sure. "boy I'm glad I don't like THAT infantile $h1t, unlike those losers" is another way to get marked as such. I don't think it's "sad" to get labeled in certain ways. as a wise man once said, "Perhaps you know Russian epic of Cinderella? ...If the shoe fits, wear it!" Pride in what you love. Not dunking on things you don't.
I prefer to think of my own views as, "It's silly to care about things they have no control or ownership nor have been motivated to pursue these in life, yet somehow their opinions are resentful, possessive, and overly-personal." And, if it takes that many syllables to explain that, then sure - call me "elitist".
Is it just me...or, has the one social misfit never, ever portrayed in a Star Trek script...been the quintessential "Star Trek"-type fan...? (Oh, maybe, Discovery-era "Harry Mudd"...but, that would have been more in his portrayal of "Dwight"... )
It is a good looking production. It was non profit, but a lot of professional craftsmen work on the show. Many with prior Trek experience. The acting is what is is. I just feel that when it came to the look, feel and tone of TOS, they nailed it.
I gotta agree from what I've seen. Production values very high, the actors kinda miss. It's not their fault, NO ONE can look like the old crew. See? Old ST fans as myself suck. Lulz
This is very well-said. I had to cancel my own message because Holerbot covered the territory perfectly.
YES. Thank you for saying this. I have been a Star Trek fanatic since I was old enough to know what Star Trek was. I had gotten away from the reboot movies, I didn’t personally like them, but thanks to Star Trek: Discovery and Picard, I was sucked back into the fold. My wife, who loathed anything Star Trek, is now hooked on Discovery and rather enjoys Picard. New trek is bringing new folks into the fray and teaching them about what all trek is all about... HOPE for the future.
i enjoy TOS, TNG, DS9, STV, Enterprise, Discovery and Picard. I don’t get the hate for Discovery. If you want TNG or TOS they are there. Each series has its unique tone. I don’t want Discovery or Picard to be what came before in terms of storytelling approach. The Abrams reboot is fun but it just feels like Star Wars with characters named Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Still entertaining but they feel like someone gave their impression of Trek after being told about it.
Just watched episode two of season three for Discovery. It’s amazing. Commander Saru is still my favorite character and he really shines in this new episode.
I think over the last 50 years I have gotten so burnt out of “Star Trek”...especially the lame TNG and reboot movies, that I haven’t watched either “Discovery “ or “Picard”. I took the first season DVDs of the former out of the library but returned them three days later unwatched. Maybe I am missing some good tv but it doesn’t move me for now. I have been watching the TNG for the first time I recorded them when they were broadcast. Gee, the first couple years Picard is more suited for the SS than Starfleet. First season “The Neutral Zone” he is furious with Data for reviving three early 21st century Earthlings...they should accept death but Picard sure doesn’t limit advances in medicine. In “Pen Pals” he is willing to have a pre warp civilization die until his crew persuades him they can do it. In TOS Spock wrecks the warp engines trying to prevent an asteroid from destroying planet of the American Indians. In “Who Watches the Watchers” he tells Crusher to let the native who discovered their watching station die. She refuses, saying it was their fault he fell from a cliff investigating. In the episode introducing the Borg, he boats to Q that we can meet any challenge and gets 18 people killed. Hey, if you are talking to one superior being who can swat you like a fly, there are probably others who can do it without hesitation
At some point between the series' cancellation and its big-screen debut 10 years later, "Trek" fans seemed to decide that it was The World's Most Cerebral TV Series, and that became this big myth. I think it was the success of "Star Wars" that accelerated this trend. "Trek" fans needed to separate it from the new kid in town, so they denounced "Star Wars" as brainless action and praised "Trek" as high-minded fare for the intelligentsia. Neither view is correct, of course. "Star Wars" has more depth and substance than just sci-fi silliness, and "Trek" has more action and goofiness than its snooty rep. I think this is why "ST:TMP" is such a snoozer, though: all involved believed the hype and felt they needed to make a SERIOUS FREAKIN' MOVIE, not some action romp. Glad the Nick Meyer managed to get back to the heart of the matter in 1982...
