Star Trek Discovery: Where did it all go wrong?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Star Trek Discovery Season 4 kicked off on Paramount+ this month. And it's... not good. It's completely lost track of the philosophy that defined earlier iterations of Trek - the Original Series and The Next Generation, particularly - while the writing remains as awful as ever, doubling down on all that was bad about the previous seasons while jettisoning what little was good about them.
A Critique of Star Trek Picard: • A Critique of Star Tre...
Socials and other links:
Discord: / discord
Twitter: @PlatoonPod
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Apple Podcasts: Https://podcasts.apple...
Facebook: / littleplatoon
Reddit: u/LostChord91
![[Re-Up] A Critique of Star Trek Discovery - Part 1 #RIPStarTrek](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ftsRVQpfADY/mqdefault.jpg)
The core tenet of Star Trek, the fantasy if you will, was that Humanity would reach a point of post-scarcity, where humanity reaches a peaceful coexistence with itself and a desire to reach out beyond itself for the general betterment of everyone (Including themselves) around them. It was hopeful, and people liked that. STD however, is angry, miserable, nihilistic and violent.
Not to mention all the crying. Non stop crying
One thing I will add: the optimism of TOS was realistic; the pessimism of STD is not realistic.
Consider the past 12000 years. The progress the human species has made is phenomenal. We have made mistakes (war, genocide, slavery, etc), and we need to be vigilant against possible disasters such as nuclear holocaust or environmental catastrophe. However, there is not one sane person who would turn back the clock to live the way we lived 12000 years ago, without agriculture and civilization, without indoor plumbing and electricity, without modern medicine and the EXTRA FORTY YEARS OF LIFE that these things give us.
@@titotitotito Seriously, they cry more on one episode of STD than in an entire series of previous Trek. It gets tiresome and annoying.
I think that's why Star Trek always occupied a special place in the hearts of science fiction fans. It was a fundamentally optimistic, positive view of the future (even DS9, which was by far the darkest, harshest and most aggressive of the previous spinoffs still had that optimism and hope for tomorrow) and most scifi doesn't have that. That's why it struck a chord with people, it said that maybe the future (which we all worry about and have the tendency to catastrophize) might not be so bad after all.
STD on the other hand, has none of that optimism, and seems more concerned with tearing down people and ideas (consider the treatment of many of the non-diverse "characters," a la Captain Pike). There's nothing positive to look forward too, no hope for a better, brighter tomorrow.
@@dandeliondown7920 That's a great point and makes me dislike the writers and producers of STD more than I did before.
Very well articulated 👏 The overabundance of action and threat reminds me of something my English teacher once said: If everything is underlined, nothing is underlined.
Excellent comment. Relentless action (or relentless ANYTHING) is boring. Variety is the spice of life and cinema. In writing, an exclamation mark makes that sentence stand out; if every sentence has an exclamation mark, nothing stands out.
Or as my father often says, less is more. To make your fight scenes really have an impact, use them sparingly.
It may be a reflection on the dumbing down of society. Jingle some sparkly cgi in front of people and see if they notice bad writing, bad story, and bad characters.
"Where did it all go wrong?" It might have something to do with the following (and this is not subtle):
The series main character, Michael Burnham, stood before a Starfleet board of court-martial and pleaded guilty to mutiny, to assaulting a fellow officer (who for at least seven years had been a mentor and mother figure for Burnham), and to precipitating a war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire (a war which, according to Memory Alpha, killed thousands).
When Saru was her captain, Michael Burnham agreed to obey a direct order from him, but the instant his back was turned she conspired with a genocidal maniac (mirror Georgiou) to disobey that order. This caused Saru to demote her from her position as his First Officer because, as he correctly stated, he simply could not trust her.
Michael Burnham committed mass murder in Episode 1 of Season 3.
Michael Burnham again assaulted a fellow officer (Stamets this time), knocking him out, kidnapping him, forcibly confining him, and betraying him (he had previously made a phenomenal personal sacrifice to support her).
Michael Burnham again committed mass murder in Episode 13 of Season 3.
an insubordinate I loved was Ensign Ro Laren. she did what was necessary and couldn't catch a break on Starfleet's career ladder.
And for all that, was promoted to captain.
Ahhh yes, but what you are forgetting is that she is the bestest everrrr....(in doomcock voice).
This. Or to put it more simply, STD made it’s main character utterly irredeemable in the first and second episodes. And spent the next 4 seasons demanding that fans worship her as the true hero. There was no coming back after episode 2.
Yes I agree with u
Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr Who used to be my greatest joys never thought that 40 years later they became my greatest disappointments
Do you remember the Dark Knight movie and what they said? "You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Seems rather appropriate, wouldn't you say?
Yeah, Our favorite Sci-fi that u mentioned has been hung, drawn and quartered. It makes the older/classic series or films look fantastic .Great shame that this young generation are cheated out of good sci-fi but just need to be guided to where it really is.
The problem seems to be that Star Trek is in the hands of people who don't give a crap about anything but trying to make money off the name and previous fandom. Forget Roddenberry's vision, forget honoring a bright future and the excitement of space exploration. Forget taking us where no man has gone before. Forget being genuinely diverse and genuinely entertaining. It's all about the mighty dollar with crappy characters and even crappier writing. The new look of the Klingons is disgraceful!
This sad version of Star Trek has a goal. To satisfy the cravings of Wokeness. The last episode really drove that point home. The heros enter a desolate structure and start panicking, But when they pet one item the are suddenly full of joy. This isn't science fiction, its a Woke fantasy. If we just share our feelings the murderers will stop destroying us. And in this phony universe the script writters will make sure it works.
