STAR TREK

(and calling it "NuTrek" still doesn't sit right with me personally ; too many toxic haters have been using that term to death)
That isn't my intention. I use it much the same way I use the term 'NuWho' - to simply differentiate the vastly different eras. It's not qualitative.
 
That isn't my intention. I use it much the same way I use the term 'NuWho' - to simply differentiate the vastly different eras. It's not qualitative.

Oh, that I am absolutely aware of so don't worry: I certainly don't see you as part of that problematic part of the fandom.

And I think it is okay to use that term to differentiate the eras, but I meant that's more my own personal reason why I don't like using the term due to the negative connotations due to those toxic and/or conservative fans who tend to use it in a disparaging way.
 
Oh, that I am absolutely aware of so don't worry: I certainly don't see you as part of that problematic part of the fandom.

And I think it is okay to use that term to differentiate the eras, but I meant that's more my own personal reason why I don't like using the term due to the negative connotations due to those toxic and/or conservative fans who tend to use it in a disparaging way.
I might dislike Discovery, but I also hate the derogatory use of STD as an acronym for the same reasons as you.
 
I might dislike Discovery, but I also hate the derogatory use of STD as an acronym for the same reasons as you.

Oh yes, that is another one that troubles me and is arguably worse (I mean, essentially comparing a show you don't like to a sexual disease is pretty much as toxic and spiteful as you can get). I wish that even those not liking the show could just say DSC.
 
Oh, and while I'm in the thread, might as well say something on the second episode of DSC's fifth season:

Under The Twin Moons I thought was alright (again, not really hating the show, having learnt to live with the issues and take it for what it is and try enjoy myself as this is still new Star Trek and I'm gonna watch all episodes :D).

It was kinda slow and clunky at first with a lot of talk and exposition (not horrible or really bad tho), but after the credits, it picked up. I kinda liked the emphasis put on this being Saru's last mission as part of the crew before he leaves on his assignment (still enjoy his character a lot, sad to see him go) and I enjoyed him and Burnham on the mission on the jungle-forest planet to find the next clue of the puzzle before Moll & L'ak (in the big space race or whatever); also nice with some exploration of an alien world (which was certainly Trek-y).

Not a bad setpiece with the automated defense system attacking & them having to outsmart it, although felt eerily similar to 'The Arsenal Of Freedom' but maybe an intentional reference (I think that if that episode had been made now, it'd look like this; would've been funny to see the Vincent Schiavelli hologram pop up, lol). Was nice to see Rayner pitch in to help (and that side plot of him being in trouble with Starfleet due to last episode was a bit interesting, I felt; an intriguing choice to have Burnham selecting him for his number one, but makes sense that she'd need someone to counter her as a non-yes man) & will be interesting to revisit Trill (even though I sort of wished they'd visit another new planet instead of revisiting an old one, but I guess they must need a reason to bring in Gray again, probably).

I don't think the show really needed to have Booker have a familiar connection to Moll (whom may seemingly be related to him, despite no real family resemblande), but again, I guess they felt that need to have him more closely tied to the plot (but like with the Trill revisit thing, this is more of me personally disagreeing with how the story feels the need to have some of the characters more personally & emotionally involved in the plot, which isn't really necessary but yeah, I can live with this as it is the show's bread & butter).

I think the show did nicely giving Saru a send-off and I do feel the camraderie between him and Burnham paid off in the goodbye scene, which was a nice and well done scene without being overly sentimental, but rather more genuine (although not sure about their earlier talk about "Action Saru" and whatnot while on the planet. Just felt like it stopped the plot for some talk that should've come later when they were not on a critical mission like this, but it didn't really bother me too much, to be honest).
 
Is STD really that discriminatory? I don't use it myself, and figured those that do, just used it as the standard three letter abreviation every trek show gets with TOS, TNG, DS9, ENT, SNW, or PIC, only one that doesn't is Lower Decks and that's only as it doesn't have enough letter.
 
Is STD really that discriminatory? I don't use it myself, and figured those that do, just used it as the standard three letter abreviation every trek show gets with TOS, TNG, DS9, ENT, SNW, or PIC, only one that doesn't is Lower Decks and that's only as it doesn't have enough letter.
Given that the other commonly accepted abbreviations have never included 'ST', I think the intention is clear. If they were consistent, they would use 'DIS'.
 
Given that the other commonly accepted abbreviations have never included 'ST', I think the intention is clear. If they were consistent, they would use 'DIS'.