That's where you went wrong right off the bat. YouTube comments make Twitter look like even-keeled discourse.
The person who put up the video does have the option of deleting any comment, banning the user from the channel, and reporting inappropriate comments. I use these tools liberally on my channels. Here's the options that I have for a comment: If people can't be bothered to moderate the comment section on their videos, they can also just disable comments.
I retain my opinion that, that's not really what the original series was about. It was more about capturing the zeitgeist of an America hooked on a moon landing, with a generation of young 'Boomers building rockets, learning rocket science, and wishing they had that future they were being sold. There are various things Star Trek did very well, such as inspiring hope for the future, as well as illustrating current events and issues in metaphorical sci-fi scenarios, because more modern-day-based series couldn't get away with commenting on some controversial issues as you could if you took it out of context of the 20th Century. But, these are things Trek became known for after it first wowed sci-fi fans with judo kicks, crazy, rubber-suited aliens, a Russian Davy-Jones lookalike with a hip haircut, and wow-cool-colorful-console-lights. We who absorbed Trek in the early days, were just as enamored as the series CBS based Roddenberry's pitch on before that...the cheesy comedy, "Danger Wiiiiil Robinson!"...admittedly Trek was more "mature" in its' execution - and the pointy-eared one was more of a babe magnet than Lost In Space's Major West - but, the audiences didn't really intuit these clever "issues-as-metaphor" or "hope-for-the-future" tropes at first. Frankly, while Kirk was wandering around in fake Old Western Towns and McCoy was explaining what an "empath" was in a budget-slashing episode mostly shot on a barely-lit soundstage, nobody was really talking about Trek in the same way we finally learned to really respect it in retrospect - during years of syndication, syndication, lather-rinse-repeat. In other words, the "legend" of what Saint Roddenberry's continuity was all about, became truer in the re-telling. Even to the point where Roddenberry suddenly had live audiences to repeat all the stories, bells, whistles and easter eggs at every convention. Not that it wasn't true the first time, but...I suspect most of its' audience didn't love it for that at first, as much as they just loved it for being a hip, cool show about space. Can you imagine all the high-level, strategic story-planning sessions DS9 would be, if the only thing the showrunner, the studio, and the writers need to agree on was, "Remember, it's gotta be 'Bonanza in Space!" Or TNG basing their existence on, "See, it's 'High Chapparal In Space!" Or the deeply-philosophical planning behind Voyager, aka, "Gilligan's Island In Space"...
I believe it was Roddenberry's repetition of the "fact" that the show was originally passed on for being "too cerebral", which I'm still not sure is true.
Anyone who's actually watched "TOS" knows it wasn't "too cerebral". Sure, it was progressive but it was still crowd-pleasing. How many of us got into "TOS" as kids via 1970s reruns? A lot, I'm sure, and I kinda doubt a "super cerebral" series would've appealed to many 7-year-olds...
There is plenty of action in ST:TOS. Is that not the first thing that those in the "Kirk" camp trot out? "Picard stays on the ship and negotiates. Kirk beams down and takes care of business!"
Yeah, "TNG" was much closer to the "cerebral" version that Roddenberry and some fans like to sell "TOS" as being. Didn't GR want there to be zero conflict on "TNG" - or was that just zero conflict among Starfleet members? I recall something where he wanted the "TNG" society painted as this utopia where everyone got along and the writers were flummoxed, as that left little room for interesting stories!
To be entirely fair - how many big space battle scenes were there in Star Trek II? The movie most people put forward as the best installment in the cinematic franchise? Two, and the first one was barely a couple of minutes long. In Star Trek IV, the movie some consider to be the most accessible to non-Trek fans, there were *no* space battles. Heck, I think there was only one "action" scene.
Let’s go with something more recent shall we? That was before both the Next Gen, DS9 and Voyager where it was easier to,do these type of battles because of advances in digital technology. As to battles, not every single episode of Discovery or Picard focused 0n space battles. Again, we’re talking action scenes in TOS not just space battles (which would have been cost prohibitive and difficult to do). Star Trek VI wasn’t about ANY of that. It was primarily set on Earth. Kind of hard to do space battles in that and the material didn’t lend itself to it either.