If it fails then they will have to resort to mob violence.
The problem with Star Trek Discovery? Real sloppy writing. The network has no idea of what to do with Star Trek and it shows. What a mess.
It's not being made by people who like and appreciate Star Trek.
STD was commissioned as a direct "take that" to the Axanar Project. Paramount/CBS could not tolerate those fans would create a labor of love that is much better than anything they could produce. It is an example of corporate vandalism and contempt for their audience.
@@davidford3115 It certainly looked that way at the time.
@@dramaticwords As time goes on, it only becomes more convincing that is the only reason why this farce is allowed to continue; to completely scorch Earth the franchise for the "problematic" old guard fans as well as virtue signal to the wokescolds in the process.
The most elegant and comprehensive summary of modern trek I've heard. Subscribed.
Welcome, glad to have you!
“Where did it all go wrong?” Season one, episode one? 🤔
Yeah, they would have done much better if Michelle Yeoh was the lead role rather than the hot mess of a character Burnham.
@@davidford3115 Great acting cannot save shit writing and directing... it can only soften it, with us being like, at least we got that one.
The greatest disappointment about nuTrek is how it doesn't invite viewers to think for themselves.
You could’ve put a full stop after “think”, but yes.
@@TheLittlePlatoon Fair point.
Like much of modern media, resorting to stating this character is strong this character is smart, oh look they're all sad now, instead of showing such things through complex development. It shows the emotional range and foresight of a kindergarten kid.
So you appreciated the archetype when it was portrayed in Kirk, Spock, and Bones.
But you hated the archetype when it's focused on a black woman?
This is the most obvious blather I've heard.
@@carpedm5107 I don't think anyone said that at all. Nor do I think race or gender have anything to do with it.
I miss Trek when it was still Trek.
It went wrong about the point that they decided to have Mary-Sue Burnham as main character.
Indeed. Michelle Yeoh should have been the lead instead of Mikey Spock.
What I liked about TNG & DS9 was that it showed us a future of mankind beyond racial issues. So tired of racial and political fighting.
It judged people and characters based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin or shape of their reproductive organs.
DS9 especially had great content, one of the best episodes was the accountant in a concentration Moritza, who pretended to be the commendant so that he could be executed for crimes he didn't commit and take on all of Cardassias guilt. Even thought nowadays he actually would still most likely be found guilty, back then, it was a well thought out and daring exploration of an extremely emotional issue.
@@davidford3115 Different populations have different gene sets, which determines not only their skin color, but their IQ and hormone levels, which determines their behavior, which determines the level of their culture, which determines how sophisticated civilization they are capable to build. One can and must judge a population, based on this fact, despite the occasional exceptions. Denying this natural fact is denying reality, which leads to demise, as we can see today in North-America and West-Europe. Humanity knew this for many thousands of years, but modern man in its "enlightened" ignorant arrogance forgot it.
@@tomigun5180 "Different populations have different gene sets, which determines not only their skin color, but their IQ and hormone levels, which determines their behavior"
That is the argument of Eugenics and I reject that completely.
How many times have people who grew up in a completely different culture than their ethnicity? How many blacks are unfairly accused of "growing up white"? And this isn't just "exceptions" it happens often enough to support the argument of "nurture over nature".
Think about what you are proposing before you stick your foot in your mouth.
This isn't Star trek, its Days of our lives. Every episode spends 90% of its time discussing their feelings, their relationships, and complementing each other. There's no actual story. In moments of great danger they all stop and have a conversation about their feelings even while aliens are rushing towards them about to kill them.
When they decided to put a man in charge who
1: Hated Star Trek and would rather be watching Star Wars, by his own admission.
2: Decided that progressive trope like Racism and sexism against straight white men was going to be the cornerstone of their writing style, effectively alienating 80% of their audience.
3: Thought that he could blatantly rip-off video games like Tardigrades and more importantly, Mass Effect and somehow no one would notice. As if Sci Fi fans Don't play Sci Fi video Games.
4: Hired the most talentless hack wannabe political activists as writers. Of whom ZERO have any real world experience outside of being a blogger for the Rachel Maddow Fan club.
5: Decided that science was unnecessary for good Science Fiction. (I Will not Let the SONAR Episode go. Sorry, but that was the height of stupidity and the low of quality.)
The fact that the writters plagiarized so much for Discovery has to be made far more well known. They stole from Tardigrades, The Abyss,......
How did you like the space whales that breathed air?
Literally every straight white white male character was immediately presented as evil and stupid and basically phaser fodder in STD. No redeeming qualities, no effort to give those straight white male characters any believable or relatable background or motivation, just "Straight white male=evil bad man". They even had it so that Pike in season 2 was given flak by little miss know it all burnham at the drop of a light pen or datapad.
TNG might be the most fondly regarded by mainstream fans but the really nerdy ones tend to love DS9 the best. It has the most nuance, diverse cast (more in terms of diversity in the characters than the actors) and best story and character arcs by far, in my opinion, and they deliberately went out of their way to go against Rodenberry's constricting, restrictive idea of ST that really showed in TNG.
I’ve heard this from a few people now. Sorry to say I’ve never really given DS9 a proper look. Maybe I’ll change that; it’s not as though there’s much good on TV these days…
I always felt that TNG was more of "soft reboot" TOS, not bad, just pretty much more of the same, I much preferred DS9 as it tried to be at least a little different.
