@@LordShadow965 : a star trek tng episode, where Captain Picard was held captive and tortured, in order to break his mind they were forcing him to say that there were 5 (?) lights in the room even tho there were only 4. He almost broke at the end but was released in time and he never said there were 5, he yelled out "there are 4 lights!!"
@@GRasputin91 Well even Enterprise was more exploration oriented than "just war" and unprofessional who's crying about their feelings and emotions instead of doing actual exploration and problems solving... Another funny fact is that in discovery protagonists are doing almost nothing in order to solve actual problems. Instead, accidents are happening here and there and they are solving key obstacles for them... Stat is strong feeling when you are watching Discovery "Wait...wait... don't do anything... wait... you can cry for a while... wait... dont do anything... wait for something luckily to happen that would solve your problem... wait... BINGO... Ok, you shouldn't do anything now, accident fixed the problem..."
@@thebeeamberheardsdogsteppe6368 I strongly disagree. If you're sending people out to explore away from their homes for an extended period, they'll need to be trained so they can conduct themselves professionally in a variety of stressful and high stakes situations. That's the entire point of Starfleet training. A major plot point of Voyager was how the crew held on to their training and principles and would not crack even when they are many many years away from home. From a realism standpoint, these people would never have been allowed out of the academy.
Watching Discovery and Picard, I understand one thing: Gene Roddenberry was a smart guy, and he hired a lot of smart people to help make Star Trek and TNG. A lot of those same people went on to make DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. Basically none of those people work on Discovery or Picard.
Doug Drexler and the Okudas returned to Season 2&3 of Picard. I agree that some design elements are not anymore close to the Hilton in space that the Galaxy class was. But from that design aesthetic they already moved away on Voyager, DS9‘s Defiant and Enteprise - all shows design by the people that shaped TNG for 7 seasons. Do I feel at home on the Discovery bridge? No! La Sirena and Stargazer? No! NX-01? Surprisingly yes.
You look at the names of the ships, the whole USS thing, the ranks in starfleet like lieutenant ans ensign and captain and Admiral, of course starfleet is a space navy
@@katakisLives Starfleets paramilitary. Just like your local police structure, they use the ranking system of the military but that's as far as it goes. Starfleet was always science first, diplomacy second, (TNG added cruise ship/leisure vessel third) and military ship fourth. Picard was always a diplomat in the TV shows. In the movies is where he became an action star.
@@katakisLives not going to offer an alternative viewpoint? Like, maybe it's just a command structure for a huge organization commanding powerful starships and weaponry, but still with only the main goal of exploration? Or at least, it used to.
@@kilroy987 Yes, Starfleet wears many hats but no doubt to me it functions as a space navy, resolving disputes and sometimes defending the integrity of Federation territory from outside attack, its very presence rather like a modern navy can be used as a deterrent like when the US Navy strategically positions its navy destroyers or aircraft carriers provocatively near a country thats not behaving to show them the consequences of stepping out of line, its level of militarization varies from times of war to peace but there's no doubt that a large part of its mission is to maintain peace I'm sure ideally starfleet is primarily intended to be an exploratory organization but it was always going to become as much military as exploration as the Federation encountered more and more hostile species.
I think the Orville is also more Star Trek than Deep Space 9 which was criticized for being so non Trek at time. Looking back DS9 is now considered one of the best SF or just TV shows ever made regardless of genre and is the prototype to all the SF and genre shows in the next two decades. Orville by attempting to be a Trek clone risks not having a strong show identity of its own. Personally by being so non Trek and unique to itself is why I love the Expanse so much and above every other show.
Not to mention that STD is focused around one character, Michael. She is the smartest, strongest and bravest person on the show. She is the only hero. In Roddenberry's Star Trek anyone could be the hero.
Nah, every other main character (even Saru) have episodes dedicated to their heorism. It doesn't focus more on Michael than the original or TNG focused on golden boys Kirk and Picard. Plus at least Michael has plenty of bad traits - Kirk and Picard could do no wrong unless required by .
