balding (in real life) Shatner look like he had a full, youthful natural head of hair in front of the camera?
Because the Kirk character was written in such a way that he had a large number of former loves and was always open to the possibility of new YOUNG babes, alien or not.
And like it or not, a youthful, full head of hair generally makes a man look more attractive and youthful especially to young women.
I suspect this is still hard for you to understand so let's try it this way. One of the best TOS episodes everyone agrees was City on the Edge of Forever. Imagine a bald, middle-aged Patrick Stewart falling in love with a YOUNG, insanely gorgeous Joan Collins. Stewart would look like her father and creep everyone out trying to woo her. Understand yet?
Well, maybe it wouldn't creep YOU out.
@MGazT Well said. Very interesting take.
One of the reasons Shatner as Kirk was so compelling and added so much to TOS was the fact that his youth and leading-man good looks were in and of themselves great assets in creating fascinating stories with lots of extra layers of intrigue and tension.
In City on the Edge of Forever, the story is possible ONLY because two very good looking YOUNG people meet. Kirk falls in love with Edith (stunningly beautiful Joan Collins).
It is Kirk's youth, good looks and full head of hair that makes Edith's attraction to him believable and therefore makes one of best TOS episodes such a great drama with that gut-punch of an emotional ending.
Imagine instead a bald, middle-age Patrick Stewart in this role with Joan Collins. Whether we admit it or not, it would be creepy since he would look like her father and his falling in love with her would look gross and her attraction to him would be totally unbelievable.
Therefore, it is obvious that Patrick Stewart could have never played this role in one of the great iconic Star Trek episodes.
That is why casting Patrick Stewart was such a disappointment to me and turned me off to modern Trek from the start. One look at him told me there could never be any amazing romantic episodes like City on the Edge of Forever. And that is what I wanted out of TNG.
I love your message here, this is really important message. I wish our politicians were able to build bridges like you are advocating. IDIC, respecting one another, sharing ideas, its important. Love you, Jessie!
The one thing I hate is people comparing modern trek to different unrelated series. For example, people compare ST:LD to Orville, even though they are not exactly related. Here is the thing, Orville is good because it has a few things required. It needed to not be in Star Trek, as half to all their jokes are based upon not being in trek, so comparing Lower Decks to something that has more freedom in jokes and aspects is wrong. To add on, Lower Decks has far more limitations, like a philosophy and set rules they must follow, limiting their potential. Also, comparing it to fan films is wrong. Fan films have even more luxury than actual Trek. They have less stress and criticism as they are not really a part of trek, nor canon, or made by something made by the company owning it. Because of this, they will not have as much hate, but the Trek they compare it with has to follow everything, like rules, philosophy, and really the fans expectations. Comparing is just wrong, as no subject is similar to another unless it was plagiarized. In my opinion, I didn't fully like Discovery, but I liked Picard, and I am loving everything about Star Trek Lower Decks, I just see that comparing is just, unfair as the subjects they compare it to have more limitations. The hate, is most the time dumb. I feel bad for the people pouring their heart and life into these Treks and having people demolish and destroy their hard work.
Great video. I really appreciate your approach to it. Unfortunately, I feel a tad targeted in this video, but understand where you're coming from. I think the best way to address those like me or even worse is to simply state that Trek isn't going to rinse or repeat itself. Times have changed. Trek has with it. This includes the special effects as well as story telling. Certain elements I'm on board with. People who also defend need to also realize that people like me don't go into any Trek to hate. If you do, you have an issue. I was as excited for Discovery and Picard as anyone. As for some of the click bait. I think every RUclipsr is victim to this. People don't like it, but it also gets people to interact. Fact of the matter is, very rarely do people click on videos that is Star Trek Review. Not unless you have a base. Regardless, rant aside, always love your insight and perspective.
❤️❤️❤️❤️ you are a wonderful human and show exactly how we can all be critical, not always positive on something, but still not be destructive.