I like it more than next gen. But next gen is great
Indeed. DS9 took all the Roddenberrian ideals of TOS and TNG and tested them against the philosophies of the Cardassians, the Ferengi, the Klingons, and the Bajorans. On many occasions, outsiders to the Federation landed solid critiques of it, or of humanity. And these weren't mean-spirited jabs, they were thoughtful - or at least genuinely funny.
@Roger Deep Space Nine was objectively better than Next Generation, and Next Generation, particularly after season 3, was fantastic. The difference was DS9 was willing to gamble and take risks and go places that previous versions of Star Trek were either unwilling or unable to take, or even later versions like Voyager. Deep Space Nine also dealt with a lot of topics very differently than earlier Trek had, including religion, homosexuality, war, the rule of law, governmental authority and crime amongst others. The other thing that DS9 did was take a number of species from earlier Trek and turn them into something beyond cardboard cutouts. You look at the Ferengi, Cardassians, Bajorans and even Klingons and they all took on new dimensions and depth in DS9. On top of that we got to see a lot of people from non-human species interact with each other and not just with humans and that made for some very interesting television. Episodes such as "The House of Quark," "Profit and Loss," and "Soldiers of the Empire" all did a great job of having the various alien species play off one another. We didn't get nearly enough of that in the other versions of Trek.
It went wrong in season one, episode one. Hasn't recovered since...
They never should have killed off Michelle Yeoh's character. SHE should have been the lead role, not that hot mess of a Mary Sue, Burnham.
There’s a number of Myth’s surrounding Star Treks interracial kiss. The first myth is that it was the first Interracial Kiss, let alone the first on Star Trek. Everyone always misses the first one. Which was in Mirror, Mirror. Kirk kissed actress Barbara Luna. A Philippine actress. But of course Asians are Schroedinger’s POC’s. The second myth is that ratings tanked after the kiss and the South revolted against it and southern stations would not air it. These are both patently false (although likely spread by Roddenberry who liked to drum up fake outrage as an excuse. See the claims that “the Network wanted the “Number One” character from the first pilot eliminated because no one would believe in a female first officer”. The truth is the Network viewed the character as radioactive because married Roddenberry had cast his mistress. And the Network wanted no part of Roddenberry’s behind the scenes sex scandal as part of their main cast. Roddenberry spun it as Misogyny.) The truth about the kiss? The network got fewer than 20 letters of complaint about the episode… ALL of them complaining about how Michael Dunn’s character “Alexander the dwarf” was mistreated in the episode. There was no impact on the ratings, for or against. Perhaps one station in the Deep South declined to rerun the episode once. The truth was nobody really made a big deal about the kiss. What little discomfort there was had nothing to do with racism, but rather the kind of rapey against their will nature of the kiss. The network was braced for a backlash, and got none. The actual people were more accepting of things than Hollywood Producers were. Imagine that? It’s also worth noting that the same episode that had Kirk kissing and sleeping with an Asian actress had Sulu making sexual advances on Uhura.
Hell, it wasn't even a real kiss. If you watch the scene carefully, its just a light pressing lips to lips. There's more action in mouth to mouth than the what we see in bread and circuses.
TOS didn't exactly rub your face into every contemporary injustice or perceived slight like STD.
It started going wrong as soon as CBS hired Kurtzman.
A Show called STD, with a story line called the BURN. THe Jokes of this Show write themselves.
This vid hits it right on the head we are tired if virtue signaling and this show has no substance other than virtue signaling. We are fed up with it
As someone who actually like Star Trek 2009 and Beyond (those films are harmless), even I have blacklisted Discovery, Picard and Lower Decks.
These shows were NOT made to modernise a beloved property: They were made to lecture about how awful we are as a species and/or deconstruct and rant about the older stuff.
P.S. It should be noted that although the one-two punch of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind made Star Trek: The Motion Picture a reality, it was through reruns causing the show to grow in popularity that made Paramount consider the possibility of continuing the franchise.
The thing I always thought was interesting was Star Trek and Star Wars have had an almost symbiotic relationship.
Yes.
Thise films started the split and made to were there is 2 different timeliness in trek and most of discovery fans only seen that but those films have done damage its fine you like them I won't judge anyone on likeing something I only speak truth because karma a bitch but the divided started with those and discovery just made it worse
@@turtletube420 Thanks for the reasoning. It should be noted that I have more respect for The Motion Picture and what it did over 2009 (though I ALSO respect what it helped do: made the franchise popular again before Kurtzman's Reign of Fucking Terror happened and things became as heated as Vietnam).
The motion picture sucked star trek movies are hit in miss
Great analysis! Unfortunately as the writers have their own echo chambers and are laughing all the way to the bank with a studio whom doesn't care, nothing will change.
It is a 45-odd minute 'torture' to watch diversity dished out in the layers that they use for Discovery. Rather than being a science fiction series.....it's a diversity series and one must continually wonder.....why didn't they appoint the gay guy or the lesbian gal to head up such-and-such critical job.
I watched half of season 1 and bailed. A few months later, during covid, I watched the second half - I'd completely forgotten the first, and was very confused. I watched the second season during covid; Pike was great and was all that kept me going. I started watching the third, I got as far as the episode with close ups of Burnham bursting into tears and saying "I'm so so sorry" in a husky whisper. I said "why am I doing this to myself?" and bailed. I'll cheerfully go to my grave having never watched another episode.
Let's get this straight.
The fact that Burnham is a woman is Irrelevant to my reaction.
The fact that Burnham is black is irrelevant to my reaction.
The fact that the show has gay characters is irrelevant to my reaction.
