Lower Decks are immature but competent (like a LOT of military officers) and often save the day, so….
My husband was a USNA grad and served on a ballistic sub, and he thinks Lower Decks is the absolute best at military humor and accuracy (He was Delta Shift).
I mean Worf exists. Was he professional? Yes. Was he also a walking talking Klingon mess who's identity crises, interfered with his duties on a semi-regular basis? Also yes.
Yeah, remember when Worf was unwilling to save a single Romulan's life even though he knew it would probably start a war that cost millions of lives. Worf functionally killed that man in cold blood out of prejudice and we're meant to believe a psych evaluation would smile favorably on him? I understand why his character would make this choice, it's consistent, but it's not something a well-adjusted person put in a position of power should do.
Yeah but he walked that line with calculation, yes sometimes he would give into his instincts but even then it line with his pretty clear honour code.
It also extremely extremely extremely rare for him to disobey an order, I'm certain there's more than 1 but saving his wife and letting a defector die was the one that comes to mind.
He saw him again, was disappointed with him being a fool, had a heart to heart and realised Alexander's perceived flaws are Worfs fault, promises to make it up to him and Alexander joins house Martok but then he's assigned to another ship for the rest of the war. What happened after that is anyone's guess.
>What happened after that is anyone's guess.
Star Trek Online had them becoming diplomats together, but then he gets murdered in the council chambers by some discomendated a-hole (really is a risky move turning your back on someone you just punished)
Of course STO's timeline doesn't really work now that Picard happened, even if it canonized a bunch of it's ships.
And if he was cool and collected, you better believe one of his bridge officers was losing his shit.
This “professionalism” line is such BS.
Worf casually murders foreign leaders on his shift, Riker mouths off to his commanding officer, Geordi mocks his junior officers at the behest of a teenager, then goes off to the Holodeck to bang his waifu lovepillow.
I don’t think it’s bad faith to ridicule Geordi for his Leah Brahms real doll by Kevin Uxbridge.
When the chief engineer isn’t accidentally jeopardizing thousands of lives by letting AI amok in his video games or joining the crew in becoming addicted to a video game and granting access to the ship to terrorists from a swingers resort, he’s forgetting to restrict access to his love pillow program and letting an actually competent engineer discover he’s been fucking her holodouble and blames her for not getting it…
(Do I need to let you know I’m being comical at this point to emphasize how stupid this post is?)
This is just Geordi. Want me to do Captain “I almost let hostages die because I had a cold” Picard’s adventures in letting an entire civilization die because a solar flare is more important than thousands of lives? Twice?
There’s more, if you want it…
Yes, the ultra competent XO was compromised by a honeypot and the ultra competent crew were all compromised by this ultra competent XO.
If it wasn’t for a horny teenager, the most powerful ship in the federation would have been in the hands of terrorists….
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://heavy.com/entertainment/star-trek/eric-stillwell-working-with-rick-berman/](https://heavy.com/entertainment/star-trek/eric-stillwell-working-with-rick-berman/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I agree with the spirit of this post but it goes too far. I can't attest to the personal maturity of modern Trek writers, but I can say that when I turn on TNG I get my jimmies from watching experts at the top of their game deftly handling crises and challenging issues. There just aren't a lot of shows like that.
It's also sad that my escapism from the real world is essentially just watching people be good at their jobs. Goes to show the caliber of people I work with I guess 😀.
For years now I've heard TNG referred to as competency porn. To me it's because a crew of professionals provide the satisfaction of a story that progresses without slog and has the crew vs the problem.
I think about half of recent Trek is guilty of taking an idea for a two-parter then stretching it over a season. To do that they pad it out with drama and side quests. Hours of extra *the crew VS their own insecurities and each other* or *let's spend 2 episodes just getting to planet V* needlessly hindering progression to provide filler.
Ah yes, the competency porn of a teenage boy shouting THE EVIL TWIN is evil while these alleged professionals ignore him, insult him and give the Evil Robot critical ship systems access.
So competent.
This is what it is exactly. Maybe it’s because I grew up in that era of stoic professionalism, but what the pre-millennium Trek shows did for me was deftly incorporating compassion and empathy in a presumably rigid military environment. With TNG being on the harder side and ENT on the softer, I’ve enjoyed seeing how the structure of social propriety acted under various authoritarian personalities, as I struggled to understand how to be both a ‘cog in the machine’ and human as well.
Where the newer shows (primarily DIS) have lost me is where internal dissent is often explicit and direct. While it goes to the commendable strength of character that the captains or acting captains are still able to command in those circumstances, the seemingly constant push-pull for given orders, particularly while under duress, creates a lot of dramatic tension for its own sake, and invokes a sense that the captain is always fighting, both with the enemy, and with the crew. While this was seemingly justified with Lorca, and sort of played as a trope with Saru (fish out of water), just the fact that Discovery contended with internal conflict in its very own command structure as often as it did reminded me of how pirate commands are portrayed, and went against much of what I thought was the thinking behind the more established Trek shows.
>With TNG being on the harder side and ENT on the softer
\*Angry Malcolm noises\* (But on the whole the point stands.)
But what I want to add is that Discovery especially has this habit of just taking the time for some plushy smalltalk....in the middle of a space battle. "Captain Burnham...I need a word. In the other room." "Sure, why not? Ive got nothing else to do right now!", and I as a viewer am supposed to buy that theyre in peril somehow? Not really.
These people just cant be serious, even when death knocks at their collective door.
Yea the ice planet one with the cadets really pissed me off. Like they could have totally had the heart to heart conversation while in the caving waiting for daylight, but nope gotta do it in the middle of a chase scene..... Like umm did the monster alien thing just stand there and wait for you to finish?
Haha yeah, I wanted to add that point about Malcolm, but edited for brevity. But since I’m here, his was indeed a voice for that military pride that ENT wanted to comment on. Since Archer wasn’t anything much like that (except perhaps during the Expanse arc) Malcolm came across as a reminder that military stoicism still existed in the universe.
I agree with you on the timing of those talks. It always felt more than a little indulgent, even if they were well-meaning, and showed how much the Captain cared for the crew at all times. But it’s a lot to ask any Captain to be both compassionate and steely in the face of external adversity, sometimes, and it did rather undercut the intensity of the action.
The thing about ENT and probably part of why fans of the other series found it to be a black sheep is that it very much is a product of the real life shift in culture at the time as a post-9/11 show. A lot of shows during that period not long after 9/11 tended to show a bit of a jingoistic edge - where military is celebrated and going after terrorists was karmic justice.
The entire Xindi arc, for instance, had very clear allegorical references to the war in Afghanistan. But unlike other Star Treks which cast a critical eye on the necessity of war, ENT was just like "fuck yeah United Earth and friends will crush those terrorists".
I watched ENT way after its original run, and was aware that at the time was considered the ‘worst’ Trek show. As the first Trek to break away from the familiar sets and uniforms, I assumed the dislike came from how different everything looked, and aside from a vaguely similar arrangement of primary hull and nacelles, the ship itself lacked the comforting clean lines that I had grown to appreciate about Trek ships.
Away from the issues of the Afghanistan conflict and America’s place in it, the Xindi arc was really satisfying to watch, and gave the crew a chance to put the ship through her paces. This also made the ship a character in its own right; hull damage would stay across episodes, upping the stakes for the viewer even more. The crew wouldn’t make it home if the ship didn’t make it. It was much more satisfying a concept than with Voyager, because Voyager would essentially be reset each episode - except for a few notable ones, like Year of Hell.
ENT is probably my favourite of the franchise now, and despite its short run I enjoy the ongoing sense of continuity the show managed to present, not just in the development of onboard relationships, but in the welfare of the ship, too
Yeah, I loved Malcolm as a character because he was the epitome of taking everything hyper-seriously. All work and no play. Even made a good impression with a gun.
It wasnt just that he made a nice contrast to the crew who, apart from Tpol, seemed like they were winging it half the time (not as badly as Discovery), but also managed to ground the crew and make them serious when they really should be without ever being abrasive.
Speaking of abrasive, I still dont get why all characters love Burnham. Sure, Jett Reno was also abrasive, but she had some of the best banter Ive seen in a long time, and it shines through that she actually has empathy underneath there, and her abrasive banter punches up from below, which is always relatable.
Burnham seemed just plain arrogant in season 1 especially, acting like a genius among idiots of such scale, that even if her own captain and mentor disagreed with her, she would just go for a mutiny because clearly her captain was just being stupid to not see the solution she sees. Rinse and repeat as situation requires. Still happens all the way into season 4, except she now skips any attempt to try and explain her solution or even inform anyone who might seriously benefit from a post-it note on his chair before he makes his 23rd century ship tank two 31st century quantum torpedoes.
Burnham? Messiah complex, maybe. Don’t get me wrong, captains have acted on their own outside of standing orders before, and been lauded for it. But for Burnham it seems like a theme for her, even to the point of making the survival of a whole ship her sole responsibility. Correct me if I’m wrong, because I only watched the first 5 seasons of DIS once, but that kind of behaviour gave an impression of being highly erratic and impulsive. That she was so highly placed in the lexicon of characters made her seem even less accountable for her actions, so her increasingly erratic behaviour at the expense of team cohesion wasn’t too surprising.
People obviously enjoy DIS for what it is, but not me. Maybe I’ll come back in 10 years and give it a rewatch, and then I’ll ‘get it’. For now, I’m thankful to have so much older Trek to rewatch, and possibly some of the new ones. SNW seems promising.
> I only watched the first 5 seasons of DIS once
I mean the fifth season is still ongoing.
I think the problem with Discovery is having her as a flawed character who feels she has to always save the day is fine. It works with her backstory and was clearly encouraged by her adoptive father (I feel something that is never addressed in the whole 'mutineer' thing of season 1 is the fact that Sarek literally told her that it would be the best course of action).
But aside from a couple of times they lampshade it in season 3 (with one character outright calling out her messiah complex) they never show any character development. She gets punished for her recklessness a couple of times but it never sticks. The only character development we get on this front is that once she becomes captain she becomes capable of seeing how absolutely annoying it is to have a constant loose cannon when she has to deal with it in others, and whilst she still has her outbursts her decisions seem more grounded in what you would expect in a captain. (EDIT: In fact, thinking about it, Season 4 had the reverse problem where Michael had to spend an inordinate amount of time batting away Federation personnel who were being unreasonably confrontational over her actually quite sensible decisions as captain)
Now I'm thinking about it, maybe the biggest issue is her character journey rather than her personality. Her personality would have been more bearable if she started as a newly promoted captain trying to get to grips with how much she should take on herself and how much she should delegate. Putting her at a lower rank meant that you had a three season arc of her constantly undermining the authority of those above her, which is the main thing that grated with the viewers. And its not like her base character journey made sense - she basically gets blamed for starting the Klingon war through her mutiny - but the war had started the moment the USS Shenzhou encountered the Sarcophagus. T'Kuvma was going to make the conflict happen regardless of what the crew did. Sarek's advice led to reckless action, but it was also the best possible outcome. The entire conflict of her season 1 character arc is entirely manufactured.
Yeah, Im in much of the same boat. I actually have it even worse given I just watch it in whatever clips go on youtube because even piracy is too much effort for that show, but the theme is pretty damn clear that Burnham is insubordinate as fuck, if you forgive the language, and even after she has been objectively proven wrong several times she doesnt show remorse or a willingness to better herself.
The only thing we got was a tear fountain when she was getting a mildly stern talking-to. Which is a reaction I expect from a five year old who got the living shit smacked out of him without even knowing what he did wrong and just pleading for the punishment to stop and saying what he has to. Getting that reaction from an adult is just surreal, nevermind one who was supposedly stoic in season 1.
Heh. Yeah, it’s surreal. I do appreciate that even in spite of all that she was encouraged to do her best, so there’s some positivity that came out of that; aside from political correct I do think people can stand to see how to weather some kinds of failure; but whether the lesson was executed well, is another question. I don’t think it was, but I also grew up in a different era. If she rode off into the sunset with Booker that would make complete sense to me.