@@JessieGender1 I am working to find a better balance on it. Too many channels are negative. I know of quite a few, in particular to new Trek. Unfortunately, most of the issues aren't the actual narrative but rather the politics. It's a mess. All I (or we) can do is be positive. Especially with Trek
I don't mind Discovery. There's a few things I like and a lot I dislike. But if people hate it so badly then just skip it. There's plenty of other ST options to watch or rewatch. It's not "ruining" anything 😂 and for the newer movies, I mean the first two were pretty good.
If you don't see how the new Trek shows are ruining the over all franchise then you don't get it and miss the whole point of Trek
ParagonRex that or you just don’t like it and it doesn’t mean you’re a bad person for not liking it.
@Madalin Grama I have no idea what all that word salad is suppose to represent but, nevertheless, if you like new Trek, then you don't like true Trek, brigade that.
@@trekjudas That could be true as well. I will not deny it, but I grew up on all the original Trek shows before Abrams ruined it and die hard Trekkers detest new Trek because it misses the whole point of what Roddenberry was doing. For all you new "Trek" fans, Roddenberry is the guy who wrote the shows and movies.
Should I watch discovery or enterprise first ???
There is a number of things which could be said about why contemporary Star Trek -- which is more correctly postmodern Trek than modern Trek -- is hated by so many Trek fans. I don't think the comparison to the resistance to TNG in 1987 is fair; both TNG and TOS (and TAS) were a realisation of Gene Roddenberry's vision because he was literally producing them. Like them or not, it's a fact that Abrams Trek and Kurtzman Trek are not Roddenberry's vision. Much like DS9 S1-2 is different from DS9 S3-7, or TNG S6 is different from S7. Different showrunners have different imaginations (or none).
In my view, every Trek series or movie created after Roddenberry died is progressively worse, with the notable exception of Enterprise Season 4, which included the only half-decent Mirror Universe story post TOS (and I am eternally thankful TNG never bothered with it). We had Babylon 5 Trek, Gilligan's Island Trek, Phantom Menace Trek, then Franchise Reboot (TM) Trek, Logan Trek, Futurama Trek, and we're now soon going to experience Andromeda Trek. All derivatives, but none of the scifi or thoughtfulness.
But... one thing where I strongly disagree is with the description of the polarisation of the fandom. When TNG came out there were endless debates in popular media of who would win in a fistfight between Picard and Kirk (the only correct answer is Picard, because he would delegate to Data); that was fandom polarisation. That's not what we have. Producers of contemporary Trek are creating an openly hostile fandom in opposition to them, because rather than welcome criticisms of their work as signs people still care and useful feedback, they openly and publicly mocked or personally attacked their critics. They don't mind as long as they can make money from this mere franchise and then move on to something else.
You know. The most irritating position of a controversial topic is being in the middle. Especially in geek culture where everyone has to be in one camp or the other. No third camp is valid for some people. I don't like Star Trek 2009 and most of Discovery and Picard so people will yell at me, "Get over old Star Trek," putting it lightly. Then the other camp calls me hypocritical or stupid for liking Into Darkness, Beyond, and Lower Decks. Sometimes being honest means being thrown into a lose/lose situation which is why I don't interact with online fandom that much anymore. I distanced myself from it.
I'm an original Trekkie, I saw the first series on NBC when it came out on American television. I loved that they were explorers (when I had grown up quite a bit) and not warriors trying to fight everything that they saw. I, quite recently, was asked to leave a Facebook forum about Star Trek all because I would not champion war in Star Trek. Your call for inclusion struck a chord in me, as I've been quite disappointed in the fact that later Trek war was all they seemed interested in. I have some hope that the new Trek show about Christopher Pike might restore my faith in Trek as a vision about the future, even as we seem to be descending into darkness ourselves.
Jessie: you have a great channel and I really enjoy it. I could listen to you talk about Trek all day and I hope you're feeling better after what you spoke about at the end of your Voyager video. 🖖🖖🖖
Your arguments are quite valid; for my part, however, I just can't watch Discovery Season 1, because I can't watch the Klingons without seeing the California Raisins, and it just...well,...bugs the @#* out of me.