The fact that the show has trans characters is irrelevant to my reaction.
The fact that the show is trash is very very relevant to my reaction.
But but but you akshually hate minorities, right? It’s clear from your comment that, akshually, that’s the only reason you hate this show.
Putting someone like Kurtzman who never liked Star Trek in charge, a man known for killing multiple franchises. A man who lacks creativity so he will just copy of everyone else's work...well there isn't any that has really ever been like Star Trek so instead we get something that is nothing like Star Trek
Kurtzman is a graduate of the JJ Abrams school of copy and past the work of others.
Well done, sir. You have earned my subscription for your articulate analysis of this horrible, tedious, lazy series which I gave up on and refused to watch from sometime back in S2. Your courage and endurance in exposing yourself to this mess, keeping the fandom together and informed about what nu-trek continues to become, is valued. While it is easy to take shots at this crap, I am glad to see that CBS cares enough to censor you and for that, again, you deserve all the support you can get.
Most kind of you. Welcome aboard!
@@TheLittlePlatoon Thank YOU- and I am enjoying looking through your wider catalogue of videos. Here’s to the success of your channel! Keep up the good work!
Thank you. Seriously. This was spot on, I needed that. I am a member of the progressive, urban, green, academic class, and I hate where some of us are going. And being a long standing Trek fan, this stuff really hurts. Sidenote, not being a native speaker of English it took me a moment to adapt to your accent and delivery, but I adapted.
I was one of the few progressives in the American white working class. Given what has happened over the past few years I now no longer identify as "progressive" and call myself a liberal (in the American sense). I quite fond of Western culture and don't think it needs to be replaced by something that's supposedly better for various minorities but in my opinion would make everything worse.
Discovery is a space soap opera, not the wagon train in space Rodenberry envisioned.
It's awful. Any good actors from the first series they have eliminated. We are left with a bunch of nothing tv actors -- Michael Burnham's actress an exception -- who are low brow. It's negative. It's boring. It's Woke Trek in space. It's identity politics down our fucking throats. BE diverse, don't lecture us on it; we are already on board. Trekers are mostly progressive. The pattern of the show is tiresome: a big scary thing in space, while pining on about their identity. Boring. Special mention: that whiney engineering guy and his boring doctor husband. That babbling red head. In a black hole with both of them. Can't wait for The Orville to return. Yes, it leans more to fun, but it has progressive secular values and has serious themes, sometimes irreverent, doesn't take itself too seriously, you know like star trek used to be before they woked it up. I'm virtually done it with. Star Trek now is a pure projection of the American Military Industrial Complex, having utterly expunged Roddenberry's themes and values and vision. Pointless, as you say, sir.
"BE diverse, don't lecture us on it; we are already on board." Good comment.
TOS (the original series) was diverse way back in the 1960s. There was no virtue-signalling about it because the TOS universe treated diversity as normal in the future. Famous blacks, such as Nichelle Nichols, Martin Luther King Jr, Whoopi Goldberg, and astronaut Mae Jemison have all spoken about how Lieutenant Uhura inspired them.
Well said, but wasted on the likes of Kurtzman. They can’t see it.
Great analysis. I mad eit to episode 9 of discovery, 5 of picard before I gave up on both shows. These shows don't work for me and going in depth into that would cause me to be here for a while typing paragraphs of text no one is interested in reading.
It would be interesting to see your take on the older shows and movies. Personally, I like DS9 the best out of the shows.
I keep hearing good things about DS9 but, of all the series, it's probably the one I know least. Well, that and Enterprise. I never managed to make it past the opening titles thanks to that bloody song.
@@TheLittlePlatoon Sounds to me like you don't have enough Faith of the Heart. ;)
No, seriously, DS9 is the best series.
If Kirk and the real Picard encountered this timeline, they would immediately go back and fix it to keep it from going so horribly wrong.
Oh, thank you! I was struggling to put my problems with discovery in phrases, at least some of them. You did it.
Glad to hear it. You’re welcome!
From the very beginning.
Trying too hard to throw political correct extreme left wing ideals onto the mass instead of focusing on what makes star trek shine
I grew up in the 1980's, and so have had Star Trek in my life, in one way or another, almost from the start. TOS reruns, TNG and DS9 while very young, then VOY and ENT as I got older, not to mention the films. While I do hold a fondness dor the earliest shows, I am not above saying each one went wrong in places for me. TOS was quite blatant at times with messaging, TNG was quite dull in some of the stories, and to my mind the combo of First Contact and VOY neutered the Borg as the credible threat they were shown as in TNG. I can remember arguing that the NX01 looked "too good" externally to be pre-TOS, but I still watched every episode I could and saw through the exterior to the growing show underneath. But saying all that, I think that STD and STP are the first shows that have consistantly turned me off thanks to the story - or lack thereof.
I can remember being asked "Don't you like it? Look, there is a neurodivergent character in the show, like you are. Isn't that great that you are represented?" My reply was "No. I don't care, I just want an engaging story."
You can find loads of neurodivergent characters in old trek: Seven, the doctor, Barclay, Spock, Tuvok (basically ever vulcan) Data.. And better written. Supposed representation just can't beat a good story
Despite my agreeing with you...
“A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.”
