224
Y'all can lose your mind over Kevin all you want. I'm just staring at this man...
(startrek.website)
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
224 points (92.4% liked)
Risa
6916 readers
174 users here now
Star Trek memes and shitposts
Come on'n get your jamaharon on! There are no real rules—just don't break the weather control network.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
SNeW Pike is literally THE redeeming factor of Discovery.
Doug Jones. Special effects. Visuals. Michelle Yeoh. Acting chops across the board. Bridge Officers getting more screentime. David fucking Cronenberg. Firmly establishing Kelvin timeline. Major LGBTQ+ representation for the first time in Trek (one off episodes don't count). Una. Sharp increase in humor. The Enterprise. Culber returning. Tig Notaro! THAT Pike episode (You know the one. The big one.) USS Nog. Oded Fehr. Butterfly People (that's just a personal favorite). Return of Space Cats.
I mean... there's a lot of redeeming qualities of Discovery. It's totally fine to not like Discovery, and to criticize it (respectfully) and the things you don't like, but it's a bit harsh to outright disregard the absolute slew of great things we've managed to get out of the show as well.
Suppose I cook you lobster ravioli as served at a Michelin-star restaurant. The filling is a perfect blend of lobster, salmon, egg white, basil, lemon zest, and seasoning. The poaching stock is expertly crafted from roasted lobster shell, carrots, celery, onions, tomato, and lemongrass, then deglazed with brandy, reduced, and strained till it's perfect. Consider further that the pasta was made fresh by hand, and expertly stuffed, and served with lemon vinaigrette and tomato chutney, all prepared by an expert hand with fresh ingredients. It's a perfect dish, one that has so many great things going on. It's a balanced symphony of unique flavors interplaying perfectly.
Oh, except I used cheap, nasty, frozen lobster and it's still raw. Oops. Are you still going to eat your ravioli anyway? No. It doesn't matter how many great things are very much still actually happening, there's no point in eating it now. It's ruined. All of it.
Bad writing is the raw shellfish of media. It doesn't matter how good everything else about the show is, because if it's written badly, everything is ruined. It's the one thing that can't be forgiven and taints everything it touches at the source. Good intentions don't make up for raw shellfish.
Could you give some examples of bad writing in the show? Feel free to skip the overwrought metaphor.
Well there goes 90% of the show, so no, you get the long version now.
We're both standing in the middle of a soundstage (lit like a European discotheque), and you whisper-talk at me at a volume 0.01% louder than the score:
"I'd love to hear some of these examples of bad writing in the show! You can feel free to skip all of the overwrought metaphors."
and I respond
"Well if I skip the 'overwrought metaphors', I seriously doubt I'll have anything left to talk about!" then you say something about how hard this is on you emotionally, I quietly affirm that I'm here for you, then you bitterly reject it, and then I pinch off a pithy-sounding bon mot that's actually nonsense, and walk off, leaving you standing stock-still in the grip of Powerful Emotions. Then we repeat all of this six more times, taking breaks for vomit-inducing scenes where 15,000 suicidally depressed animators shove every single item in the effects library onto the screen.
But seriously, I know you're just sea lioning. It's not possible to ask that question in good faith. Imagine if I snottily asked you to give me an example of bad writing in 1994's It's Pat, you would tell me "uh, fucking everything, piss off" and you'd be right to.
So that's a "no?"
I believe I made it quite clear that I get to do the pithy bot mot that's actually nonsense, stay in your lane.
The term is "bon mot." Don't worry though, this in no way affects my impression of your ability to judge what is or is not good writing.
I know, because there wasn't a typo the first time I wrote it. You see, gotchas like that usually work better when I haven't already used the term before in a comment that you previously responded to. Don't worry though, this in no way affects my impression of your ability to pay attention to what passes in front of your eyeballs.
I do, however, take it as an admission that you had to resort to making fun of me to have something to say, just like how I already expect your next comment to be an attempt at affecting aloof detachment.
I'm actually still just waiting for you to give some examples of bad writing in Disco.
I was waiting also, and a little annoyed at the facetious replies. However, I'm going to make a (very cheap) attempt (that plagiarises heavily from the first hit on a search):
I would add that, while you could maybe apply some of the criticisms against Michael Burnham towards other captains and commanders in other series, the difference is that they were in commanding roles, and thus inherently central. It generally feels that Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, etc would divert attention away from themselves to their crew, as if to promote them, while Burnham always seems to be jumping into the limelight for herself.
There were a few points I skipped because I didn't really agree with them, and some of the ones I included no doubt could be applied to other Trek shows, but I'd still say that Discovery has plenty of flaws worth highlighting. That doesn't mean it's a terrible show, but it's far from the best example of Star Trek, in my opinion.
Again, I'm aware of how sealioning works. Will that be all...?
I'm sorry to say, but your behaviour here has been more like a circus seal jumping up and clapping around. You haven't really delivered any substance.
I think you have a point, but you've not taken any opportunity to articulate it.
If you hit context you should see my reply one step above, I'd appreciate if you jumped in and commented towards that.
I've engaged with a bad-faith question more candidly than it deserves.
It's a good show overall, but in too many ways it doesn't feel like Starfleet. I see it as more of a modern teeny sci-fi show with a Star Trek theme.