I think your hitting an important part of why many folks aren't on board with Discovery, myself included. Yes, Star Trek is about sharing our ideals, sitting down and finding something better. It's been a great teacher over time, pulling back the noise around subjects and letting us look at the truth of things, and come to our own conclusions. Discovery in particular does not do that. It pushes the ideals of a rather aggressive movement today, and beats us over the head with them. On top of a main character that destroys the classic balance of how the show worked. Out of New Trek, I loved Star Trek Beyond, finding it one of the best of Kelvin timeline films. It got back to that maturity of the characters the old films developed. And found Picard a fairly good show. Not seen Lower Decks yet, my enthusiasm being low after the beating it's taken from Discovery, the only one I truly just can't stomach out of the new stuff. And it's sad, there are good elements. But they just have so little respect for the integrity of the setting, for the ideals behind Trek. And Burnham just grates on my nerves at this point. Might as well call it the Michael Burnham show instead of Discovery. Because that's how it comes off, as a power fantasy inside a Trek wrapper.
There are some things about Discovery I like (I haven’t seen Picard, Short treks or Lower Decks) but the things I don’t like about surrounding plot, sci-do vs sci-fantasy, focus or complete lack of focus on certain characters, or how it tries to mesh with previous canon (I think it does a terrible job at that, and in my head I’ll brush it aside as ‘non-canon’ while recognizing that it is canon in actuality). Like I said, there are aspects that I like though. Mia Kurshner as Amanda was amazing, Ethan Peck was an interesting and solid Spock. The awkwardness of Tilly resonates with me because I’m autistic, but she’s also really smart. I enjoyed the Kelvin movies and they definitely are “dark Trek” they still tell a good story and modernize Star Trek well, whereas for me, Discovery didn’t do that.
I’m sad that I can’t have a constructive conversation with people about why I think A, B, or C doesn’t work, or why my very square “must mesh with canon” brain doesn’t like it. Instead it’s either “it’s bad because there are too many women, ~gays~ and TransTM, etc.” Or “There’s nothing but maybe the smallest detail wrong with Discovery.” Like, I guess i’m general I’m a 20-30% positive, the rest neutral or negative, and it’s not my jam, but if it’s someone else’s, have fun. And you’re right, it’s a TV show, there are other ACTUAL problems in the world like climate change, human rights and wealth disparities, among other things. Thanks for being kind and reasonable!
I love how this video isn't just about Star Trek, but about an idea that can be applied to ALL things..
Why do we always have to be Extreme, but meet in the middle. All POVs are valid and should be shared ( yea discord) In a Friendly way.
ReSPect. 👽💞🌍💙❤🖖
Berman Era or Kurtzman era? Like for Berman. Comment for Kurtzman.
Behr. Ira Behr.
@@DCMarvelMultiverse Berman?
@@mikeharvey2129 No. Just Behr. Lol
Ira Behr still worked under Berman. I am aware that Berman's influence in DS9 was smaller than Voyager or Enterprise , but DS9 still falls under the Berman Era.
@@mikeharvey2129 Behr fought Berman all the time.
Liked Picard. Discovery’s only issue is it's kinda forgettable. I literally remember nothing from it. JJ’s 2009 kinda shook me in a bad way. Hated into darkness. Beyond was fine. Loved Lower Decks
Yup, I really dislike Kurtzman Trek. I posted a lengthy response to one of your videos once, and shortly thereafter deleted it. I may dislike the Kurtzman-led Trek attempts, but I'm not a hater, because I don't hate anyone (one of my KY Senators may be an exception). But upon review and reflection of my comment, I could see that I was making the same kinds of noises as haters, even if I'd argue I was making them for better reasons. So, my intent may not negative, but I worried my impact could be. So I deleted it. It sounds like there were plenty to replace it, unfortunately.
This video is a prime example of why I watch this Channel. You intuited that there are good, rational people on both sides of this issue (Ca-rap! I am NOT alluding to Charleston!) and addressed their concerns. I came to this Channel for the Star Trek, and stayed for the other commentary, both of which I don't always agree with, but I'm always intellectually engaged. I did gravitate to Nrdrtc and Ovrlrd initially, because I was trying to figure out why I was having such a hard time with the new shows. I didn't last long because what's the point of whining and complaining every single day about something you hate? But that's their schtick, apparently.