Alexander Pope - An Essay on Criticism (1711)
Overall this was an insightful and accurate description of what's wrong with STDC. Much appreciated! That said, while some might be tempted to think so, this show DOES NOT reflect the views of rank and file progressives. It reflects a twisted and exaggerated view of progressive ideals by the show's creators and possibly the network that carries it. The presentation of important social issues in this show is lazy, overblown and frankly, counterproductive. Regardless of the show's vocal adherents, it is a cartoon representation of what progressives actually believe. In other words, thanks but no thanks, STD! If they gave us some clever allegory and thought provoking stories AND included a diverse array of people, they may actually be onto something. They might actually make a positive contribution.
Many thanks!
Yes, it’s sometimes a little too easy to assume that a broad political movement, philosophy or ideology is truly represented by the loudest advocates of same.
We can, of course, disagree in good faith with the underlying tenets of American progressivism - and indeed conservatism - without saying all American progressives - or conservatives - are reducible to the worst of their number.
Society would as a whole, I think, be much better off if we paid more attention to the thoughts of the individual than we do the slogans of the spokespeople of a “movement”.
This is a balanced and fair assessment. LLAP. (Actually, my comment applies to both the original comment by Brian Larney and to the reply by The Little Platoon.)
17:32 "The South Park kids have more depth, and they're literally made of construction paper." Ouch!
"It elevates the *impression* of science to the status of the divine. There is no actual science being done or discussed, just a language game designed to capture the authority of science itself."
Well said. This statement is true of more than just Star Trek when it comes to modern Leftists.
This might be the best critique of New Trek I have seen so far. Thanks for that!!!
There's no crying in Star Trek! Yes there is now. Michael Burnham is always crying.
That's bc certain demographics are weak.
spot on, it's to bad that your candor is so dense that most RUclips viewers will gloss over this amazing and thoughtful overview.
Many thanks! I’ll certainly keep that stylistic point in mind. Simplicity is often virtuous, though it must do battle with my powerful need to be both posh and pretentious…
There seems to be a trend in movies and TV shows to give male names to female characters. I'm just waiting for white, male characters to get names like Suzie or Karen. All in the name of inclusiveness.
The final 3 minutes of this commentary - SO PROFOUND that I had to rewind and relisten again and again. You summed up marvelously what each of us with a critical brain thinks, but lacks the talent to put elegantly to word. Bravo, you've hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head!
Much obliged!
@@TheLittlePlatoon Subscribed!
@@CurtisCT Welcome aboard!
Discovery season 3's plot boils down to:
A fishman on the spectrum, had holographic night terrors SO HARD, that he screamed for his fish mommy, until all the dilitium in the galaxy just couldn't even anymore; so all the ships exploded.
It's like the writers found a slashfic on the dark web and just... Ran with it.
The people who love STD are the same people who watch Marvel and GoT, normies. They ruin everything they touch, they're literal cancer.
Lol. Fishy autist blows up universe.
@@666chapelofblood To be fair, I can deal with Marvel up to Endgame. Which isn’t to say it’s all or even mostly good, but the best elevates the worst and the mean is… all right. Mid-run Game of Thrones likewise. The people who like STD are the type who didn’t mind what was subsequently done to both Marvel and GoT. And yes, they’re basically cancer. Or at least deeply, deeply misguided.
@@TheLittlePlatoon My biggest gripe with GoT is the excessive sex/incest and gore scenes really, I could've watched more of it if it wasn't for that. Normies really started ruining it when The Big Bang Theory came and there was this trend of "being a nerd is cool now." Then they started subverting first the fanbases of said "nerd" culture and eventually the franchises themselves, that's why I call them cancer. They start out small among said fandoms and grow until they've taken over a significant number of the franchise and end up conducting their own material as canon which abides by their own agenda.
@@666chapelofblood Oh, absolutely. It’s almost painful in GoT’s first season, not least because you know exactly why they’re doing it- they didn’t think they could get away with a long, slow, nuanced plot line without a liberal sprinkling of tits to keep the audience interested. Which suggests a fairly low opinion of their audience.
Agreed re need culture. A degree of normification is acceptable and probably necessary, to transfer things from comic books to big screens for example. But when imagination is lost in the transference, and we lapse into safe cliche - The Big Bang Theory is a great example - then it becomes a problem.
Not related to the vid but a theory I think they are going to destroy the discovery-A at the end of season 4 . If they make a season 5 they will introduce a discovery-B.
Well, they've spent enough time destroying Discovery figuratively, I suppose they might as well destroy it literally as well.
Where did it all go wrong?
Right after Voyager wrapped up. Everything after that went to shit.
3 and a bit seasons indeed... But has yet to get halfway to ENT's 98 episodes. So considering that ENT arguably began to hit its stride in Season 3 STD has... half a season to go... That being Season 4...
... I'm not holding my breath.
You have a very different perspective to my own. I'm in a bit of a strange place as a Trekkie, because while I'm one of those people who goes through periods of watching at least 1-2 episodes of it per day, I've never got involved with either the conventions, or any form of merchandise.
With that said, Trek is large enough for there to definitely be parts of it that I like more than others. Of the old series, The Next Generation is the one I re-watch the least often, with the Original Series and Voyager being my most frequent. I also categorically refuse to watch anything associated with Alex Kurtzman, although I did watch the pilots of both Discovery and Picard...mostly so that I could tell myself afterwards that at least I had not been completely closed minded, rather than because I thought they were going to be good.
Unlike perhaps some fans, I bear you no ill will for admitting that you are not fond of Star Trek, particularly because I was aware from the start, how horrible Discovery was going to be, and nothing has happened to prove me wrong; although when I think about the amount of joy it has brought me, I will say that I hope that you still have something which provides you with that.
Thanks for the comment!