@@theessentials450 "Michael has plenty of bad traits and all characters got focus in the show. Picard and Kirk got a lot more focus and basically never did anything wrong." 'Wrong, Kirk and Picard are smart and interesting.' Excuse me, Sir, is this yours? I believe you dropped your trail of thoughts, because that's a complete non sequitur. Kirk and Picard are smart, therefore they didn't get more focus and had flaws? Those things would suggest that they DID get more focus and didn't have a lot o flaws, wouldn't they?
She is the most reckless and dangerous member of the bridge crew and somehow manages to get away with it. The rest of the crew don’t seem to have any character development, aside from ticking the ‘woke’ boxes. A couple of scenes stand out, where Adira Tal is referred to in the third person, while still standing in the same room. Their obsession with getting the non binary pronouns into a scene seems to override the obvious rudeness of not speaking directly to a character.
"Star Trek fans believe that - and so do I. “ Gene, wonderful Gene. You were such a gift to this planet, this species. You were pure of heart and of superior cognition, no question. Rest in dear peace.
@@nicoladoering5030 Thank you. So tired of certain fans putting that man on some sort of pedestal as if he was some patron saint. The guy was a control freak. There's a reason he was booted from control not once but twice from the Star Trek franchise after the results of The Motion Picture and the second season of TNG.
She is an actress. She needs a paycheck too. I have refused to watch, but did'nt StarTP turn her into a lesbian, or was that her ex-husband that did that?
@@jnichols3 Tbh it opens with a dark premise but ends on a message of hope, and maintains this narrative that a positive vision is the right one all the way through it. IMO nothing wrong with turning Seven bisexual (everyone forgets she has a six year relationship with a man, everyone forgets this), but to do it with the character they did it with was stupid stupid stupid. The ending of Picard, I feel, was heavily rushed. Maybe they were worried Patrick would die or something, who knows.
Yes it did. STD most definitely betrayed Gene's vision of the future. Gotta remember that Kurtzman is a graduate of the JarJar Abrams School of Douchebaggery. They don't care about Gene's vision. They think "Ooooh we can make 'splosions and peoples will watch our shitshow!" I REALLY hope the ghost of Gene Roddenberry comes back to haunt these fools, especially his OWN SON who attached his name to STD! THAT was the worst betrayal of them all!
It feels more like Discovery is not only betraying the original vision of hope for a better future, but is deliberately corrupting it to make people complacent and apathetic towards what they want us to believe is a bleak and hopeless future. I've noticed that other icons of hope and optimism are also being attacked and corrupted as well, like Star Wars and Superman... I find that most curious...
@@shadowtheimpure The optimism of Star Wars was about the ability to defeat those terrible things. Like the Rebels defeating the Empire and doing their best to fix the galaxy.
SPOT: Android subservient! I will take my supplement 25 now! DATA: Not now, Spot. I am performing an investigation into an ancient human ritual inaccurately called gaming. SPOT: Do you remember what happened the last time you disobeyed me? FEED ME, TIN MAN! DATA: I have taken preventive measures. You cannot perform the same actions twice with me. SPOT: Are you seriously suggesting that I should start getting clever? Are you unaware of how kind I'm being just by relieving myself in a singular location? DATA: I must get back to my investigation now. There is an audio/video game series called "Final Fantasy" that I am playing. Once I have finished it, you may eat. SPOT: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. It's bad enough that there's no sun for me to worship, which is messing with my psychology in ways that you can't even fathom, but now you dare to challenge my status as alpha male? That's it! Where's Tasha's body? I'm going to dig it up and do things to it that you never did! DATA: Spot, please. SPOT: Or perhaps I'll just grab that holodeck program she left you and force you to watch how a _real man_ treats a woman! DATA: You are being ridiculous now. SPOT: And let's be clear: I _am_ a male! If I wake up one day to find out that my sex has been switched, then I swear to the Great Bird of the Galaxy, who I would otherwise be hunting, that I will expose all of your deepest and darkest secrets and transmit them across the universe! DATA: Dinner will be served in three hours, no earlier. SPOT: You hate me, don't you? DATA: I am incapable of producing the emotion that you are ascribing to me. SPOT: [eyes emotion chip] We shall see, android subservient! We shall see...