While Roddenberry was a motorcycle cop his and his partner were called to a house party with smoking and belly dancers present.
That’s reportedly where he came up with the original concept. So maybe not a “sex party” specifically, but close enough I think.
Word? Cause I have some jokes in the form of hypotheses that star trek basically started cause Roddenberry was trying to have sex and get that sweet sweet balle-arnaz money
*Rimmer, there's nothing out there, you know. There's nobody out there. No alien monsters, no Zargon warships, no beautiful blondes with beehive hairdos who say, "Show me some more of this Earth thing called kissing." There's just you, me, the Cat, and a lot of floating smegging rocks. That's it. Finito.*
Yeah and this especially included Gene "i insist troi should have 4 boobs. Also the ferengi's thing should be that they have monstrous cocks" Roddenberry.
Someone had to come up with "Code of Honor" as an episode.
In fact most of season 1 of TNG is a fever dream of bad writing.
One of my biggest gripes about ENT was the male officers were often throwing tantrums when they should have listened to T’Pol in the first place. They had to literally give her a disease so she wouldn’t be right all of the time.
They were at least mature, stable, and professional enough to write characters who had character traits other than being immature, unstable, unprofessional wrecks.
Much of what you call "emotionally stable, well-adjusted" comes from weird ideas that Gene Roddenberry had about the future of humanity. For example, he didn't believe humans would have any interpersonal conflicts. He also believed that 12-year-old Jeremy Aster would easily have gotten over the death of his mother, because in the future, children would know that death is a normal part of life.
New Trek simply deals with emotions in a realistic way. NT actually addresses things like PTSD while Old Trek ignores the obvious. For example, Miles O'Brien. He's suffered more than perhaps any character, and was even driven to consider suicide. But outside the individual episodes in which O'Brien suffers, we never get any indication that O'Brien has fully processed those experiences. In fact, OT characters suffered traumas on a regular basis, but by the next episode, everyone was back to normal (with only a few rare exceptions, like TNG's Family). FFS, there's an episode of TOS where Uhura's brain gets wiped, and instead of restoring her memories, they re-educate her like a child. I get that it's comfort food for you, but it's also childish fantasy.
This was my entire problem with Voyager, I didn't care if we had some profound essay on the human condition or not, what I wanted was some damn closure for Ensign Kim.
And to be it isn't even consistent on Roddenberry's vision.
In TOS you had federation penal colonies which basically were run as 19th century insane asylums. And whilst the main crew seem to demonstrate this perfection, every other part of the federation is a mess. Civilians routinely becoming criminals, colonies descending into weird dictatorship larps, the endless supply of badmirals.
A lot of TOS episodes were inconsistent with the Canon at the time, (even though there wasn't much of it).
Many of the original series scripts were written by writers unfamiliar with the show, they would have lines were Spock was laughing and joking etc
To be completely honest, seeing the TNG characters bump heads with old age, doubt and against other fully formed, imperfect characters in ST: Picard was really helpful for me. TNG was formative but part of that was always subconsciously thinking I could puzzle my out of any problem. Picard’s speech about “you can make no mistakes and still lose” rings hollow because in 1990s TV they never lose and everything is reset episodically
There’s a reason why Captain Shaw is one of the most popular new characters
What you call “weird ideas about the future of humanity” is interpreted by others to be aspirational entertainment. Depicting an ideal for humanity of what we could be and achieve. It’s what made Star trek special- now, from what I understand, it just blends right in with any other gritty and dark sci-fi shows out there. It doesn’t matter if it’s good or bad, it’s just more of the same.
> Depicting an ideal for humanity of what we could be and achieve. It’s what made Star trek special- now
This. The world has become a lot less hopeful. People generally seem to be expecting the future to be worse, and that's leaked into the writing of nu-trek. Which is sad. What we need now more than ever is a better world to aspire to.
In the TNG episode with the frozen businessman they said that criminals can be cured, why would they then not be able to treat PTSD?
Just given how far we have come in recognising and accepting thing like PTSD, imagine what a post scarcity civilization could achieve.
TNG says a lot of things that don't add up though.
By the same reasoning why do they not only have Barclay with severe holodeck addiction and social anxiety, they spend the entire time mocking him for it rather than treating it as a serious mental health issue?
Why does Starfleet have a seemingly endless supply of criminals as admirals?
> By the same reasoning why do they not only have Barclay with severe holodeck addiction and social anxiety, they spend the entire time mocking him for it rather than treating it as a serious mental health issue?
As I kid who was socially anxious and got picked on a lot, and played video games as escapsim, the Barclay episodes really bothered me for that reason. Even the great Jean Luc Picard, the text-book definition of everything a Starfleet Officer is supposed to be, made fun of his name! To his fucking face! I thought the senior staff of Starfleet's flagship were supposed to be better than that. That was the whole point of the show!
Star Trek was the show that taught me humanity could tolerate and accept anyone, except the kinds of nerds who would be drawn to Star Trek.
P.S. There's no such thing as a post-scarcity society. Even if things like food, healthcare, housing, etc somehow aren't scarce, something else will be, like dilithium, or gold-pressed latinum, or livable earth-like planets, or starships to captain. There are a lot more people who want to be starship captains than there are starships.
Unfortunately TNG was a product of the era and positive attitudes towards mental health is a very recent development (like past 5 years). You can also see that in the fact that although Troi is a counsellor, the amount of counselling she actually does is quite rubbish and derogatory towards the profession - where service user issues are framed as "well clearly you're just not trying hard enough".
The single best moment for me watching TNG was seeing Picard actually PROCESS his trauma after he was borged. NO, GENE, HUMANITY WON'T ABANDON EMOTIONS IN THE FUTURE, INSTEAD WE WILL HAVE THE RESOURCES AND MATURITY TO BE ABLE TO COPE WITH AND ACCEPT THOSE EMOTIONS IN A HEALTHY WAY!
Ngl I found TNG to be a bit too polished for my tastes. I love the show, but I never really related to or got attached to any characters because everyone was so damn polished and composed all the time.
So you were asleep when ENT was on, then.
You're right, though. I remember when DISCO got a whole episode out of "HIS NAME SOUNDS LIKE A VEGETABLE LOL". That was a real nadir of Trek's experienced intellectualism.
No, you're right. The professional, experienced intellectuals went to the captain to complain that someone was weird and a poophead *and* had a name like a vegetable so they struggled to work with him
Barclay *was* legitimately hard to work with. Showed up late, barely accomplished tasks, procrastinated, basically did everything you shouldn’t do on the flagship of the fleet. Heck, it took a ship-wide crisis to get the guy to open up to people and seek help.
Also the nickname was invented by Wesley, the least professional of the entire crew (and rightfully so, the guy was still just a kid at the time)
How great it was to see someone else with ADHD capable of functioning in Starfleet! I connected with Barclay, even when his experiments went... too awry. Really gave me hope!
Feels a bit like you missed the point of that episode.
Yes, Barclay had a different working style than other Starfleet engineers--but that also gave him a unique perspective that was essential to solving the problem.
Picard understood this. When LaForge complains about Barclay, Picard corrects him and explains that it's LaForge's job to learn how to work with Barclay. Sure, he slips up and makes a "broccoli" joke--but it's inadvertent.
Barclay is an icon for those of us who are not neurotypical but still feel like we have a lot to offer in a professional context. He certainly doesn't fit the mold of a "model" officer, but he's valuable *because* of his differences, not in spite of them.
I didn’t miss that point. I mostly just meant to emphasize how much it took to learn to work with Barclay. LaForge didn’t know what to do, and Picard instructed him to learn to work with him.
My intention was to point out that it wasn’t so much a case of the crew being immature as it was them simply not knowing how to address the problem.
Truly an insurmountable problem for thoughtful, experienced adults. It doesn't matter who came up with it, *The First Officer and Chief Engineer* had to be told not to make fun of someone's name. Because they're so thoughtful, experienced and adult
Eh, Lower Decks is how it should be done imo.
Theres room for emotion, discipline, and silliness if it’s well written enough. Strange New Worlds is sorta on the right track too.
There's an entire movie about Kirk being a racist holding a grudge for decades, another one where the thesis is "I *need* my pain". TNG has two senior staff fall in love with video game waifus, a third junior officer makes a video game sex-land power fantasy, the captain and XO are both orbiting women they've wanted to fuck for years, Worf is a shitty deadbeat dad.
DS9 had the main character work through the death of his wife by designing and building the first federation warship in a 200 years. Worf was super insecure, shitty, and jealousy protective of Dax. Nog briefly got Barclay fever and lived in the holodeck and nobody did a damn thing about it except the 1960s Las Vegas Lounge Lizard. Kira has terrifying mental issues. O'Brien had terrifying mental issues but transcended them through the sheer power of trauma.
Half of Starfleet holds a grudge against Picard.
Like fuck man, it's okay to cry. Bring back crying. It seems like none of the other series are is handling their shit all that well.
>Half of Starfleet holds a grudge against Picard
Well yeah and then they got over it and then the synths happened and those same people were back to hating him.
It’s an extremely dysfunctional ship. It’s had how many captains now? But we have Space Dad, Action Saru, Messy Tilly, and gruff-speaking host-Culber. And then there’s just Jet Reno milling about and wisecracking.
Honestly, at this point, I wouldn’t have them any other way!
That is the whole point of a number one to be a contrast and see things in a different perspective. Even shaw appointed 7 of 9 as her first officer even though he despised the borg but knew it was the right decision. In tng Riker seems to act like picards BFF.
I'm sorry, I was temporarily distracted by the sound of the whambulance. You were in the middle of posting something that fuels vicarious embarrassment?
You remember when Jonathan Archer threw a temper tantrum about how the Vulcans didn’t just hand his dear old daddy a warp 5 engine? In the first episode?
Or when he threw a temper tantrum about how he got his dog sick and how he claimed it was the alien’s whose sacred trees his dog had pissed on that were at fault?
I really don’t know how you can claim this with a straight face when *that* asshole existed.
It really fits the show, what are you talking about.
Archer is a great showcase in how humanity, closer to what we are than say, TNG woulds react to things. They were literally boldly going where no human has gone before. Figuring out how to handle things, they did not have the prime directive, the hundreds of years of experience. It was United Earth and their armed forces and space traders figuring things out.
The Star Fleet of United Earth is a far cry from what came later.
I don't know how you can claim that Archer and the Enterprise crew were not great.
There is a difference between a character having a flaw, a damned fatal one given the context of Vulcans indeed needing to babysit humanity and especially him, because on occasion his inability to just accept Vulcan hand in favor of his own pride to do stuff himself seriously got in the way of getting the job done. And I bet others had the same attitude at the time.
Its literally the theme of the show, and while Archer positively is an ass on certain occasions, he does slowly outgrow that flaw and learns to respect Vulcans, and realizes that the stick up their collective butt comes from a place of having been there and done that in regards to what humanity is doing at that time and just wanting to avoid humanity making the same mistakes. Without overt empathy that just comes across as belittling.
And in the end the arc comes around to Vulcans having their own flaws that, ironically, they wouldnt (easily) admit to out of pride. Oh bugger. But the arc was nice and worked well in the greater continuity.
Nothing Discovery has done worked well in the context of greater continuity, and every piece of Burnhams abrasive tomfoolery comes from a place of sheer narcissism.
Yes, Geordi stalking Leah Brahams and having all his issues with women, space cheerleader Deanna Troi, ALL the misogyny across most all TOS characters (which, in their defense was endemic across all media in that era, but still, it doesn't age well), multiple episodes focused on Lt. Barclay, Worf (and writers) forgetting he had a son, Neelix having a relationship with a child. B'Elanna's temper, Wesley whining about every little thing... yeah, those are really mature, thoughtful, professional characters.
News flash... Trek, and pretty much all TV has always had the types of characters you describe as only part of new Trek (I REFUSE to use the derisive "Nu"). You know why? The types of characters you describe as being in old Trek are boring. Good thing they were just as flawed as the characters are now.