Bottomline, I think Star Trek has a character and identity, just like a person. I admit it's not always consistent, but to me there's an obvious u-shaped curve of compliance; the heart is there. The news stuff shifts too far into non-compliance, for me. Just because a show or movie has Starfleet uniforms, pointy sideburns and bulging nacelles, doesn't make it Star Trek. In fact, I was able to enjoy Discovery Season 1 when I just thought of is as a sci-fi show and not Star Trek. That technique didn't work with the other shows, I'm afraid (or Discovery Season 2, which tried so hard to be more ST I couldn't ignore it). The movies (like the Star Wars sequels) can be enjoyed immensely the first viewing, but then I start thinking about them and....
Here's what I wonder when you (Ms. Gender) praise the new shows: What _wouldn't_ you like/consider ST?
To those who enjoy and like the currently-running _Trek_ series, you're welcome to them and you're welcome to your opinions. Really, someone _ought_ to enjoy works that a company is throwing so much money at. Could you imagine if they spent so much money and time on something and the response was... silence? Because nobody cared, much less liked or disliked it? Chilling.
As for me, my biggest issue (although not the only one) with all three series is that they are so focused on spectacle. Special effects spectacle. Partisan, representation, and gender identity spectacle. Pessimistic the-big-organization-is-corrupt-and-evil spectacle. And likely more. This leaves little, if any, room for character exploration, growth, and development -- things that anchored _Trek_ since the beginning. Because at the root of classic _Trek_ is a collection of characters stories centered around ensemble casts. Everything else supported that. These were, for lack of better terms, very human stories that happened to take place on starships in space. You could have plunked down the characters in other similar settings and the story would still have been interesting. Even the ships themselves were sometimes their own characters. But not current _Trek_
Current _Trek_ , when it focuses on any of the characters, tends to focus on one or two in a series. The rest are just there, but it presents a challenge to come up with their names, nevermind something about them as people, or their personal lives. _Trek_ let you learn about its central characters. Current _Trek_ wants to move as quickly as possible from one action to another, which, unfortunately, doesn't give anybody the time or space to _breathe_ . So while I did watch season 1 of _Disc_ , I found it incredibly difficult to watch. Partly because the cinematographer refused to settle down, and partly because the characters were emotionally difficult to watch. And because I don't want to use my time on any other Contests of Jerks, I decided to not bother with _Picard_ , where the legendary Starfleet career officer is derided at every turn instead of honoured, where Starfleet continues to turn on its own values, and where the Romulans are space elf refugees or spymasters. Not to mention the use of hard drugs, poverty, and the callousness regarding life and death from characters like Seven of Nine. Both these series have become very strange to me. I cannot watch them.
I also decided to drop _Lower Decks_ after episode 4, since it returned to its old formula of the characters missing the point by lightyears, and because the show writers just can't seem to stop putting elevating Mariner at the cost of whatever self-respect Boimler might have left (which, after over a year of working with her, can't be all that much).
The biggest pain for me is that there are so many stories they could explore for _Trek_ that would engage a wide audience and keep them interested. Stories about the operations of Section 31 and Temporal Investigations? The voyages of _USS Titan_ or _USS Challenger_ ? The fallout of the Hobus Supernova and how the Romulans would eventually get their groove back (maybe even the rise of the Romulan Republic)? Sela's story after she can no longer be a thorn in Picard's side, maybe a journey of her accepting her humanity?
And if we want to peer into the past, what about the rise (and fall) of the T'kon or Iconian Empires? The voyages of _Enterprises B_ and _C_ ? Or Sulu as he captained _Excelsior_ ? The rise of the Borg? There are so many fascinating possibilities, and games like _STO_ can only explore so many of them.
Thank you very much for those words. First, I am indeed not a fan of the new Star Trek shows for several reasons. But I do feel welcome here and when I want to inform myself about things or directions or interpretations of those new shows, I do come here to get a different perspective to my own and I like it very much. Thank you again for providing informations and interpretations to me.