I should reiterate that not being overly fond of it does not mean I completely dislike it. It has some wonderful moments across TOS, TNG and Voyager, which are the three I’m most familiar with. Voyager, in particular, has a wonderful premise, and sometimes lives up to it in its delivery- though the great unanswered question is what it might have become had they let Ron Moore take it in the direction he desired.
Of course, we might not then have had his reworking of Battlestar Galactica. But a mix of the two is a tantalising prospect.
At its best Trek is genuinely thoughtful sci-fi, and there’s precious little of that around at the moment.
@@TheLittlePlatoon If you are willing, I would encourage an exploration of Deep Space Nine, if you haven't already. DS9 is a very strange beast, and there are elements of it which I found (and still at times do find) annoying; but there is a large amount of genuine magic to be found there, as well. In terms of the last four seasons at least, it was mostly a sprawling, operatic war story; but it still had a good mix of the type of one-shot sci fi procedural episodes which we got used to in the other series, as well.
DS9 already has its' own theme of course, but in my own head its' leitmotif has always been Purple Rain, by Prince. I think the biggest irony with DS9, is that it was woke before wokeness was known about; there is probably more freaky non-heteronormativity to be found in it than any other pre-Kurtzman series, but unlike Discovery, it existed totally without preaching, and was just THERE to the point of making itself seem normal.
@@petrus4 Enough people have recommended DS9 now that I think I'll have to give it a go! There might even be a review forthcoming...
@@TheLittlePlatoon I will definitely be interested if there is. :)
WOW! Everything I wanted to say about Star Trek: Feelings but aren't able to articulate is said in this video! 👍
Thanks! We’ve done a couple more on this show- a new one went up around half an hour ago. Do check them out if you have the time!
Foreground: The Little Platoon's analysis of a given media property
Background: Me running The Expanse through his rubric and smiling contentedly because it passes every test with flying colours
I will happily admit that, though I can find many flaws in The Expanse, it is in every conceivable way better than STD.
Which reminds me, I’ve yet to watch the most recent season…
So, they made the MC a “Mary Sue”; seems legit. 🤦♀️
I'll buy you a drink if i ever see you for this one mate, i grew up with classic trek, tng voy and ds9. Really glad to hear someone presenting the issues with modern trek in such a professional and wise format, good one lad, good one :D
I don't mind a show being dark and dangerous. I liked the change from Star gate SG-1 and Atlantis to Universe.
However, Discovery had boring acting and combat was average, unlike the Orville that had slightly better than average character designs but amazing acting, storytelling, and battles.
Even though many people approach Freud with very little understanding of his actual writings, he's still a complete quack, even beyond the Oedipus/Electra Complex. His dream analyses, what he is most famous for, is completely arbitrary and the definition of psuedo-science. He would read into things what he wanted them to say. Do not use Freud as a symbolic of some deeper understanding of the human condition.
Thanks again for another great analysis - and I'd like to add my bit on the notion of "diversity." Being gay, and being born in 1960, I suffered a great deal from having no gay characters in the TV shows or movies I loved. I should add that I became aware of being gay in 6th grade, which is very early. I remember briefly considering becoming a Catholic priest because that way I could opt out of heterosexual marriage. Amazingly, in 6th grade, I realized that was not a good reason to become a priest. Anyways, I really do understand the importance of diversity. HOWEVER, today's activists, who are radicals, use "diversity" as a weapon against mainstream society. They "punch up" by always preferring and "platforming" "vulnerable" minorities. And, because they want to burn everything down, and have contempt for the notion of reform, they keep pushing and pushing and pushing. - They don't realize how much better it is today. But I do. And I realize it's because there is a great deal to celebrate in western civilization.
I really do have a tremendous amount of respect for people who grew up in a time when something so fundamental about their nature really was a danger, something they knew could get them in serious trouble, when there really was genuine and widespread bigotry to contend with.
People of my generation have *never* experienced anything like that. We pretend this is something defining and all-important, but most people who say this don’t think it’s important enough to actually research it, or learn even about the very recent past. My earliest historical shock was reading about how Oscar Wilde could be imprisoned for a poem *written by someone else*, that - quite apart from it being a genuinely lovely and tragic verse - was so much more opaque and careful than anything written today.
And *that* happened so very recently, in the grander scheme of things. And it happens to this day in countries that account for the majority of the human population. It’s staggering that we look around at the rights we enjoy today and manufacture grievances, rather than recognising how incredibly lucky we are to have been born in our time and place. And we - my generation, that is - by and large couldn’t give a damn about the testimony of people all around us who’ve lived through and could attest to the astonishing progress that’s been made.
And it’s precisely this mix of ignorance, solipsism and nihilism that poses a threat to that progress. Characters that supposedly represent us conform to the most superficial stereotypes of what other people think of us. Combined with the fact who you love has been co-opted into a vast political campaign (as you rightly point out), and there really is a real danger that people my age, who’ve been so complacent about the progress they’ve benefited from, could be swept up in the backlash.
The recurrence of history as tragedy and then farce is probably Marx’s most astute observation. Farcically, it’s the one his modern disciples are most ignorant of.
@@TheLittlePlatoon Thank you so much for the wonderful reply. I agree that Marx's most astute comment was about history as farce, and that contemporary Marxists are clueless about this. And yes, there's a very real possibility of a backlash in the direction of traditional, conservative religiousity. It frustrates me no end that the radicals and their enablers don't understand that constant rebellion against the establishment is not sustainable, while traditional conservatism is. Argh! (I want a liberal society that gives the individual the freedom to be a weirdo, but which doesn't demonize the conventional.)