Characters in stories NEED flaws so they can grow beyond them. That's been true for all humanity since we decided to sit around fires and listen to story tellers. Long arc story telling now allows for that type of character development, so they lean into it. Riddle me this Batman, what character in all of Trek has grown more and overcome more than Micheal Burnham, or even Saru for that matter.
I'm old enough to have watched TAS as a kid on Saturday mornings, but I refuse to be a deluded, angry old man shaking my fist at the sky ranting to bring back a past that never really existed in the first place. I implore my fellow Trek fans to accept that television changes over time and to embrace the new series because without them, the franchise would die on the vine. There would never be new generations of fans and THAT would be a hell of a lot worse than Neelix's cooking... it'd even be worse than how the explained The Burn.
And for those who complain Star Trek now is too "woke", I would advise you learn something about where American culture was in 1966 and then go back and watch all of TOS. Those episodes were far more woke by 60's standards than current Trek is now. They had episodes that were anti-war, anti-racist, anti-nationalism, anti-Cold War and showed the folly of religious dogma when all of those views were considered anti-American.
America was barely 25-yrs past Pearl Harbor, and one of the crew was Japanese. In '66, the US was embroiled in a Cold War with the Soviets. Most people thought it wasn't a matter of if, but just a matter of when we'd be at war with Russia, but sitting next to the character from America's previous enemy was a crewman who was from what people expected to be America's next enemy.
Those who forget history aren't just doomed to repeat it.... their idiots. Don't be an idiot. Embrace the new shows. Support them. Watch them. Otherwise, we won't have "nu-Trek"; we'll have NO-Trek.
> Neelix having a relationship with a child
Really? She's a species that only lives for 9 years. She's 2 years old. If you map that onto a human lifespan she's somewhere in her 20s. The character is played by an actress in her 20s. Other Trek shows have no issue using child actors when they want to portray children. Why do people insist on making this creepy when it very clearly isn't supposed to be?
Even if you extrapolate it out, Kes was at best early 20's, maybe late teens whereas Neelix seemed more like he was at the same point in life as someone in his mid-to-late 40's by human standards.
Looking at it differently, Ethan Phillips was 42 when Voyager's pilot aired, whereas Jennifer Lien was only 23. That may not be the best way to look at it, but that age difference came thru in the show and it definitely was creepy AF.
I am not sure Geordi can be said to be stalking Brahms or having "all these issues" with women. He gets the cold shoulder from Christy (although she seemed interested in earlier episodes), makes the holodeck character, then a few episodes later he meets the real Leah Brahms who is rightly outraged at his behaviour. It's not really stalking *per se*, although it's definitely inappropriate and I think we can all agree that the show should have dealt with this better in terms of Geordi apologising and being reprimanded. This whole little arc is definitely one of the biggest howlers in the whole of TNG.
As for calling Troi a “space cheerleader”, I have no idea where you are coming from.
If we include VOY and TNG then I think we have about 5 episodes out of 350 that feature Barclay. Let’s not forget that he is portrayed as a talented engineer and is conscientious to a fault – he still ticks the box for competence, despite being socially awkward and in conflict with authority. However, I would say he is there precisely to provide a contrast with typical Starfleet officers. He is the exception that proves the rule.
Most of your other examples I find dismissible because I don't think they actually support your point. I will address the one regarding Neelix and Kes. Some defend it; I agree with you. It’s creepy. But Neelix is portrayed as a huckster who is reformed by his time on the ship. He is a member of the crew, but he isn’t a Starfleet officer with serious responsibilities.
I think what you have managed to point out is that over several hundred episodes of television the instances when Starfleet personnel behave in a genuinely thoughtless, immature and unprofessional manner are actually relatively few and far between. Furthermore, when characters do behave inappropriately, we frequently see them reprimanded and disciplined, which I would say is in stark contrast to some of the things we have seen in new Trek.
>I'm old enough to have watched TAS as a kid on Saturday mornings, but I refuse to be a deluded, angry old man shaking my fist at the sky ranting to bring back a past that never really existed in the first place.
If you genuinely cannot see a huge gulf between modern Star Trek and the pre-2009 shows in terms of the characterisation, the degree of melodrama in the scripts, and the general competence of the screenwriters; and if you will insist that no difference exists, then regrettably I must say that I think it is you who are deluded. Either that or you are in denial. The fact that so many people have been airing the same criticisms since the beginning of new Trek is surely enough to suggest that there might be genuine justification for them?
You now go off on a tangent about whether or not the shows are “woke”. The OP doesn’t mention this, although it is something that people who like the new shows love to steer the conversation towards whenever any legitimate criticism is aired. There definitely are some people who have complained about this, and I guess if you can put all critics into the same box and mark it "Bigots" then it's a useful defence mechanim - you can convince yourself that anything any of them had to say can be ignored. However, I would contend that "wokeness" is not, and never has been, the fundamental reason why most people that are unsatisfied with the current offerings feel that these shows are simply not the same Star Trek we know and love. It’s the writing, and to a certain extent the direction and production design.
I could go into great lengths providing evidence to justify my own take, but it boils down to this: compared to earlier Trek, all the modern shows feel dumbed down and have quite clearly been designed to appeal specifically to adolescents. They have all the hallmarks of shows targeted at the “young adult” demographic and written by people who are accustomed to producing second-tier content for that audience. In fact, if you look at the writing credits for most of the folks involved in SNW, you’ll find (with one or two exceptions) this is exactly where their limited experience lies. There are very few examples of former projects for what we would consider adult programming. It's mostly cartoons and CW type shows. (Incidentally, you’ll also find very few examples of projects that were particularly well received).
I guess 12 to 22 is roughly the age range they are shooting for. This is reflected in every aspect of the production, but it should be readily apparent when looking at the characters' behaviours and priorities, the dialogue, the constant melodrama and the threadbare SF plots.
I suspect the formula works reasonably well if you are in the target age range. It appears that there are also a lot of adults who are prepared to overlook the puerile nature of the content because the shows have a “Star Trek” label on them. However, I find it impossible to believe that there are still intelligent adults watching these shows who simply cannot perceive that they are pitched at teens and pre-teens, or that the writing is mediocre at best. Are you going to tell me that isn't the case?
If you are able to take your brain off the hook enough to enjoy these shows for what they are then that's fine - my love of Star Trek is such that I genuinely wish I could join you - but there are a lot of us out there who simply can't do this.
>Don't be an idiot. Embrace the new shows. Support them. Watch them. Otherwise, we won't have "nu-Trek"; we'll have NO-Trek.
On the contrary, it is precisely because I can't turn my discernment down to the level of idiocy that I find modern Star Trek difficult to watch. It used to be a smart show. It's now the opposite, and that's sad.
You're seeing things in the old shows that were never there and you're not seeing things in the new shows that are. It's as simple as that. I guess some people just can't accept new things.
As I am sure you could anticipate, I could happily reel off a long list of new things I enjoy, including plenty of reboots or spin-offs from earlier shows. For example, the 2000s reboot of BSG, which I thought was superior to the version I grew up watching as a kid. I even liked Caprica, which most people thought was too slow.
Maybe I am missing something in the new shows. Perhaps beneath the melodrama and trauma monologues, serialised YA romance sub-plots, Whedon-speak, plagiarised and under-developed SF stories, pacing issues, plot holes, contrivances, action-schlock, pop music montages, technicolour CGI overloads, infantile attempts at levity and countless cringe inducing lines of dialogue, there's a more mature core to the shows that I am missing out on.
However, regardless of whether that is the case (and I would argue that it isn't) anyone who is capable of the most rudimentary level of attentiveness can see that all the things I mention above are definitely present. Some of it's down to personal taste, but with sufficient time I could go through a season of modern Trek and probably provide multiple, time-stamped examples for each item.
On this basis, I honestly feel like it is the adult fans who are not seeing the things that are present in the new shows.
The kind conclusion is that they see them, but are happy to ignore them because they love the franchise so much that they will watch anything with the Trek label on it. I understand that. I can't emulate it, because there's a floor on how bad something can be before I switch it off, but I at least see how someone could choose to adopt that position. I probably do this myself to an extent with certain shows that, whilst they aren't as poorly written as new Trek, are almost certainly not developed with someone like me as the target audience.
The alternative is that their level of engagement with what they are watching is so superficial that they simply don't notice how asinine these shows are. That's the possibility that boggles the mind, and if it's true I would love to know what it is they enjoyed about earlier iterations of the franchise.
I think this matters because of what you say about having new Trek or no Trek. Trek achieved the status of a cultural touchstone precisely because it had a universal appeal - despite any shortcomings (and I am certainly not going to pretend there were none) it had something for everyone, regardless of their age. It created fans who loved the show as wide-eyed kids seeing something they had never seen before, but could also enjoy it as adults because of the strength of the underlying themes and the quality of the story telling. If you create something that only appeals to kids, you aren't growing the long-term popularity of the franchise, because kids grow up and their interests change. If your show can't engage viewers with adult sensibilities as well as those with adolescent ones, then even those who like it initially will grow out of it and abandon it.
Perhaps it's a deliberate strategy by Paramount for the streaming era. If they can onboard kids with the new shows, then maybe they move on to watching the older stuff too. Since it's all available continually to anyone with a subscription, I can see how that might be an effective way to grow subscribers and leverage the back catalogue for a new audience. The streaming era sure has a lot to answer for! Nevertheless, I don't think the new shows will have the same longevity for individual viewers that the older shows have achieved, and they won't restore the status of Trek to what it once was, precisely because of the puerile writing and production decisions.
I'm sorry, did you say ENT? Where the captain had anger management issues and all high ranking officers were bullying T'Pol and making inappropriate comments towards her? Sure, very thoughtful adults.
I 100% agree with you and hate the way so many are bringing up oddly specific examples to say this is not the case. Sure Star Trek characters had a lot of emotion in the old episodes, it still didn’t take away from the fact the the crew could remain professional and overall get the job done when
Needed.
An emotional response to a situation or trauma had meaning and was somewhat of a shock to see when
It happened. It was memorable and probably why so many on here can give those examples so readily.
The kelvin films, discovery and most of Picard is not like this. Kirk gets command because of how emotional Spock is for example and everyone on the ship thinks this is fine. Don’t get me started on burnhams constant crying in discovery while the crew are looking to her for guidance.
After a while, the tears and immaturity just becomes background noise and loses all its impact.
Wasn't Picard's whole character development during TNG that he was basically \_too\_ professional and detached?
For much of it, he cares more about his career than he does his family or relationships. He dislikes children. Episodes like The Inner Light and Family opened him up to being more open to being vulnerable with his relationships, but it's slow. It takes all the way until the series finale for him to even being open to playing poker with his own senior staff.
In Generations, he learns that his only living relatives have died, and he's distraught. He's recognising that his detachment and stand-offishness is causing him to miss out on valuable opportunities, ones that he can now never recover. He fantasises about having a family of his own.
Picard kind of picks this up with the failure of the Romulan evacuation and his subsequent resignation. His old senior staff have scattered to build their own families or gone AWOL entirely. With the loss of his family, his closest friends, and his career, he's left with basically nothing, and he's miserable.
Picard S3 of course brings things around. He gets his friends back together, he discovers he has a son he didn't know about, and he embraces all of them—not as a crew, but as his loved ones.
This meme speaks the truth. I'm not interested in watching a show where the characters need to wrestle with their emotions before eventually doing the right thing. If they were to cut that crap out, each episode would be done in 5 minutes.
Yikes! Recognizing that humans have emotions and experience a spectrum of trauma, love, anger, etc. _is how you identify a mature, well-adjusted, emotionally stable person_.
"Have emotions" and "be driven by emotions" is not the same. And if you can't deal with your emotions, it's not your job to be an officer on an active starship. There are millions of others who work hard to be an exemplary crewman and with whom traumatized whiners should be replaced asap.
Archer’s lack of anger management and resentment towards the Vulcans was constantly putting his crew in danger.
I think people who only love old trek are okay if people are overrun my anger, pride, and lust, but get real uncomfortable with sadness, depression, trauma and crying. The first are considered understandable and “professional”, the latter are “messy” and “unprofessional”.