Yeah. No other show uses ST in their abbreviation and I've read way too many disparaging fans using the STD (in a negative connotation) rathert than just saying DSC (the offical one), DIS or Disco make things really kind of obvious.

Also Lower Decks do have an abbreviation, which is LDS (funnily enough)
 
Given that the other commonly accepted abbreviations have never included 'ST', I think the intention is clear. If they were consistent, they would use 'DIS'.
To be fair DIS is quite the diss in of itself, and what with Disco being dead I think any could be seen as having negative connontation ;)

As for Lower Decks I usually see it abbreviated as LD hence the observation it's lacking in letters for a three letter one.
 
To be fair DIS is quite the diss in of itself, and what with Disco being dead I think any could be seen as having negative connontation ;)

But those are abbreviations with funny connotations so they don't count :P

As for Lower Decks I usually see it abbreviated as LD hence the observation it's lacking in letters for a three letter one.

I've seen it as LD on occasion, but nowadays I see more of LDS (which I think is more apt considering the Star Trek IV reference)
 
Guys
Additionally, @Smear-Gel, If/when you do watch the recommended ones (2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and Galaxy Quest), be sure to check back in here with your thoughts. Would be interesting to know what you think of them (and which ones were your favorites) :)
Thing is I will probably just watch the movies in order despite the advice. Only thing I may do to switch it up is start with the TNG ones but that's not set in stone since it's so far off
 
Guys

Thing is I will probably just watch the movies in order despite the advice. Only thing I may do to switch it up is start with the TNG ones but that's not set in stone since it's so far off

That's actually more than fair. I can understand why you'd wanting to see them all and in order. Hoping you find some favorites among them and would certainly be intereting if you liked any of the ones not recommened. Looking forward to that, when you decide to.

By the way, have you seen the Discovert season 5 premiere duo yet?
 
Came across a Trek reddit post that highlights probably my main issue with Discovery (to this day).

These parts kinda sums it all up for me:

My first instinct was to examine myself and check if some of the heavier topics raised might simply be making me feel uncomfortable. They explore trauma, loss, sexuality, gender, and identity, a range of very charged subjects.

Sci-fi at its best explores these kinds of deep issues through allegory, metaphor, and plot-driven character development - creating space for interpretation, reflection and ultimately internalisation. When we’re given time to digest and wrestle with these topics, we can forge a personal connection with them.

But in Discovery, these issues are often portrayed via blunt exposition in a way that feels really forced. Every few minutes the flow of the story is interrupted so a character can explain how they’re overwhelmed by an emotional struggle. Everyone then hurries to validate them and reassure that it’s normal and okay to feel whatever they’re feeling. The narrative languishes as a vehicle to contrive characters into situations that necessitate emotional vulnerability for the sake of validation.

The constant deep emotional disclosures also blurs the lines between personal and professional boundaries that would be necessary in high-stakes hierarchical organisations like Starfleet. Some level of detached professionalism is needed in order for a chain of command to function, and the lack of this constantly challenges my suspension of disbelief.

I also like this comment (a lot) and reminds me of how the writers tend to break an important storytelling rule over and over:

I've always felt that the writers never really learned the principle of 'show, don't tell'. Instead of writing character interactions and dialogue that lead me to feel a certain way naturally, they instead tell me how I should be feeling in quite a blunt and clumsy fashion

Always kinda bothered me of how a plot would often stop/pause for essentially a therapy session, ruining the pacing and flow and just becoming clunky and heavy-handed. Also barely anyone of these moments feel earned but rather forced, unlike SNW where this kind of emotional personal moments come off way better written and naturally (I saw someone giving the example of the La'an scene at the very end of 'Tomorrow And Tomorrow And Tomorrow' and that I agree about; that was a truly earnt, understandable, emotional moment).

Discovery always needed better writing to justify all of these personal emotional moments between characters & to actually write them well and naturally as part of the stories rather than stopping the plots to deliver them with clumsy overt dialogue and back and forths, but instead, it's really more telling than showing. It lacks that balance of SNW and even LDS & it has been a big aspect that has been holding it back.

Oh, and I also saw this comment, which did made me think some more on the subject:

Is it possibly generational? Disco is my daughter’s favorite Trek, because “the characters seem like real people with real feelings, and don’t sound like robots.”

I absolutely believe that many young audiences (whom are more products of the modern day) respond more positively to 'Discovery' and its style of exploring and talking about feelings between characters instead of bottling it all up, having them constantly unloading.