It's done in a very clumsy way by the Discovery writers. One of the advantages of.TV compared to film is that, over the course of a season, the show can devote one or two episodes to give back story on secondary characters. Law & Order SVU does this very well, so that all the characters get developed. Like when we find out Ice Tea's son is gay. But that show has the time to do it. In the new Star Wars crap, they are so determined not to subordinate any ethnic group that they bloat the movie with 'humanizing' back stories on every secondary minority character. Discovery could have devoted one episode to the gay lovers, explore their relationship, and I would have responded well to that. Then get back on track with the Sci-Fi story, which is why people are watching Star Trek instead of Lifetime. But no, they are on a mission to celebrate gay love -- and black woman love -- and whatever under-represented love, so they bloat it out over the whole season. I couldn't stand it.
While Kirk was getting laid in almost every episode because he was a main chacter, Star Trek TOS gave us a look at the sex lives of other characters -- Scotty falls in love, Mccoy falls in love, Uhura has a love fantasy, Chekov falls in love. But not every episode had to show Uhura's black love life and Sulu's Asian love life and Scotty's Scottish love life. The same with TNG -- we see one episode about Geordi's love life and one about his family life. That does the trick to show he is a whole person. But not piled on ten-episode storylines about Geordi's blind love life AND Wesley Crusher's teenage love life AND Dr. Crusher's widowed love life AND Guinan's black woman love life.
You’ve all been lovely with your views and your comments. Our thanks to all those who’ve subscribed on the back of this video.
If you want more like this, our most recent review is of Hawkeye, which can be found here: ruclips.net/video/inja_4rnR-U/видео.html
We’ve set aside Sundays for film/TV, whilst Monday-Friday is chiefly US/UK politics and current affairs. We’d love to keep you with us, so do please hit the subscribe button, and get in touch with ideas, views, memes and recommendations.
Bravo.
Where did it all go wrong? Episode 1. Minute 1.
Woke bs is what’s wrong....
True enough, but that would’ve made for a very short video.
I can't stop watching this. So rich and well written.
How do we forward this to Kurtzman?
very good analysis. STD encompasses everything that can be wrong in ST storytelling... It's ok to exist but not in a Star Trek context
This is very observant that the best of Trek compares an idealistic captain against an enemy of power enough to be dangerous to that ideal.
Kirk had Khan.
Picard has The Borg.
Cisco had The Dominion.
NuTrek has…um…
Writing a comment for the algorithm because i appreciate well made non obnoxious videos by small channels.
That’s the first time I’ve ever been accused of being non-obnoxious. Thanks!
Hilariously the Star Trek Online mmo actually gets what Discovery does wrong even though its an action based MMO. Its not about the action itself it's about getting the audience up to speed.
Star trek discovery : captain Branham show
Having only watched the first season, all I want to know is, does Michael Burnham keep the same hairstyle for more than one episode in a row?
I have a feeling she keeps it the same all the way through season 4, but I wasn’t paying all that much attention to the hair given all the other nonsense I had to keep track of.
@@TheLittlePlatoon You are made of tougher stuff than me. The first season was all I could bare to watch.
@@Mirrorgirl492 I’m a masochist, really.
@@TheLittlePlatoon Well you are definitely taking one for the team, many thanks.
I managed to watch s1, and 2 episodes or so of s2... Right when it came out on Netflix, so been a while. I still remember how bad a felt watching it, like something is horrible wrong
Where did it all go wrong???
I'd say starting with a social agenda that has to be brow beat into the audience every episode, and clearly not caring for franchise canon AT ALL, is where it went wrong.
In other words, from the very start. As in day one, "I have an idea for a new Star Trek series" is when it all went wrong.
Discovery went wrong since episode 1
It went wrong at the start. The writing
Aw, bless, so prim and proper and polite. It's amazing how fast our Little Platoon found his mojo.
No one in original Trek was perfect. The best episodes followed a particular character who started out with one idea and, by the episode's end, had learned that there were other ways of thinking. This continued with the movies, so that in the last of the originals we saw an older, slightly bitter Kirk who hated Klingons just because they were Klingons. That film demonstrated that the writers hadn't forgotten how to write good Trek, even so long after the show had become a thing of the past. By focusing on real people - even if they were Vulcans or lumps of living rock - the show allowed viewers to identify with them. We aren't perfect. Giving us perfect role models is like showing a 98 pound weakling a photograph of Arnold at the peak of his career and saying "This is what you want to aim for". It's a ludicrous, impossible goal. We'll never be perfect. But we can be better.
Where did it all go wrong, At the very start with the Micheal show, then sexuality shoved down your throat. I love you in every episodes. Bad acting, storylines. Could go on but will not bore you like show.
I've just discovered your channel. I like it. 👍
We’re glad to have you!
I have no problem with new trek’s social and political approach, because the writers have to assume the generation that will appreciate it most will be the ones that progressed passed those issues. The only problem with “new trek” is it’s plot holes, and choppy story telling
Gene Roddenberry switched to a sci-fi show so networks wouldn't censor him as they paid little attention to sci-fi. Now that TV shows can tackle just about any subject, the need for a show to do so via metaphor or with subtlety. isn't really. necessary.
This is the best overview of STD I have seen. BRAVO 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
Many thanks!
As a Star Trek-fan I watched STD for 3 seasons, but it got more and more painful. Horrible writing and acting, Michael "Space Jesus" Burnham with her everchanging haircuts and perpetual crying, disrespecting Star Trek lore and legacy and the anti straight-white-male policy. Season 3 upset me so much that I totally stopped watching.