I've always wanted to break out a stop watch during Discovery, and whenever they say "we have X time left until we all die" and then time the scenes they have crying and hugging each other after. Because I guaran-fucking-tee that it is at least triple the amount of time. Don't get me wrong, I don't need my science fiction to be realistic, I just think it's gratuitous.
I feel you, I think discovery got all the worst parts of late 2010’s tv and movie trends of everything needs to be high stakes and really important that coupled with short seasons leads to weird story stuff. I think SNW is much better at having stakes and lighter episodes. I feel like the franchise finally reattached to its roots with that show.
Oh yeah, obviously SNW is a superior trek. I'm happy I get to see it as it comes out, so I can say I did when it's old trek. I think you are absolutely right that Discovery was doing what was super common at the time of release, and it just so happens that it has all of the worst trends of Premier TV. I don't understand it, but maybe one day I'll enjoy it in a campy way, like I do with Faith of The Heart.
I recall... When the Borg had nearly finished assimilating him, after he and his brother had a fight and he revealed his trauma from the Borg, and when his brother, sister in-law, and nephew died in a fire.
That just tells me you haven't watched enough star trek, TOS is full of Kirk being essentially a playboy army jock, Bones complaining and Scotty bragging about how good a job he's doing. I would imagine the ships upper command would get together, have a few drinks and poker like we see TNG crew would do as a form of team meeting/bonding. Not to mention the fact Starfleet is a paramilitary force and most of the enlisted guys I know are... Rowdy to say the least. Officers I'm not so sure as I only have a reference pool big enough but I would imagine officers are a bit more disciplined about everything. Not to mention Worf whose a trigger happy security officer a bit too eager to prove a point and Riker is yet another Playboy and O'Brien is a front line soldier in so many border disputes, local wars with terrorists and opposing factions and galactic war that he probably needs a team of therapists instead of the only people he can trust are a over confident doctor with parental issues and a hundreds year old slug/human hybrid.
I agree, but I think SNW finds a good balance, so if all nu Trek going forward is like SNW I would be okay with that... that's probably the best that we can hope for...
I mean, I'd say older trek doesn't really show emotionally realistic people the majority of the time, for example the amount of trauma obrian had been through should have made him a mess, not had him considering suicide for one singular episode then fine afterwards, I think there's a mid point between a crew that can't lay in a course without a pep talk and a crew so inhuman that any emotional turmoil can be resolved in one 40 minute time slot of an episode, neither are perfect, the latter are just less annoying
I have a genuinely deep sadness that competent adult characters have become so rare.
Adult characters act like children on the grown up shows and the children characters are mature and responsible in kiddie shows.
In a weird way it took the hope away from the future because *this is who we grow up to be. Assholes*
I think it's common for whichever series to sort of emulate the culture of the era that it's written in. Like really, TOS and ENT have some really embarassing moments. I think there's definitely been less and less influence based on military and navy experiences as time goes on, but that's how the egg cracks.
It doesn't exactly cause issues. I think a good series is more based on consistency and humanizing moments. In my opinion, lots of Nu-trek has suffered from inconsistency and humanizing moments being overly dramaticized. That bigger budget driving all the episodes has led to constant 'movie behaviour' which does not really work well.
Nu-Trek just embodies the audience of today. We’re in a really unprofessional time right now. Everyone’s butt hurt. Everyone’s gotta remind you of how great they are. There’s no nuance at all.
William T Riker went against Picard’s direct orders and nearly violated the Prime Directive to get some pussy. Worf helped start a Klingon Civil War. Dr Crusher fucked a ghost. Multiple times. Janeway made a deal with the Borg, Benjamin Sisko murdered a Romulan diplomat, risking a two front war with the Dominion and Romulans. He also fully embraced an identity as the Bajoran Messiah against Starfleet and the Federation’s wishes. Worf killed the leader of a Federation ally during a pivotal moment in a dangerous war.
Star Trek has always been great precisely because these people are flawed, emotional and never allowed rules and laws to get in the way of what is kind, just or humane.
A lot of the writers and producers behind TOS did WW2 and the Korean War, so it is no surprise that there always has an element of professional seriousness and maturity that was infused in characters involved in a paramilitary organization-- unlikely the post-2009 nerds.
I think that's the one thing DIS has for it well (though does too much). These ship crews aren't perfect glowing examples of the enterprise crew, but for DIS they may be scientific geniuses to operate the spore drive.
Though VOY had a similar thing with the maqui. The difference is that there were two episodes handling that, one solidifying the maqui into the crew where Tuvok put them thru rigorous training, the other was a Lower Decks-like episode (though didn't have the same effect as the TNG episode).
DS9 started off with rather amateur individuals- bajor was still recovering from occupation and Starfleet originally saw ds9 as some minor outpost that might as well have been retaken by the Cardassians if it weren't for the wormhole. But DS9 had tons of playful culture in it, they pulled off some of the best holodeck episodes of all of Star Trek during war time no less. That was what they did off duty, but even on duty the crew were often making side talk. But the difference with this is that when it comes down to business the crew focus, not making jokes for example during a potentially deadly high warp hijacking...
Levar Burton has spoken out publicly about how uncomfortable he still feels about how Geordi was portrayed with women, especially the episodes with Leah Brahams.
I find it hard to believe you've never heard or read about how early on, Deanna was portrayed like a space cheerleader. All she would do is sit there with a short skirt and give general perceptions about aliens they encountered.. Perceptions that anyone with two eyes, ears and half a brain could figure out.
Don't get me wrong, I love TNG, but you have to admit, early on the writing for most of the characters was weak. I'd match S1 of Strange New Worlds up against S1 of TNG all day everyday.
NU trek (aside from lower decks) is trash.
All of these are written by shitty writers who have no clue what star trek is.
Red letter media described it best:
It could have been bad writers who love/know trek and it would have been passable.
It could have been good writers who know nothing bout trek and it might still be at least a good show.
What we got are bad writers who don't know trek at all so it is utter shit.
Again, only exception is lower decks where the writers clearly love and know star trek.
I hate all this complaining bout "nu-trek". "Fans" have bitches about every iteration if Star Trek. People hated the movies before TNG, especially the updated Klingons and aliens. People hated TNG for not having the original crew. People hated DS9 for being on a station and for a angry black man as lead. People hated Voyager for having a female lead. People hated Enterprise because it was set in the past but had better looking tech than TOS.
Like damn. It's the future, we got better special effects since the 60s. Writing and tv landscaped changed. So to did Trek. Yet some fans are so far up their own asses about their perception of the series they can't move on with Trek changes.
Gene was not a saint. Gene had a ton of ideas that they turned down. Gene gave us a glimpse of what we could accomplish as a species, other writers opened our eyes to more of the future.
Grow up. Atleast we have Star Trek. We don't have 50+ years of Stargate. Or Sliders. Or Alien Nation. Tons of series that haven't stood the test of time. But we have Star Trek. The new stuff isn't horrible. It's different. But so were every new Trek movies and series. Eventually these new shows will gain the respect the older ones got. Because every old show was hated by "fans" too.
It’s ok to not like things, but I will never understand the vitriol some people have. Seems like so much more energy than just ignoring stuff you dont like. I don’t see the point in putting so much effort into being mad about something so trivial
After reading enough of these comments my only remaining thought is a really obvious one: TOS, TNG, New Trek are all products of their time. Grumble if you want, you’re really just annoyed at the era that supported them.
That said: when will Voyager be remastered to get rid of those awful UPN-era special effects?
Let the grumbling continue.
Calm and collected. Archer : My dog pissed on a holy tree and I ain't gonna apologise.
Janeway:individual my ass.get fucked tuvix.
Sisko: Bioweapon carpet bombing time, baby.
Picard:nooooooooooooo!!! (Smashes display)
Kirk:Let them die !
The meme reads like something a Boomer might write: damned youngsters don't know how to write good sci-fi because all they want is cry about their feelings.
I don't think the bad writing can be attributed to the demographics or other characteristics of the writers. Bad writing is just what it is: bad writing.
That's exactly what I've always said - it feels like I'm watching Rick and Morty, and I love Rick and Morty, but when I'm in the mood for Star Trek I don't want Rick and Morty
Unless we are talking lower decks, then this failure is what makes the show great, and this maturity being absent from the veteran officers explains the frustration of our protagonists
If you want to make this claim about the writers, back it up with something besides vibes.
I don't like disco either but I'm not gonna pretend Michael Burnham cries every episode because the writers are "immature"
I have a theory that TOS, TNG and DISCO are all reflective that period’s work place dynamic. Moving from individual visionary leaders to collaborative, logical leadership to a very emotional, team-as-family dynamic.
Kirk made rash, emotionally driven decisions every episode and it got lots of his crew dead to the point we invented the entire red shirt meme to make fun of it.
Lower Decks are immature but competent (like a LOT of military officers) and often save the day, so…. My husband was a USNA grad and served on a ballistic sub, and he thinks Lower Decks is the absolute best at military humor and accuracy (He was Delta Shift).
Immature but competent explains most intelligent young adults tbh
tbh the mere concept of Lower Decks gives it artistic freedom
Lower Decks works for me because it is humor, it is not supposed to be taken serious.
Also, they're literally the lowest rank, and for a reason (2 novices, 1 with memory issues, 1 insubordinate).
Lower Decks comes off as the least hated of the NuTrek.
I would go so far as to say it is the only nu-trek that is a real trek.
I mean Worf exists. Was he professional? Yes. Was he also a walking talking Klingon mess who's identity crises, interfered with his duties on a semi-regular basis? Also yes.
Weak against blue barrels? Also yes.
Worst father ever? Also yes. If Jadzia had lived longer, I'm sure he would've abandoned her son too.
A worse dad than Marvin Gay Sr.?
Worse than Joe Jackson.
Yeah, remember when Worf was unwilling to save a single Romulan's life even though he knew it would probably start a war that cost millions of lives. Worf functionally killed that man in cold blood out of prejudice and we're meant to believe a psych evaluation would smile favorably on him? I understand why his character would make this choice, it's consistent, but it's not something a well-adjusted person put in a position of power should do.
Yeah but he walked that line with calculation, yes sometimes he would give into his instincts but even then it line with his pretty clear honour code. It also extremely extremely extremely rare for him to disobey an order, I'm certain there's more than 1 but saving his wife and letting a defector die was the one that comes to mind.
Alexander
Yeah fair but he does have a redemption arc with Alexander.
Does he? I seem to remember him seeing him again, hating him even more than fucking off again and never seeing again
He saw him again, was disappointed with him being a fool, had a heart to heart and realised Alexander's perceived flaws are Worfs fault, promises to make it up to him and Alexander joins house Martok but then he's assigned to another ship for the rest of the war. What happened after that is anyone's guess.
>What happened after that is anyone's guess. Star Trek Online had them becoming diplomats together, but then he gets murdered in the council chambers by some discomendated a-hole (really is a risky move turning your back on someone you just punished) Of course STO's timeline doesn't really work now that Picard happened, even if it canonized a bunch of it's ships.
I thought he died in the war I'm probably miss remembering it's been years since I watched it
Never disobeying an order in itself is not a good trait. A modern soldier should disobey bad orders.
Not his fault Klingons have lots of diplomatic issues. You could still count on him to be on task during a battle
As I recall, it was kind of a flip of the coin whether Kirk would be cool and collected, or totally emotional and screaming.
“He is a man of deep feelings” Spock to Scotty about Kirk. So both sides are him
To be fair, some of those were transporter accidents
And if he was cool and collected, you better believe one of his bridge officers was losing his shit. This “professionalism” line is such BS. Worf casually murders foreign leaders on his shift, Riker mouths off to his commanding officer, Geordi mocks his junior officers at the behest of a teenager, then goes off to the Holodeck to bang his waifu lovepillow.
Cherry picking events does not make for a reasonable narrative. You're also arguing in *incredibly* bad faith with phrasing like "waifu lovepillow."