But it all the more makes it understandable of why long time fans have such a problem with the show. It's not really "made for them", but rather seem to click better with newer audiences who want more or less relatable, real-feeling characters.

So yes, it do feel like an generational thing, at least partially.
 
Last edited:
(I saw someone giving the example of the La'an scene at the very end of 'Tomorrow And Tomorrow And Tomorrow' and that I agree about; that was a truly earnt, understandable, emotional moment).
I can see why as that was absolutely earnt. Such a good moment, and incredibly well done.
 
I can see why as that was absolutely earnt. Such a good moment, and incredibly well done.

What I believe make it work so well is the performance by Christina Chong, whom absolutely sell those bottled up feelings welling out without making it come off as cringy narm and melodramatic, but actually earnest & real. One of those SNW endings that stuck with me.
 
SNW getting renewed for another season was kind of obvious (and yeah, it's great to know), but 'Lower Decks' ending up on the chopping block (I assume as part of the Paramount+ cutbacks/write-offs) with season 5, which we still have no details on, as the last one? :uhh:

I think I'll let ol' Marky Mark describe my immediate reaction to the latter (NSFW, obviously):


But really, I'm seriously disappointed with the lack of respect for Trek animation by Paramount & CBS. At first they kill and try bury 'Prodigy' and now fan favorite 'Lower Decks' is a dead show walking? Hell, this is feeling quite a bit like David Zazslavs crusade against animation over at WB-Discovery all over again. Really hoping that the show will get a sequel series follow-up soon enough and that this won't be the end of he road (because be damned, it has deserves it, having earnt the love of the fandom).

(Maybe it turns out the showrunner intended for season 5 to be the last, but considering his earlier expressed worries, I doubt it).
 
Last edited:
(Maybe it turns out the showrunner intended for season 5 to be the last, but considering his earlier expressed worries, I doubt it).
From what I've seen he's out there trying to spin it to reassure fans, and maybe angle for a spin off, but yeah Boimler's voice actor confirmed it's a cancellation so that's that.
 
From what I've seen he's out there trying to spin it to reassure fans, and maybe angle for a spin off, but yeah Boimler's voice actor confirmed it's a cancellation so that's that.

I've rather seen some fans theorizing that maybe five seasons was intentional rather than McMahan, but yep, this is no doubt a cancellation and McMahan is trying to be optimistic. Also with Discovery also only getting five seasons before it was cancelled, maybe they will limit all the new shows, SNW included, to five seasons tops (for budgetary/tax reasons)? Wouldn't surprise me if that's it, really.

Additionally, I don't think I will ever forgive Paramount & CBS if they don't make some sort of sequel series to 'Lower Decs', preferably animated. This cancellation news truly is a crappy end to the week (this crusade against animation by streaming services must end).
 
That's a shame. I've been open about my ambivalence towards Lower Decks, but I'm genuinely disappointed for you guys. That's a show that could conceivably have gone on for many years to come.
 
@B-Boy, Thanks man.

Though I must say, despite your ambivalence toward 'Lower Decks', I'm sure that we all can agree we'd easily sacrifice the upcoming Section 31 movie if it meant a sixth (and maybe even a seventh) season more of the Lower Deckers gang, no?
 
@B-Boy, Thanks man.

Though I must say, despite your ambivalence toward 'Lower Decks', I'm sure that we all can agree we'd easily sacrifice the upcoming Section 31 movie if it meant a sixth (and maybe even a seventh) season more of the Lower Deckers gang, no?
No argument there!
 
I will go back and read the Discovery stuff (Ive actually found this season to be fine so far) but I have to say I watched A Taste of Armageddon and I think I kinda just didnt like it. There's never any real discussion about the moral superiority of "real" wars vs computer ones, just Kirk saying he doesnt like this alien culture and deeming himself single handedly responsible in getting these people to change their ways. We never even see the other people get involved in this thing, and at the end the show does make a point to say Kirk just openly gambled with the lives of everyone on the planet.

The message at the end I do like about making the idea of being so detached from war that they felt the need to do it forever (extremely well aged lesson) but the journey to get there left me kinda cold. This is just like the Landru planet episode but this one I dont think manages to stop itself from no longer being enjoyable because of the Prime Directive violations
 
I will go back and read the Discovery stuff (Ive actually found this season to be fine so far)

I've also been enjoying it fine thus far. Latest episode was a bit slower than the prior two but aside from some pacing issues, I liked that, as it gave room for more character stuff. Several plotlines, some less interesting so and some more so. Will probably go a tiny bit more into it soon, but I'll leave it there for now (the news of 'Lower Decks' cancellation drained me a little).