Great video once again. I used to often get sucked into algorithm rabbit holes and now try to actively resist that. Polarisation is ubiquitous these days and the damage needs to be addressed more, even if it is about “ pop culture”.
Btw some of the things you mentioned (previous video on this topic and podcast) links don’t appear in the info section. I could search for these myself but feeling lazy!
I hate modern Star Trek. It's really brought out the Nazis in the fandom.
Real talk, I actually haven't watched Discovery or Picard, but they both look fine to me.
Although I do disagree with some of your opinions on modern Trek Jessie, I really appreciate your positive vibes and appreciate that you let us speak our minds here. P.s: i also do love when you call out the new Trek when it fails! ;)
Thanks for adding some positivity to the conversation. We need more of that online especially, where the algorithm seems to work against that.
Favorite Show is also DS9 but i also liked Sometimes "new" Trek like Star Trek Beyond
Thank you. I definitely am in agreement with your position and will go check out the earlier episode you refer to.
I tried to watch star trek discovery I mean tryed to watch it but I LOVE lower decks and the Kelvin time line
What about Picard? Been watching it ( on the last one), really enjoying it
@@robertoleary5470 it's not bad or good it's just right
However that happened: lower decks somehow feels most like old star trek of all the new shows. It's probably the story structure. All the other new shows have season arcs.
ronni the cyberwitch just like the perfect Earl Grey
Hey Jessie, just wanted to say I really enjoy your channel and your non-hyperbolic take on various things. As for modern Trek, I don't watch it for the simple reason I won't pay for a streaming service over and above my cable bill. So I don't really have an opinion on them. I like the new movies though. Anyway, take care and live long and prosper.
I'm not exactly a fan of Discovery Season 1 and 2, rather dislike it tbh, but I see high potential in Season 3. Picard is a great premise that feels it could've been much better as a movie or limited series. Lower Decks, I really don't like it but I acknowledge it's not actually bad it's just not my thing. Strange New Worlds sounds AMAZING and I want it yesterday.
The Kelvin trilogy I can see why a lot of Trekkies don't like those movies, but I like 09 a lot and I really LOOOOOVE Beyond! If not for Kelvin, a lot of people my age might not have ever gotten into Star Trek. I'm currently in the middle of DS9, I'm enjoying it so much. I enjoyed TOS and TNG a lot. And if not for STAR TREK 09 I probably would've never gotten any curiosity and checked out this amazing franchise that I just shrugged off as "space pulp" despite being a huge Star Wars fan
I don’t know that I’d call myself a modern Star Trek “hater” because I believe in giving things chances before judging them. However, I would call myself someone who believes the differences between say, so-called “Berman Trek” and so-called “modern” Trek are stark and have a lot to do with the difference between style over substance. I don’t hate discovery and I don’t hate...everything...about Picard. But I think the modern films/TV properties of Trek have generally failed to give consistent complex morality plays. Now, obviously Star Trek wasn’t ALL cerebral philosophical conflicts...but the best of it wasn’t afraid to delve into it. Modern Trek doesn’t have the moral ambiguity in problem-solving that TOS and TNG had. I don’t have a problem with the actors or even characters of Discovery, for instance- but those people have so much better things to say and offer this Trek property rather than showering each other with praise all the time. When will these characters have differences of opinion and perspective that propel a story’s conflict?
I don’t hate modern Star Trek - but it’s clear that the priorities are just in areas other than those that to me represent Trek at its best. Nuanced morality plays about tough decisions.
Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. I'd rather live in a world with Discovery, Picard and Voyager than in a world with no Star Trek at all. The world changes and trek changes with it. Appreciate the change even if you don't agree with it. Just let people like what they like.
I like two out of the three Kelvin Timeline movies but I've only seen one season of Discovery and I didn't like it. However I know that many different opinions can exist on any franchise. Plus the Prime time line was far from perfect as well. For example; Voyager (in terms of pure quality) was diet TNG, Star Trek Enterprise was half bad and half good enough, there are four objectively bad Star Trek (The Motion Picture 1979, The Final Frontier 1989, Insurrection 1997, and Nemesis 2002) films. Even TNG first two seasons were barely watchable.