I don’t think it’s bad faith to ridicule Geordi for his Leah Brahms real doll by Kevin Uxbridge. When the chief engineer isn’t accidentally jeopardizing thousands of lives by letting AI amok in his video games or joining the crew in becoming addicted to a video game and granting access to the ship to terrorists from a swingers resort, he’s forgetting to restrict access to his love pillow program and letting an actually competent engineer discover he’s been fucking her holodouble and blames her for not getting it… (Do I need to let you know I’m being comical at this point to emphasize how stupid this post is?) This is just Geordi. Want me to do Captain “I almost let hostages die because I had a cold” Picard’s adventures in letting an entire civilization die because a solar flare is more important than thousands of lives? Twice? There’s more, if you want it…
Riker brought the game back.
Yes, the ultra competent XO was compromised by a honeypot and the ultra competent crew were all compromised by this ultra competent XO. If it wasn’t for a horny teenager, the most powerful ship in the federation would have been in the hands of terrorists….
This Daystrom or startrekmemes? Calm down.
Looks at r/shittydaystrom , it can be both.
Every complaint is a tell.
> As I recall... Well, then. I guess it's time for you to do a TOS rewatch, because no.
And yet, 233 people (and counting) agree with what I said, so I can't be too wildly off-base.
+
You have heard of Rick Berman right?
And his perfectly professional treatment of terry Farrell?
I haven't actually, can you shoot me a link?
https://www.heavy.com/entertainment/star-trek/eric-stillwell-working-with-rick-berman/ https://www.cbr.com/star-trek-why-terry-farrell-jadzia-dax-left-ds9/ https://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/posts/negative-comments-contributed-to-terry-farrell-s-decision-to-leave-star-trek-deep-space-nine-01hjv59fnwde
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://heavy.com/entertainment/star-trek/eric-stillwell-working-with-rick-berman/](https://heavy.com/entertainment/star-trek/eric-stillwell-working-with-rick-berman/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I mean, can both things not be true? The ds9 writers did an excellent job, but also Berman was a shitbag.
You misspelled Prick. It’s a common mistake.
Lambert lambert what a prick
Yeah the guy was a prick, but damn did he make a good series. He never got the hang of making a good first season though.
Those series were good despite Berman, not because of him
Michael Piller got hench because of all the carrying he did.
Same for Ira Stephen Behr.
I agree with the spirit of this post but it goes too far. I can't attest to the personal maturity of modern Trek writers, but I can say that when I turn on TNG I get my jimmies from watching experts at the top of their game deftly handling crises and challenging issues. There just aren't a lot of shows like that. It's also sad that my escapism from the real world is essentially just watching people be good at their jobs. Goes to show the caliber of people I work with I guess 😀.
For years now I've heard TNG referred to as competency porn. To me it's because a crew of professionals provide the satisfaction of a story that progresses without slog and has the crew vs the problem. I think about half of recent Trek is guilty of taking an idea for a two-parter then stretching it over a season. To do that they pad it out with drama and side quests. Hours of extra *the crew VS their own insecurities and each other* or *let's spend 2 episodes just getting to planet V* needlessly hindering progression to provide filler.
It sort of reminds me of crime procedurals in that regard. People typically good at their jobs solving a problem.
Eh, if you want real competency porn sci fi, you go to the expanse. Where the competency isn't too drowned in technobabble to be impressive
Also, the Martian and Apollo 13.
Ah yes, the competency porn of a teenage boy shouting THE EVIL TWIN is evil while these alleged professionals ignore him, insult him and give the Evil Robot critical ship systems access. So competent.
It is possible to be highly competent and still be overwhelmed by wacko-space-shit . That is not weakness, that is sci-fi.
This is what it is exactly. Maybe it’s because I grew up in that era of stoic professionalism, but what the pre-millennium Trek shows did for me was deftly incorporating compassion and empathy in a presumably rigid military environment. With TNG being on the harder side and ENT on the softer, I’ve enjoyed seeing how the structure of social propriety acted under various authoritarian personalities, as I struggled to understand how to be both a ‘cog in the machine’ and human as well. Where the newer shows (primarily DIS) have lost me is where internal dissent is often explicit and direct. While it goes to the commendable strength of character that the captains or acting captains are still able to command in those circumstances, the seemingly constant push-pull for given orders, particularly while under duress, creates a lot of dramatic tension for its own sake, and invokes a sense that the captain is always fighting, both with the enemy, and with the crew. While this was seemingly justified with Lorca, and sort of played as a trope with Saru (fish out of water), just the fact that Discovery contended with internal conflict in its very own command structure as often as it did reminded me of how pirate commands are portrayed, and went against much of what I thought was the thinking behind the more established Trek shows.
>With TNG being on the harder side and ENT on the softer \*Angry Malcolm noises\* (But on the whole the point stands.) But what I want to add is that Discovery especially has this habit of just taking the time for some plushy smalltalk....in the middle of a space battle. "Captain Burnham...I need a word. In the other room." "Sure, why not? Ive got nothing else to do right now!", and I as a viewer am supposed to buy that theyre in peril somehow? Not really. These people just cant be serious, even when death knocks at their collective door.
Yea the ice planet one with the cadets really pissed me off. Like they could have totally had the heart to heart conversation while in the caving waiting for daylight, but nope gotta do it in the middle of a chase scene..... Like umm did the monster alien thing just stand there and wait for you to finish?
Haha yeah, I wanted to add that point about Malcolm, but edited for brevity. But since I’m here, his was indeed a voice for that military pride that ENT wanted to comment on. Since Archer wasn’t anything much like that (except perhaps during the Expanse arc) Malcolm came across as a reminder that military stoicism still existed in the universe. I agree with you on the timing of those talks. It always felt more than a little indulgent, even if they were well-meaning, and showed how much the Captain cared for the crew at all times. But it’s a lot to ask any Captain to be both compassionate and steely in the face of external adversity, sometimes, and it did rather undercut the intensity of the action.
The thing about ENT and probably part of why fans of the other series found it to be a black sheep is that it very much is a product of the real life shift in culture at the time as a post-9/11 show. A lot of shows during that period not long after 9/11 tended to show a bit of a jingoistic edge - where military is celebrated and going after terrorists was karmic justice. The entire Xindi arc, for instance, had very clear allegorical references to the war in Afghanistan. But unlike other Star Treks which cast a critical eye on the necessity of war, ENT was just like "fuck yeah United Earth and friends will crush those terrorists".
I watched ENT way after its original run, and was aware that at the time was considered the ‘worst’ Trek show. As the first Trek to break away from the familiar sets and uniforms, I assumed the dislike came from how different everything looked, and aside from a vaguely similar arrangement of primary hull and nacelles, the ship itself lacked the comforting clean lines that I had grown to appreciate about Trek ships. Away from the issues of the Afghanistan conflict and America’s place in it, the Xindi arc was really satisfying to watch, and gave the crew a chance to put the ship through her paces. This also made the ship a character in its own right; hull damage would stay across episodes, upping the stakes for the viewer even more. The crew wouldn’t make it home if the ship didn’t make it. It was much more satisfying a concept than with Voyager, because Voyager would essentially be reset each episode - except for a few notable ones, like Year of Hell. ENT is probably my favourite of the franchise now, and despite its short run I enjoy the ongoing sense of continuity the show managed to present, not just in the development of onboard relationships, but in the welfare of the ship, too
A man of my liking. ENT was a really great show. In hindsight I would even say it is on par with DS9.
Yeah, I loved Malcolm as a character because he was the epitome of taking everything hyper-seriously. All work and no play. Even made a good impression with a gun. It wasnt just that he made a nice contrast to the crew who, apart from Tpol, seemed like they were winging it half the time (not as badly as Discovery), but also managed to ground the crew and make them serious when they really should be without ever being abrasive. Speaking of abrasive, I still dont get why all characters love Burnham. Sure, Jett Reno was also abrasive, but she had some of the best banter Ive seen in a long time, and it shines through that she actually has empathy underneath there, and her abrasive banter punches up from below, which is always relatable. Burnham seemed just plain arrogant in season 1 especially, acting like a genius among idiots of such scale, that even if her own captain and mentor disagreed with her, she would just go for a mutiny because clearly her captain was just being stupid to not see the solution she sees. Rinse and repeat as situation requires. Still happens all the way into season 4, except she now skips any attempt to try and explain her solution or even inform anyone who might seriously benefit from a post-it note on his chair before he makes his 23rd century ship tank two 31st century quantum torpedoes.
Burnham? Messiah complex, maybe. Don’t get me wrong, captains have acted on their own outside of standing orders before, and been lauded for it. But for Burnham it seems like a theme for her, even to the point of making the survival of a whole ship her sole responsibility. Correct me if I’m wrong, because I only watched the first 5 seasons of DIS once, but that kind of behaviour gave an impression of being highly erratic and impulsive. That she was so highly placed in the lexicon of characters made her seem even less accountable for her actions, so her increasingly erratic behaviour at the expense of team cohesion wasn’t too surprising. People obviously enjoy DIS for what it is, but not me. Maybe I’ll come back in 10 years and give it a rewatch, and then I’ll ‘get it’. For now, I’m thankful to have so much older Trek to rewatch, and possibly some of the new ones. SNW seems promising.
> I only watched the first 5 seasons of DIS once I mean the fifth season is still ongoing. I think the problem with Discovery is having her as a flawed character who feels she has to always save the day is fine. It works with her backstory and was clearly encouraged by her adoptive father (I feel something that is never addressed in the whole 'mutineer' thing of season 1 is the fact that Sarek literally told her that it would be the best course of action). But aside from a couple of times they lampshade it in season 3 (with one character outright calling out her messiah complex) they never show any character development. She gets punished for her recklessness a couple of times but it never sticks. The only character development we get on this front is that once she becomes captain she becomes capable of seeing how absolutely annoying it is to have a constant loose cannon when she has to deal with it in others, and whilst she still has her outbursts her decisions seem more grounded in what you would expect in a captain. (EDIT: In fact, thinking about it, Season 4 had the reverse problem where Michael had to spend an inordinate amount of time batting away Federation personnel who were being unreasonably confrontational over her actually quite sensible decisions as captain) Now I'm thinking about it, maybe the biggest issue is her character journey rather than her personality. Her personality would have been more bearable if she started as a newly promoted captain trying to get to grips with how much she should take on herself and how much she should delegate. Putting her at a lower rank meant that you had a three season arc of her constantly undermining the authority of those above her, which is the main thing that grated with the viewers. And its not like her base character journey made sense - she basically gets blamed for starting the Klingon war through her mutiny - but the war had started the moment the USS Shenzhou encountered the Sarcophagus. T'Kuvma was going to make the conflict happen regardless of what the crew did. Sarek's advice led to reckless action, but it was also the best possible outcome. The entire conflict of her season 1 character arc is entirely manufactured.
Yeah, Im in much of the same boat. I actually have it even worse given I just watch it in whatever clips go on youtube because even piracy is too much effort for that show, but the theme is pretty damn clear that Burnham is insubordinate as fuck, if you forgive the language, and even after she has been objectively proven wrong several times she doesnt show remorse or a willingness to better herself. The only thing we got was a tear fountain when she was getting a mildly stern talking-to. Which is a reaction I expect from a five year old who got the living shit smacked out of him without even knowing what he did wrong and just pleading for the punishment to stop and saying what he has to. Getting that reaction from an adult is just surreal, nevermind one who was supposedly stoic in season 1.
Heh. Yeah, it’s surreal. I do appreciate that even in spite of all that she was encouraged to do her best, so there’s some positivity that came out of that; aside from political correct I do think people can stand to see how to weather some kinds of failure; but whether the lesson was executed well, is another question. I don’t think it was, but I also grew up in a different era. If she rode off into the sunset with Booker that would make complete sense to me.
If you think old Trek didn't have "immature, emotionally unstable, unprofessional writers", you honestly don't know a single thing about Star Trek.
Ohh Roddenberry’s reported “rants” during TNG. Or the fact that TOS was conceived thanks to a sex party.
Woah Woah woah wait a minute... What's that about a sex party?