I have to say I watched A Taste of Armageddon and I think I kinda just didnt like it. There's never any real discussion about the moral superiority of "real" wars vs computer ones, just Kirk saying he doesnt like this alien culture and deeming himself single handedly responsible in getting these people to change their ways. We never even see the other people get involved in this thing, and at the end the show does make a point to say Kirk just openly gambled with the lives of everyone on the planet.

The message at the end I do like about making the idea of being so detached from war that they felt the need to do it forever (extremely well aged lesson) but the journey to get there left me kinda cold. This is just like the Landru planet episode but this one I dont think manages to stop itself from no longer being enjoyable because of the Prime Directive violations

A bit surprised that you didn't like 'A Taste of Armageddon' at all (one of the fan favorite episodes, usually recommended from the first season of TOS), but seems to me that it is an episode you ain't supposed to look at too matter of factly nor only by what we see in the story but more allegorically and metaphorically. It isn't just as simple as Kirk not liking how this alien culture do something and deciding to make them change their ways, but I rather see it as deeper and more meaningful than that, especially in terms of a starkly anti-war story.

Sure, the story is a bit loose and messy, it could've gone deeper into it & covered more ground has flaws (such as Kirk interfering like he did, which is questionable but then again, at the time the episode was made, the Prime Directive didn't exist as we came to know it) but I don't mind as, again, I more as a metaphorical story, because in that sense, it stands out as a powerful message piece on the sheer horror and pointlessness of war. It's not really such an "easy" episode (and I don't think the point was about any "moral" superiority of real actual wars vs. computer-driven ones, but rather part of the whole metaphor angle. Plus war is war no matter what).

I'm too lazy to go into it more, but I'll direct you to them0vieblog's piece on the episode, which also addresses your issues but also brings up other points and come to a bit of a different conclusion (and as usual, his episode analyses are highly recommended):

 
Last edited:
I've also been enjoying it fine thus far. Latest episode was a bit slower than the prior two but aside from some pacing issues, I liked that, as it gave room for more character stuff. Several plotlines, some less interesting so and some more so. Will probably go a tiny bit more into it soon, but I'll leave it there for now (the news of 'Lower Decks' cancellation drained me a little).



A bit surprised that you didn't like 'A Taste of Armageddon' at all (one of the fan favorite episodes, usually recommended from the first season of TOS), but seems to me that it is an episode you ain't supposed to look at too matter of factly nor only by what we see in the story but more allegorically and metaphorically. It isn't just as simple as Kirk not liking how this alien culture do something and deciding to make them change their ways, but I rather see it as deeper and more meaningful than that, especially in terms of a starkly anti-war story.

Different franchise but it reminds me of the Zygon Inversion from Doctor Who, another episode about war that is an absolute fan favourite, but for me 90% of the story isnt interesting and is hard carried by the 5 minute speech at the end. I'd say the same thing here.

Oh a Darren Mooney review, if anyone would change my mind it would be him
 
Last edited:
My only take on Discovery is that they need to do something else other than "lets go here and find another clue" soon because that would get old
 
Different franchise but it reminds me of the Zygon Inversion from Doctor Who, another episode about war that is an absolute fan favourite, but for me 90% of the story isnt interesting and is hard carried by the 5 minute speech at the end. I'd say the same thing here
I sure do love that speech.
 
Different franchise but it reminds me of the Zygon Inversion from Doctor Who, another episode about war that is an absolute fan favourite, but for me 90% of the story isnt interesting and is hard carried by the 5 minute speech at the end. I'd say the same thing here.

Interesting. These do sound quite similar. Which one of the two do you think is the better one, had you to choose?

Oh a Darren Mooney review, if anyone would change my mind it would be him

Well, I kinda thought you would see it that way :lol:

I suppose you have been reading some of his reviews there before?

My only take on Discovery is that they need to do something else other than "lets go here and find another clue" soon because that would get old

Yeah, I did feel the same in the latest episode. There was a lot of plots going on but it feels like the actual main "treasure hunt" plot progressed very little this time, being relegated to the Trill plot and we didn't even really get to see them getting the next clue & if the season will have more of these clue-finding episodes, it will get repetitive and tiresome.
 
Back
Top