Starfleet, and Star Trek, do not have an singular feeling or vibe and honestly this criticism doesn't hold any legs once you start getting into it. I've mentioned this elsewhere but every series (with the exception of TNG and VOY) all have their own individual themes and vibes. TOS is very campy while the TOS movies swing from campy to outright war, hostilities and loss. TNG (and VOY) are primarily explorative and philosophical while having their own episodes of strangeness. DS9's entire theme is built around hostility and hatred between races that blows up into a full on war with extreme loss and casualties. Enterprise combines a variety of different themes from other shows while tackling the hardships of trying something for the first time. Not a single one of them share the exact same vibe across them all. They do share the same ideals, however, and Discovery is included in that. Just because the show focuses more on action/flashy scenes than others doesn't mean that it isn't Star Trek and it doesn't diminish those traits which run integral to the entire show. Discovery doesn't focus on war anymore than DS9 does, in fact it focuses on it less given the fact that it was one season in comparison to the multi-season arc for DS9. The core concepts of sacrifice for the good of all, hope, the quest for peace, wanting a better future, trying to do what's best for all and (arguably most importantly) personal growth? They all exist in the show and while were buried a little in Season 1 (before becoming more visible in 2 and onwards) it's still there.
As for 'teeny sci-fi show', why? The show outright tackles some pretty harsh subject matter and brutal decisions.
Lastly, if it's a "good show overall" then why did you literally open with saying that Pike was "THE redeeming factor" of the show?
I have to strongly disagree with your premise there. Star Trek and Starfleet do have a singular underlying theme throughout, as defined by Gene Roddenberry. Yes, each series is different, but there is a thread throughout that binds them, a code of morals that someone in the crew always brings everyone back to every episode, even if a character strays. Even the other species have their traits that generally stay consistent. This maybe started to diminish with DS9 and Voyager, after Roddenberry passed, however others don't quite grab a hold of that thread well at all - specifically Enterprise and Discovery. The J J Abrams films also somewhat, although they follow TOS closely enough that it still fits.
It's not the action/flashy scenes (which were never what made Star Trek great, and frankly HDR and bloom are all too often overdone these days, like if Michael Bay did lens flare), it's the interactions between the characters. And overall it's a feeling, something that's really hard to put into words, but recognisable when it's there.
Again, the interactions between the characters. You'll have to forgive me for not having it fresh in my memory, I haven't seen Discovery for a while (dropped Sky TV and with that lost the only device logged into my mum's Netflix) but generally to me it felt like most other CBS shows in the way characters interact, and how so many of them focus on hooking up with each other to the detriment of their duties. It's cheap and lazy drama, in my eyes. SNW even still has a little of this around Spock, but in general it feels like CBS finally listened and relaxed on the reins a little bit, allowing it to be a "proper" Trek show.
You did bring up a bunch of things in your previous comment that make me want to go back and re-watch Discovery, though, so I'll be doing that soon.
Because I was speaking in hyperbole.
I never claimed that Star Trek didn't share the same theme. I said it still holds the traits and beliefs of Star Trek and stays to those values. I also said that every show has its own distinct feeling and vibe while still sharing those beliefs. The traits are kept consistent, the code of morals consistent, it's outright false to say that they do not stick by it or stand by it. It's also wrong to say it doesn't "grab ahold of that well" because it's an opinion, not objective truth.
There is no hint of "teeny" behavior in the show or in the way they interact with each other. There just isn't. Everyone treats one another like an adult (once the show gets going). As mentioned, the only "teeny" behavior you could possibly claim is them displaying emotion more than other shows. You also say "So many are interested in hooking up instead of their duties" which is just an outright lie. Burnham is the only one who ever seeks an active relationship and at no point does it ever supersede her duties.
I do not believe you. You started this off by saying that Pike is the only redeemable part of the show. Then you say that Discovery is well done. Then you say it isn't well done, it's "teeny" and "cheap and lazy". You also claim that the show is missing some completely immeasurable "feeling", say their traits aren't consistent and are then attempting to gatekeep what is and isn't star trek by saying it "doesn't feel proper". There's no consistency at all.
Everything you just said was opinion and you attempted to pass it off as fact. I have absolutely zero interest in ever engaging with someone who is gatekeeping and insistent on saying something isn't real Trek while claiming things about the show that are factually inaccurate. I have no place in my life for such negative behavior. Like I said before. If someone wants to not like Discovery that's fine but lying about the show and attempting to gatekeep it by saying it isn't real Trek or doesn't understand it? Yeah, that's not okay behavior. I'm just going to pass entirely on all that. Bye.
I wasn't saying the characters were behaving teeny, rather the show seems to be aimed more towards teenagers, along with most of CBS' other lineup.
I would think it's abundantly obvious that it's an opinion, nowhere did I claim it was fact, and nor did I gatekeep or say you didn't understand anything. You're getting far too aggressive here, I'm sorry if I touched a nerve, but I am entitled to my opinion on the shows just as much as you are. In my opinion, Enterprise and Discovery don't feel like proper Trek. I'm sorry if I didn't articulate that very well, but that doesn't give you the right to berate me and belittle me over an opinion on a fictional franchise.
I actually had a great deal of respect for you going into this. I mentioned how I was going to re-watch Discovery in light of what you said, and I was hoping to get your opinion on some other shows, as you clearly have a different way of looking at things than me and I'm interested in that insight. All I did was criticise a show. In return, you criticised me, personally.
Stamets is an internet celebrity, bro. He was right to stomp on your personhood, you had the temerity to disagree with his august opinions of his favorite network TV shows. Shame on you.