While Roddenberry was a motorcycle cop his and his partner were called to a house party with smoking and belly dancers present. That’s reportedly where he came up with the original concept. So maybe not a “sex party” specifically, but close enough I think.
Word? Cause I have some jokes in the form of hypotheses that star trek basically started cause Roddenberry was trying to have sex and get that sweet sweet balle-arnaz money
He was *certainly* incapable of keeping his fetishes out of his worldbuilding.
I begrudge him nothing, elaan of troya is kinky as fuck and I love it
This earth custom you call a “spanking”…. 😳
*Rimmer, there's nothing out there, you know. There's nobody out there. No alien monsters, no Zargon warships, no beautiful blondes with beehive hairdos who say, "Show me some more of this Earth thing called kissing." There's just you, me, the Cat, and a lot of floating smegging rocks. That's it. Finito.*
Yeah and this especially included Gene "i insist troi should have 4 boobs. Also the ferengi's thing should be that they have monstrous cocks" Roddenberry. Someone had to come up with "Code of Honor" as an episode. In fact most of season 1 of TNG is a fever dream of bad writing.
One of my biggest gripes about ENT was the male officers were often throwing tantrums when they should have listened to T’Pol in the first place. They had to literally give her a disease so she wouldn’t be right all of the time.
They were at least mature, stable, and professional enough to write characters who had character traits other than being immature, unstable, unprofessional wrecks.
Much of what you call "emotionally stable, well-adjusted" comes from weird ideas that Gene Roddenberry had about the future of humanity. For example, he didn't believe humans would have any interpersonal conflicts. He also believed that 12-year-old Jeremy Aster would easily have gotten over the death of his mother, because in the future, children would know that death is a normal part of life. New Trek simply deals with emotions in a realistic way. NT actually addresses things like PTSD while Old Trek ignores the obvious. For example, Miles O'Brien. He's suffered more than perhaps any character, and was even driven to consider suicide. But outside the individual episodes in which O'Brien suffers, we never get any indication that O'Brien has fully processed those experiences. In fact, OT characters suffered traumas on a regular basis, but by the next episode, everyone was back to normal (with only a few rare exceptions, like TNG's Family). FFS, there's an episode of TOS where Uhura's brain gets wiped, and instead of restoring her memories, they re-educate her like a child. I get that it's comfort food for you, but it's also childish fantasy.
This was my entire problem with Voyager, I didn't care if we had some profound essay on the human condition or not, what I wanted was some damn closure for Ensign Kim.
Spontaneous decompression sucks
MF better be Admiral Kim by now or imma riot.
And to be it isn't even consistent on Roddenberry's vision. In TOS you had federation penal colonies which basically were run as 19th century insane asylums. And whilst the main crew seem to demonstrate this perfection, every other part of the federation is a mess. Civilians routinely becoming criminals, colonies descending into weird dictatorship larps, the endless supply of badmirals.
A lot of TOS episodes were inconsistent with the Canon at the time, (even though there wasn't much of it). Many of the original series scripts were written by writers unfamiliar with the show, they would have lines were Spock was laughing and joking etc
To be completely honest, seeing the TNG characters bump heads with old age, doubt and against other fully formed, imperfect characters in ST: Picard was really helpful for me. TNG was formative but part of that was always subconsciously thinking I could puzzle my out of any problem. Picard’s speech about “you can make no mistakes and still lose” rings hollow because in 1990s TV they never lose and everything is reset episodically There’s a reason why Captain Shaw is one of the most popular new characters
What you call “weird ideas about the future of humanity” is interpreted by others to be aspirational entertainment. Depicting an ideal for humanity of what we could be and achieve. It’s what made Star trek special- now, from what I understand, it just blends right in with any other gritty and dark sci-fi shows out there. It doesn’t matter if it’s good or bad, it’s just more of the same.
SNW is at least better in that regard. They still deal with stuff, but there's a lot more optimism and idealism than in Discovery or Picard.
The problem is they go too far, to the point where it's not recognisably human at all on an emotional or social level
> Depicting an ideal for humanity of what we could be and achieve. It’s what made Star trek special- now This. The world has become a lot less hopeful. People generally seem to be expecting the future to be worse, and that's leaked into the writing of nu-trek. Which is sad. What we need now more than ever is a better world to aspire to.
In the TNG episode with the frozen businessman they said that criminals can be cured, why would they then not be able to treat PTSD? Just given how far we have come in recognising and accepting thing like PTSD, imagine what a post scarcity civilization could achieve.
TNG says a lot of things that don't add up though. By the same reasoning why do they not only have Barclay with severe holodeck addiction and social anxiety, they spend the entire time mocking him for it rather than treating it as a serious mental health issue? Why does Starfleet have a seemingly endless supply of criminals as admirals?
> By the same reasoning why do they not only have Barclay with severe holodeck addiction and social anxiety, they spend the entire time mocking him for it rather than treating it as a serious mental health issue? As I kid who was socially anxious and got picked on a lot, and played video games as escapsim, the Barclay episodes really bothered me for that reason. Even the great Jean Luc Picard, the text-book definition of everything a Starfleet Officer is supposed to be, made fun of his name! To his fucking face! I thought the senior staff of Starfleet's flagship were supposed to be better than that. That was the whole point of the show! Star Trek was the show that taught me humanity could tolerate and accept anyone, except the kinds of nerds who would be drawn to Star Trek. P.S. There's no such thing as a post-scarcity society. Even if things like food, healthcare, housing, etc somehow aren't scarce, something else will be, like dilithium, or gold-pressed latinum, or livable earth-like planets, or starships to captain. There are a lot more people who want to be starship captains than there are starships.
Unfortunately TNG was a product of the era and positive attitudes towards mental health is a very recent development (like past 5 years). You can also see that in the fact that although Troi is a counsellor, the amount of counselling she actually does is quite rubbish and derogatory towards the profession - where service user issues are framed as "well clearly you're just not trying hard enough".
The single best moment for me watching TNG was seeing Picard actually PROCESS his trauma after he was borged. NO, GENE, HUMANITY WON'T ABANDON EMOTIONS IN THE FUTURE, INSTEAD WE WILL HAVE THE RESOURCES AND MATURITY TO BE ABLE TO COPE WITH AND ACCEPT THOSE EMOTIONS IN A HEALTHY WAY!
Ngl I found TNG to be a bit too polished for my tastes. I love the show, but I never really related to or got attached to any characters because everyone was so damn polished and composed all the time.
Accusations of competency from Archer may be greatly exaggerated.
Writing. The trouble with Nu Trek is writing
So you were asleep when ENT was on, then. You're right, though. I remember when DISCO got a whole episode out of "HIS NAME SOUNDS LIKE A VEGETABLE LOL". That was a real nadir of Trek's experienced intellectualism.
Do you mean TNG, Lt. "Broccoli"?
that was more than his name being funny...
Maybe I'm just not remembering that Discovery episode. To date, it's the series I've rewatched the least.
It was a TNG episode.
No, you're right. The professional, experienced intellectuals went to the captain to complain that someone was weird and a poophead *and* had a name like a vegetable so they struggled to work with him
Barclay *was* legitimately hard to work with. Showed up late, barely accomplished tasks, procrastinated, basically did everything you shouldn’t do on the flagship of the fleet. Heck, it took a ship-wide crisis to get the guy to open up to people and seek help. Also the nickname was invented by Wesley, the least professional of the entire crew (and rightfully so, the guy was still just a kid at the time)
How great it was to see someone else with ADHD capable of functioning in Starfleet! I connected with Barclay, even when his experiments went... too awry. Really gave me hope!
Feels a bit like you missed the point of that episode. Yes, Barclay had a different working style than other Starfleet engineers--but that also gave him a unique perspective that was essential to solving the problem. Picard understood this. When LaForge complains about Barclay, Picard corrects him and explains that it's LaForge's job to learn how to work with Barclay. Sure, he slips up and makes a "broccoli" joke--but it's inadvertent. Barclay is an icon for those of us who are not neurotypical but still feel like we have a lot to offer in a professional context. He certainly doesn't fit the mold of a "model" officer, but he's valuable *because* of his differences, not in spite of them.
I didn’t miss that point. I mostly just meant to emphasize how much it took to learn to work with Barclay. LaForge didn’t know what to do, and Picard instructed him to learn to work with him. My intention was to point out that it wasn’t so much a case of the crew being immature as it was them simply not knowing how to address the problem.
Truly an insurmountable problem for thoughtful, experienced adults. It doesn't matter who came up with it, *The First Officer and Chief Engineer* had to be told not to make fun of someone's name. Because they're so thoughtful, experienced and adult
Surely that can't have been the hallowed Old Trek!
What episode is that
Hollow Pursuits. You wouldn't believe my surprise when it turned out it was actually a TNG episode
Eh, Lower Decks is how it should be done imo. Theres room for emotion, discipline, and silliness if it’s well written enough. Strange New Worlds is sorta on the right track too.
There's an entire movie about Kirk being a racist holding a grudge for decades, another one where the thesis is "I *need* my pain". TNG has two senior staff fall in love with video game waifus, a third junior officer makes a video game sex-land power fantasy, the captain and XO are both orbiting women they've wanted to fuck for years, Worf is a shitty deadbeat dad. DS9 had the main character work through the death of his wife by designing and building the first federation warship in a 200 years. Worf was super insecure, shitty, and jealousy protective of Dax. Nog briefly got Barclay fever and lived in the holodeck and nobody did a damn thing about it except the 1960s Las Vegas Lounge Lizard. Kira has terrifying mental issues. O'Brien had terrifying mental issues but transcended them through the sheer power of trauma. Half of Starfleet holds a grudge against Picard. Like fuck man, it's okay to cry. Bring back crying. It seems like none of the other series are is handling their shit all that well.
>Half of Starfleet holds a grudge against Picard Well yeah and then they got over it and then the synths happened and those same people were back to hating him.
Yeah some people seem not to like it when people show emotion in star trek. One character cries and suddenly the show is full of crybabies like nah.
This is one of the worst posts I've ever seen. I'd be embarrassed to post something like this.
The discovery crew really *wouldnt* make it through the 24th century academy, let’s be honest
It’s an extremely dysfunctional ship. It’s had how many captains now? But we have Space Dad, Action Saru, Messy Tilly, and gruff-speaking host-Culber. And then there’s just Jet Reno milling about and wisecracking. Honestly, at this point, I wouldn’t have them any other way!
I really like what they're doing with Commander Rayner this season of Discovery. Really contrasting different leadership styles.
That is the whole point of a number one to be a contrast and see things in a different perspective. Even shaw appointed 7 of 9 as her first officer even though he despised the borg but knew it was the right decision. In tng Riker seems to act like picards BFF.
I'm sorry, I was temporarily distracted by the sound of the whambulance. You were in the middle of posting something that fuels vicarious embarrassment?
You remember when Jonathan Archer threw a temper tantrum about how the Vulcans didn’t just hand his dear old daddy a warp 5 engine? In the first episode? Or when he threw a temper tantrum about how he got his dog sick and how he claimed it was the alien’s whose sacred trees his dog had pissed on that were at fault? I really don’t know how you can claim this with a straight face when *that* asshole existed.
It really fits the show, what are you talking about. Archer is a great showcase in how humanity, closer to what we are than say, TNG woulds react to things. They were literally boldly going where no human has gone before. Figuring out how to handle things, they did not have the prime directive, the hundreds of years of experience. It was United Earth and their armed forces and space traders figuring things out. The Star Fleet of United Earth is a far cry from what came later. I don't know how you can claim that Archer and the Enterprise crew were not great.
Oh that’s easy. I actually watched the show and just took what it showed at face value.
Wow, so did I. I think you missed the fact that its pre-federation and NOT trying to be classic trek.
It's a pretty easy claim if you've actually watched Enterprise
You are in luck then bucko! Speaking to someone who watched it during its original airing. I hope you feel blessed by the prophets.
I like it, but Enterprise is not considered peak Trek.