Chris Claremont is the writer of the x men for a ten year stretch. He would introduce a npc is one panel, exposition dump a background story tor the npc in the second panel and kill the npc in panel three. Always telegraphing the npc slaughter
Also great videos man love the trek critique
Unfortunately, most people are too wilfully ignorant to even understand what you're trying to say.
Oh, I dunno, all those people who reflexively say “you just hate it because you hate brown people” make some very profound points…
MB is female space Jebus.
What’s the little annotation note say right around the time there’s the cerebrum correction?
Star Trek already did time travel, like twice. Using precise calculations to slingshot around a star to gain proper speed and trajectory to "warp" back in time. Which the understanding that you could fuck it up because you had a bad pilot, and no guarantee you could get back.
How I learned to enjoy ST:D is to see it as a joke and Burnham as a satire of ST captains.
Could have something to do with the weak characters, constant woke agenda, crying constantly of the main character, crying of everyone, emotionally childish. The philosophical term I learnt on my 7th PhD thesis was complete bollocks.
the biggest reason why i stopped watching this show....the actress who plays Burnam. to me she is awful.
I don't think she's an awful actor. But I don't think she can pull off a 'suppressed emotion' character without falling flat, which I think is quite a challenge and takes a gifted actor. Yet past Star Trek has always found actors who could play emotionally suppressed characters who were charismatic, not flat. Obviously, Nimoy. But Sarek, Data, Tuvok, Seven of Nine, T'Pol were all played by gifted actors who gave their 'unemotional' characters rich personalities. Neither Sonequa Martin-Green nor the new Spock and Sarek actors are good enough to pull it off. Notice how in Discovery, Spock and Sarek speak in flat monotones to sound 'logical.' That's so mediocre. The original Sarek and Spock actors conveyed their Vulcan logical nature while speaking mellifluously.
Even worse, the writers doom Sonequa Martin-Green -- not just asking her to play a 'no emotion' Vulcan, which she doesn't have the chops for -- but by making her a fake Vulcan who parades around in her Vulcan garb but then reacts illogically and emotionally when faced with tough command decisions that even human starfleet officers can handle, let alone Vulcans. Sure, I could never space my best friend to save the universe - but I’m not a Starfleet Officer! Kirk let the woman he loved die to save the universe! I just couldn't stand Burnham's fake Vulcan act and stopped watching.
Original Star Trek coincided with the US Civil Rights Act which made it unlawful to discriminate in business for essentially any reason. Star Trek at its best was an idea of where we can go by working together. Until Gene Roddenberry started getting on and it gradually forgot it’s teamwork vision and now has culminated in NuTrek 1984 propaganda.
Where did it all go wrong? They made it all about the most obnoxious character in all of Trek and gave her the most childish crew. And don't start me on the Spore drive BS
Great review!
I dont know what it is, but it ain't trek
It wears trek as a skin suit and hopes we dont notice (thats why the technobable is meaningless)
Simply put, Star Trek discovery just isn't very good, from the characters, to the writing, (the fucking pointless swearing!) the CGI ship, the sets, and the costume. It's just average Sci-Fi on a big budget.
Yasss. Star Trek has always been rather progressive, even to the point of offending/upsetting people. The new shows at least stick to that. If only most shows weren't doing the very same thing. Having turned the series into a bad action drama, there really is nothing left to make Star Trek unique anymore.
The sad part is, Trek was always a deeply flawed series, and somehow they managed to make it worse. I genuinely enjoy the old shows, to this day. It's fun picking on them, Discovery and Picard just make me sad.
I was deeply disappointed with Discovery and had hoped Picard would redeem ST in some small way. But no. There was so much potential even with Picards' young Romulan friend but, alas, writers dropped the ball in all areas.
For me, personally, ST canon ended when Voyager did.
@@reflexxuns4065 I was hopeful for both shows, even when they talked about changes they sounded fine. Sadly, all the new shows have turned out to be a series of unfortunate events. They just don't understand what made Star Trek good. They're turned Trek into a little of everything only pretending to be sci-fi. Talk about milking a franchise for everything it's worth.
@@BeNice108 there is a part of me holding out hope for Strange New Worlds but I'm not holding my breath.
@@reflexxuns4065 Yeah, with that I'm keeping my expectations really low. They claim it'll be more like classic Trek, but they're proven they don't know what that is. I'll cut it slack if it does okay, though.
Did you say Kirk is Id, Spock is Ego, Bones is Super Ego? Maybe I should brush up on my Freud, but I'd say Bones is Id, Kirk is Ego, and Spock is Super Ego. "You, Dr. McCoy, are a sensualist." "You bet your pointy ears I am."
Kirk has an overactive id, but I don't think he represents the id. "Yes, I'm a killer, I admit it. But I'm not going to kill today." That's the Freudian ego, isn't? And ironically, Kirk the sex maniac was the only member of the crew, aside from Spock, who wasn't mentally incapacitated by Mudd's genetically enhanced sex sirens.
It’s been a while, but yeah, I think there was a scripting error in this video.
I don't love Picard but I don't hate it, generally speaking. It had potential...... then pooped its pants quicker than a toddler on taco bell.
I’m planning on addressing this in the critique. On a technical level it’s actually not that bad. It’s infinitely better than Discovery. The problem is partly its tone, but mostly its philosophy and its message… but that’s all I’m saying for now ;-)
Spot on review. Boring characters, non existent plots, boom boom, Yada Yada, whine, whine repeat.
Michael is space Jesus