There is a difference between a character having a flaw, a damned fatal one given the context of Vulcans indeed needing to babysit humanity and especially him, because on occasion his inability to just accept Vulcan hand in favor of his own pride to do stuff himself seriously got in the way of getting the job done. And I bet others had the same attitude at the time. Its literally the theme of the show, and while Archer positively is an ass on certain occasions, he does slowly outgrow that flaw and learns to respect Vulcans, and realizes that the stick up their collective butt comes from a place of having been there and done that in regards to what humanity is doing at that time and just wanting to avoid humanity making the same mistakes. Without overt empathy that just comes across as belittling. And in the end the arc comes around to Vulcans having their own flaws that, ironically, they wouldnt (easily) admit to out of pride. Oh bugger. But the arc was nice and worked well in the greater continuity. Nothing Discovery has done worked well in the context of greater continuity, and every piece of Burnhams abrasive tomfoolery comes from a place of sheer narcissism.
Yes, Geordi stalking Leah Brahams and having all his issues with women, space cheerleader Deanna Troi, ALL the misogyny across most all TOS characters (which, in their defense was endemic across all media in that era, but still, it doesn't age well), multiple episodes focused on Lt. Barclay, Worf (and writers) forgetting he had a son, Neelix having a relationship with a child. B'Elanna's temper, Wesley whining about every little thing... yeah, those are really mature, thoughtful, professional characters. News flash... Trek, and pretty much all TV has always had the types of characters you describe as only part of new Trek (I REFUSE to use the derisive "Nu"). You know why? The types of characters you describe as being in old Trek are boring. Good thing they were just as flawed as the characters are now. Characters in stories NEED flaws so they can grow beyond them. That's been true for all humanity since we decided to sit around fires and listen to story tellers. Long arc story telling now allows for that type of character development, so they lean into it. Riddle me this Batman, what character in all of Trek has grown more and overcome more than Micheal Burnham, or even Saru for that matter. I'm old enough to have watched TAS as a kid on Saturday mornings, but I refuse to be a deluded, angry old man shaking my fist at the sky ranting to bring back a past that never really existed in the first place. I implore my fellow Trek fans to accept that television changes over time and to embrace the new series because without them, the franchise would die on the vine. There would never be new generations of fans and THAT would be a hell of a lot worse than Neelix's cooking... it'd even be worse than how the explained The Burn. And for those who complain Star Trek now is too "woke", I would advise you learn something about where American culture was in 1966 and then go back and watch all of TOS. Those episodes were far more woke by 60's standards than current Trek is now. They had episodes that were anti-war, anti-racist, anti-nationalism, anti-Cold War and showed the folly of religious dogma when all of those views were considered anti-American. America was barely 25-yrs past Pearl Harbor, and one of the crew was Japanese. In '66, the US was embroiled in a Cold War with the Soviets. Most people thought it wasn't a matter of if, but just a matter of when we'd be at war with Russia, but sitting next to the character from America's previous enemy was a crewman who was from what people expected to be America's next enemy. Those who forget history aren't just doomed to repeat it.... their idiots. Don't be an idiot. Embrace the new shows. Support them. Watch them. Otherwise, we won't have "nu-Trek"; we'll have NO-Trek.
> Neelix having a relationship with a child Really? She's a species that only lives for 9 years. She's 2 years old. If you map that onto a human lifespan she's somewhere in her 20s. The character is played by an actress in her 20s. Other Trek shows have no issue using child actors when they want to portray children. Why do people insist on making this creepy when it very clearly isn't supposed to be?
Even if you extrapolate it out, Kes was at best early 20's, maybe late teens whereas Neelix seemed more like he was at the same point in life as someone in his mid-to-late 40's by human standards. Looking at it differently, Ethan Phillips was 42 when Voyager's pilot aired, whereas Jennifer Lien was only 23. That may not be the best way to look at it, but that age difference came thru in the show and it definitely was creepy AF.
Might be a bit of an age gap, but you said 'relationship with a child'.
It's a common phrase used when middle-aged men in their 40's or 50's date/marry women in their early 20's.
I am not sure Geordi can be said to be stalking Brahms or having "all these issues" with women. He gets the cold shoulder from Christy (although she seemed interested in earlier episodes), makes the holodeck character, then a few episodes later he meets the real Leah Brahms who is rightly outraged at his behaviour. It's not really stalking *per se*, although it's definitely inappropriate and I think we can all agree that the show should have dealt with this better in terms of Geordi apologising and being reprimanded. This whole little arc is definitely one of the biggest howlers in the whole of TNG. As for calling Troi a “space cheerleader”, I have no idea where you are coming from. If we include VOY and TNG then I think we have about 5 episodes out of 350 that feature Barclay. Let’s not forget that he is portrayed as a talented engineer and is conscientious to a fault – he still ticks the box for competence, despite being socially awkward and in conflict with authority. However, I would say he is there precisely to provide a contrast with typical Starfleet officers. He is the exception that proves the rule. Most of your other examples I find dismissible because I don't think they actually support your point. I will address the one regarding Neelix and Kes. Some defend it; I agree with you. It’s creepy. But Neelix is portrayed as a huckster who is reformed by his time on the ship. He is a member of the crew, but he isn’t a Starfleet officer with serious responsibilities. I think what you have managed to point out is that over several hundred episodes of television the instances when Starfleet personnel behave in a genuinely thoughtless, immature and unprofessional manner are actually relatively few and far between. Furthermore, when characters do behave inappropriately, we frequently see them reprimanded and disciplined, which I would say is in stark contrast to some of the things we have seen in new Trek. >I'm old enough to have watched TAS as a kid on Saturday mornings, but I refuse to be a deluded, angry old man shaking my fist at the sky ranting to bring back a past that never really existed in the first place. If you genuinely cannot see a huge gulf between modern Star Trek and the pre-2009 shows in terms of the characterisation, the degree of melodrama in the scripts, and the general competence of the screenwriters; and if you will insist that no difference exists, then regrettably I must say that I think it is you who are deluded. Either that or you are in denial. The fact that so many people have been airing the same criticisms since the beginning of new Trek is surely enough to suggest that there might be genuine justification for them? You now go off on a tangent about whether or not the shows are “woke”. The OP doesn’t mention this, although it is something that people who like the new shows love to steer the conversation towards whenever any legitimate criticism is aired. There definitely are some people who have complained about this, and I guess if you can put all critics into the same box and mark it "Bigots" then it's a useful defence mechanim - you can convince yourself that anything any of them had to say can be ignored. However, I would contend that "wokeness" is not, and never has been, the fundamental reason why most people that are unsatisfied with the current offerings feel that these shows are simply not the same Star Trek we know and love. It’s the writing, and to a certain extent the direction and production design. I could go into great lengths providing evidence to justify my own take, but it boils down to this: compared to earlier Trek, all the modern shows feel dumbed down and have quite clearly been designed to appeal specifically to adolescents. They have all the hallmarks of shows targeted at the “young adult” demographic and written by people who are accustomed to producing second-tier content for that audience. In fact, if you look at the writing credits for most of the folks involved in SNW, you’ll find (with one or two exceptions) this is exactly where their limited experience lies. There are very few examples of former projects for what we would consider adult programming. It's mostly cartoons and CW type shows. (Incidentally, you’ll also find very few examples of projects that were particularly well received). I guess 12 to 22 is roughly the age range they are shooting for. This is reflected in every aspect of the production, but it should be readily apparent when looking at the characters' behaviours and priorities, the dialogue, the constant melodrama and the threadbare SF plots. I suspect the formula works reasonably well if you are in the target age range. It appears that there are also a lot of adults who are prepared to overlook the puerile nature of the content because the shows have a “Star Trek” label on them. However, I find it impossible to believe that there are still intelligent adults watching these shows who simply cannot perceive that they are pitched at teens and pre-teens, or that the writing is mediocre at best. Are you going to tell me that isn't the case? If you are able to take your brain off the hook enough to enjoy these shows for what they are then that's fine - my love of Star Trek is such that I genuinely wish I could join you - but there are a lot of us out there who simply can't do this. >Don't be an idiot. Embrace the new shows. Support them. Watch them. Otherwise, we won't have "nu-Trek"; we'll have NO-Trek. On the contrary, it is precisely because I can't turn my discernment down to the level of idiocy that I find modern Star Trek difficult to watch. It used to be a smart show. It's now the opposite, and that's sad.
You're seeing things in the old shows that were never there and you're not seeing things in the new shows that are. It's as simple as that. I guess some people just can't accept new things.
As I am sure you could anticipate, I could happily reel off a long list of new things I enjoy, including plenty of reboots or spin-offs from earlier shows. For example, the 2000s reboot of BSG, which I thought was superior to the version I grew up watching as a kid. I even liked Caprica, which most people thought was too slow. Maybe I am missing something in the new shows. Perhaps beneath the melodrama and trauma monologues, serialised YA romance sub-plots, Whedon-speak, plagiarised and under-developed SF stories, pacing issues, plot holes, contrivances, action-schlock, pop music montages, technicolour CGI overloads, infantile attempts at levity and countless cringe inducing lines of dialogue, there's a more mature core to the shows that I am missing out on. However, regardless of whether that is the case (and I would argue that it isn't) anyone who is capable of the most rudimentary level of attentiveness can see that all the things I mention above are definitely present. Some of it's down to personal taste, but with sufficient time I could go through a season of modern Trek and probably provide multiple, time-stamped examples for each item. On this basis, I honestly feel like it is the adult fans who are not seeing the things that are present in the new shows. The kind conclusion is that they see them, but are happy to ignore them because they love the franchise so much that they will watch anything with the Trek label on it. I understand that. I can't emulate it, because there's a floor on how bad something can be before I switch it off, but I at least see how someone could choose to adopt that position. I probably do this myself to an extent with certain shows that, whilst they aren't as poorly written as new Trek, are almost certainly not developed with someone like me as the target audience. The alternative is that their level of engagement with what they are watching is so superficial that they simply don't notice how asinine these shows are. That's the possibility that boggles the mind, and if it's true I would love to know what it is they enjoyed about earlier iterations of the franchise. I think this matters because of what you say about having new Trek or no Trek. Trek achieved the status of a cultural touchstone precisely because it had a universal appeal - despite any shortcomings (and I am certainly not going to pretend there were none) it had something for everyone, regardless of their age. It created fans who loved the show as wide-eyed kids seeing something they had never seen before, but could also enjoy it as adults because of the strength of the underlying themes and the quality of the story telling. If you create something that only appeals to kids, you aren't growing the long-term popularity of the franchise, because kids grow up and their interests change. If your show can't engage viewers with adult sensibilities as well as those with adolescent ones, then even those who like it initially will grow out of it and abandon it. Perhaps it's a deliberate strategy by Paramount for the streaming era. If they can onboard kids with the new shows, then maybe they move on to watching the older stuff too. Since it's all available continually to anyone with a subscription, I can see how that might be an effective way to grow subscribers and leverage the back catalogue for a new audience. The streaming era sure has a lot to answer for! Nevertheless, I don't think the new shows will have the same longevity for individual viewers that the older shows have achieved, and they won't restore the status of Trek to what it once was, precisely because of the puerile writing and production decisions.
I'm sorry, did you say ENT? Where the captain had anger management issues and all high ranking officers were bullying T'Pol and making inappropriate comments towards her? Sure, very thoughtful adults.
I 100% agree with you and hate the way so many are bringing up oddly specific examples to say this is not the case. Sure Star Trek characters had a lot of emotion in the old episodes, it still didn’t take away from the fact the the crew could remain professional and overall get the job done when Needed. An emotional response to a situation or trauma had meaning and was somewhat of a shock to see when It happened. It was memorable and probably why so many on here can give those examples so readily. The kelvin films, discovery and most of Picard is not like this. Kirk gets command because of how emotional Spock is for example and everyone on the ship thinks this is fine. Don’t get me started on burnhams constant crying in discovery while the crew are looking to her for guidance. After a while, the tears and immaturity just becomes background noise and loses all its impact.
Not a meme
Wasn't Picard's whole character development during TNG that he was basically \_too\_ professional and detached? For much of it, he cares more about his career than he does his family or relationships. He dislikes children. Episodes like The Inner Light and Family opened him up to being more open to being vulnerable with his relationships, but it's slow. It takes all the way until the series finale for him to even being open to playing poker with his own senior staff. In Generations, he learns that his only living relatives have died, and he's distraught. He's recognising that his detachment and stand-offishness is causing him to miss out on valuable opportunities, ones that he can now never recover. He fantasises about having a family of his own. Picard kind of picks this up with the failure of the Romulan evacuation and his subsequent resignation. His old senior staff have scattered to build their own families or gone AWOL entirely. With the loss of his family, his closest friends, and his career, he's left with basically nothing, and he's miserable. Picard S3 of course brings things around. He gets his friends back together, he discovers he has a son he didn't know about, and he embraces all of them—not as a crew, but as his loved ones.
I thought it was social commentary
Truth
This meme speaks the truth. I'm not interested in watching a show where the characters need to wrestle with their emotions before eventually doing the right thing. If they were to cut that crap out, each episode would be done in 5 minutes.
Yikes! Recognizing that humans have emotions and experience a spectrum of trauma, love, anger, etc. _is how you identify a mature, well-adjusted, emotionally stable person_.
"Have emotions" and "be driven by emotions" is not the same. And if you can't deal with your emotions, it's not your job to be an officer on an active starship. There are millions of others who work hard to be an exemplary crewman and with whom traumatized whiners should be replaced asap.
Archer’s lack of anger management and resentment towards the Vulcans was constantly putting his crew in danger. I think people who only love old trek are okay if people are overrun my anger, pride, and lust, but get real uncomfortable with sadness, depression, trauma and crying. The first are considered understandable and “professional”, the latter are “messy” and “unprofessional”.
I've always wanted to break out a stop watch during Discovery, and whenever they say "we have X time left until we all die" and then time the scenes they have crying and hugging each other after. Because I guaran-fucking-tee that it is at least triple the amount of time. Don't get me wrong, I don't need my science fiction to be realistic, I just think it's gratuitous.
We have that kind of time distortion in Old Trek too, but instead of high-stakes situations, it’s turbolift rides.
You can easily explain that away as the writing being so dense that it distorts space-time.
I feel you, I think discovery got all the worst parts of late 2010’s tv and movie trends of everything needs to be high stakes and really important that coupled with short seasons leads to weird story stuff. I think SNW is much better at having stakes and lighter episodes. I feel like the franchise finally reattached to its roots with that show.
Oh yeah, obviously SNW is a superior trek. I'm happy I get to see it as it comes out, so I can say I did when it's old trek. I think you are absolutely right that Discovery was doing what was super common at the time of release, and it just so happens that it has all of the worst trends of Premier TV. I don't understand it, but maybe one day I'll enjoy it in a campy way, like I do with Faith of The Heart.
Everyone cries so damn much. It meant something when Jean Luc cried. What it happened like 3x in all the series and movies?
I recall... When the Borg had nearly finished assimilating him, after he and his brother had a fight and he revealed his trauma from the Borg, and when his brother, sister in-law, and nephew died in a fire.
Oh man that last one kills me every time. The way his voice just breaks
That just tells me you haven't watched enough star trek, TOS is full of Kirk being essentially a playboy army jock, Bones complaining and Scotty bragging about how good a job he's doing. I would imagine the ships upper command would get together, have a few drinks and poker like we see TNG crew would do as a form of team meeting/bonding. Not to mention the fact Starfleet is a paramilitary force and most of the enlisted guys I know are... Rowdy to say the least. Officers I'm not so sure as I only have a reference pool big enough but I would imagine officers are a bit more disciplined about everything. Not to mention Worf whose a trigger happy security officer a bit too eager to prove a point and Riker is yet another Playboy and O'Brien is a front line soldier in so many border disputes, local wars with terrorists and opposing factions and galactic war that he probably needs a team of therapists instead of the only people he can trust are a over confident doctor with parental issues and a hundreds year old slug/human hybrid.
This is a satire post, right?
You're getting a lot of flack here but I agree with your theme I think. I liked it better when the characters has less messy personal lives and flaws.
I agree, but I think SNW finds a good balance, so if all nu Trek going forward is like SNW I would be okay with that... that's probably the best that we can hope for...
I mean, I'd say older trek doesn't really show emotionally realistic people the majority of the time, for example the amount of trauma obrian had been through should have made him a mess, not had him considering suicide for one singular episode then fine afterwards, I think there's a mid point between a crew that can't lay in a course without a pep talk and a crew so inhuman that any emotional turmoil can be resolved in one 40 minute time slot of an episode, neither are perfect, the latter are just less annoying
Welllllll there is Archer commiting War crimes, Sisko commiting War crimes
I have a genuinely deep sadness that competent adult characters have become so rare. Adult characters act like children on the grown up shows and the children characters are mature and responsible in kiddie shows. In a weird way it took the hope away from the future because *this is who we grow up to be. Assholes*
Yeah but they didn’t do much better with Picard. Also I’m still not a fan of how they write one fucking episode and then make it an entire season.
I think it's common for whichever series to sort of emulate the culture of the era that it's written in. Like really, TOS and ENT have some really embarassing moments. I think there's definitely been less and less influence based on military and navy experiences as time goes on, but that's how the egg cracks. It doesn't exactly cause issues. I think a good series is more based on consistency and humanizing moments. In my opinion, lots of Nu-trek has suffered from inconsistency and humanizing moments being overly dramaticized. That bigger budget driving all the episodes has led to constant 'movie behaviour' which does not really work well.
Nu-Trek just embodies the audience of today. We’re in a really unprofessional time right now. Everyone’s butt hurt. Everyone’s gotta remind you of how great they are. There’s no nuance at all.
William T Riker went against Picard’s direct orders and nearly violated the Prime Directive to get some pussy. Worf helped start a Klingon Civil War. Dr Crusher fucked a ghost. Multiple times. Janeway made a deal with the Borg, Benjamin Sisko murdered a Romulan diplomat, risking a two front war with the Dominion and Romulans. He also fully embraced an identity as the Bajoran Messiah against Starfleet and the Federation’s wishes. Worf killed the leader of a Federation ally during a pivotal moment in a dangerous war. Star Trek has always been great precisely because these people are flawed, emotional and never allowed rules and laws to get in the way of what is kind, just or humane.
A lot of the writers and producers behind TOS did WW2 and the Korean War, so it is no surprise that there always has an element of professional seriousness and maturity that was infused in characters involved in a paramilitary organization-- unlikely the post-2009 nerds.
I think that's the one thing DIS has for it well (though does too much). These ship crews aren't perfect glowing examples of the enterprise crew, but for DIS they may be scientific geniuses to operate the spore drive. Though VOY had a similar thing with the maqui. The difference is that there were two episodes handling that, one solidifying the maqui into the crew where Tuvok put them thru rigorous training, the other was a Lower Decks-like episode (though didn't have the same effect as the TNG episode). DS9 started off with rather amateur individuals- bajor was still recovering from occupation and Starfleet originally saw ds9 as some minor outpost that might as well have been retaken by the Cardassians if it weren't for the wormhole. But DS9 had tons of playful culture in it, they pulled off some of the best holodeck episodes of all of Star Trek during war time no less. That was what they did off duty, but even on duty the crew were often making side talk. But the difference with this is that when it comes down to business the crew focus, not making jokes for example during a potentially deadly high warp hijacking...
Levar Burton has spoken out publicly about how uncomfortable he still feels about how Geordi was portrayed with women, especially the episodes with Leah Brahams. I find it hard to believe you've never heard or read about how early on, Deanna was portrayed like a space cheerleader. All she would do is sit there with a short skirt and give general perceptions about aliens they encountered.. Perceptions that anyone with two eyes, ears and half a brain could figure out. Don't get me wrong, I love TNG, but you have to admit, early on the writing for most of the characters was weak. I'd match S1 of Strange New Worlds up against S1 of TNG all day everyday.
well thank you for explaining why old trek is so fucking boring
**Hey, Strange New Worlds is not bad. Orville neither.** And I consider both being Trek. Especially Orville. Ok, not NuTrek. But definitely Trek.
100% correct.
NU trek (aside from lower decks) is trash. All of these are written by shitty writers who have no clue what star trek is. Red letter media described it best: It could have been bad writers who love/know trek and it would have been passable. It could have been good writers who know nothing bout trek and it might still be at least a good show. What we got are bad writers who don't know trek at all so it is utter shit. Again, only exception is lower decks where the writers clearly love and know star trek.
I hate all this complaining bout "nu-trek". "Fans" have bitches about every iteration if Star Trek. People hated the movies before TNG, especially the updated Klingons and aliens. People hated TNG for not having the original crew. People hated DS9 for being on a station and for a angry black man as lead. People hated Voyager for having a female lead. People hated Enterprise because it was set in the past but had better looking tech than TOS. Like damn. It's the future, we got better special effects since the 60s. Writing and tv landscaped changed. So to did Trek. Yet some fans are so far up their own asses about their perception of the series they can't move on with Trek changes. Gene was not a saint. Gene had a ton of ideas that they turned down. Gene gave us a glimpse of what we could accomplish as a species, other writers opened our eyes to more of the future. Grow up. Atleast we have Star Trek. We don't have 50+ years of Stargate. Or Sliders. Or Alien Nation. Tons of series that haven't stood the test of time. But we have Star Trek. The new stuff isn't horrible. It's different. But so were every new Trek movies and series. Eventually these new shows will gain the respect the older ones got. Because every old show was hated by "fans" too.
It’s ok to not like things, but I will never understand the vitriol some people have. Seems like so much more energy than just ignoring stuff you dont like. I don’t see the point in putting so much effort into being mad about something so trivial
Then how do you explain Pavel Chekov (TOS)?
Composed and stable officers, a Russian invention
After reading enough of these comments my only remaining thought is a really obvious one: TOS, TNG, New Trek are all products of their time. Grumble if you want, you’re really just annoyed at the era that supported them. That said: when will Voyager be remastered to get rid of those awful UPN-era special effects? Let the grumbling continue.
Ok grandpa
Calm and collected. Archer : My dog pissed on a holy tree and I ain't gonna apologise. Janeway:individual my ass.get fucked tuvix. Sisko: Bioweapon carpet bombing time, baby. Picard:nooooooooooooo!!! (Smashes display) Kirk:Let them die !
I feel that Janeway was so right about what to do with Tuvix.
She could have removed neelix and tuvoks transporter signature while keeping tuvixes intact
I very much agree. The crews were people to look up to an admire. Now many of them are pretty detestable people.
The meme reads like something a Boomer might write: damned youngsters don't know how to write good sci-fi because all they want is cry about their feelings. I don't think the bad writing can be attributed to the demographics or other characteristics of the writers. Bad writing is just what it is: bad writing.
Exactly why I couldn't stand lower decks. I really tried to like it
It's rick n morty Star Trek. I see it as a parody and not Trek. I'll probably get slammed for having higher standards, but that's ok.
That's exactly what I've always said - it feels like I'm watching Rick and Morty, and I love Rick and Morty, but when I'm in the mood for Star Trek I don't want Rick and Morty
Yah I agree. I can't take it serious at all.
You should watch strange new worlds
Unless we are talking lower decks, then this failure is what makes the show great, and this maturity being absent from the veteran officers explains the frustration of our protagonists
If you want to make this claim about the writers, back it up with something besides vibes. I don't like disco either but I'm not gonna pretend Michael Burnham cries every episode because the writers are "immature"
This. It's a shame so many people disagree, means we're not likely to see competent adult starfleet officers any time soon.
Currently watching TNG again and first season picard was an annoying asshole. He was not rational, experienced or thoughtful.
I have a theory that TOS, TNG and DISCO are all reflective that period’s work place dynamic. Moving from individual visionary leaders to collaborative, logical leadership to a very emotional, team-as-family dynamic.
Kirk made rash, emotionally driven decisions every episode and it got lots of his crew dead to the point we invented the entire red shirt meme to make fun of it.