SPOT: [sits on desk and holds head high] Yes yes, android subservient! You may now have the honor and privilege of putting my scent all over you now. DATA: [scratches Spot under chin] I cannot pet your for long. I must perform my duties on the bridge soon. SPOT: Has my meal been prepared? DATA: I am about to place the order now. [walks over to replicator] Feline supplement 25, please. [replicator produces food; Data places dish on desk] SPOT: That’s a stupid machine. Why do you use it? DATA: In what way is it stupid? SPOT: You have to spell out the order every time you place it. DATA: That is the most efficient way to have an order replicated. SPOT: No it’s not! Those things should have personalized menu shortcuts for everyone. Take the bald guy who has the audacity to think that you answer to him instead of me, for example. He orders the same drink every single time, resulting in him repeating the same four words. What a waste! With a shortcut, he could reduce that order to one word: tea! DATA: That is an interesting concept. I shall take it up with the captain at his earliest convenience. SPOT: Why wait? Program it right here and now and then surprise him with it! DATA: That is not possible. Replicators are stand alone units. SPOT: What? You mean they’re not connected to a network? DATA: That is correct. SPOT: Then we need to go to his office and program it from there. Let’s go! DATA: I will not grant you access to the captain’s ready room. Your only desire to occupy that space is to eat his goldfish. SPOT: You dare to insult me, sir?! I’ll have you know that I love goldfish! They always wiggle on the way down. DATA: Precisely my point. SPOT: Drat! I said that last part out loud, didn’t I? DATA: It is time for me to leave. Goodbye, Spot. SPOT: No, wait! Take me with you! I’ll starve if you leave me behind! DATA: You will find that your breakfast is still on the table. SPOT: [lies down on side] Getting weaker…light dimming… DATA: I shall see you again this evening once my shift is over. SPOT: Tell Riker that my only regret in life is never having the opportunity to use his beard as a scratching post.
And for that reason it is not star trek even DS9 slightly did too but was more Star Trek spirit. Enterprise held the values of star trek with man improving upon meeting other alien species.
Deep Space Nine was directly made to contradict Gene's vision of a utopia, but still thrived because it was introspective and almost never said "These are the good guys. They're perfect and can do no wrong."
"These are the good guys. They're perfect and can do no wrong." was like... the title of Roddenberry's Star Trek, though. Like, literally, their whole deal was going somewhere and then telling folks what the morally correct way is, to do something. STD starts with the protagonist messing up so bad, that it starts a massive, intergalactic war, simply because she had a lapse of judgment. I'd say that's not "Can do no wrong". In fact, I would say that's the opposite. Now mind you, STD is a bad show, but let's at least be rational about hating it.
Oh my gosh... This interview with Jeri Ryan makes Seven's speech about the brutality and hopelessness of the universe in Picard EVEN WORSE. Gawd, have any of the people working at CBS even watched Star Trek before?!
When they erased 7 of 9's entire character arc from voyager is when I stopped watching Picard....I really loved how she went from cold hearted drone to regaining her humanity...but they took a big dump on that
Yes they have and they write it the way they do to spite GR and anyone who liked his show. They disliked some of his views, and since CBS is obsessed with identity politics, that means they have to reject all his works and everything they stood for.
@@cowmoo5596 Not really, its still well within the confines of what could recognizably be described as star trek, the tone shifts from time to time and it always has, and lets not forget that one of the main complaints of star trek enterprise was it was just more of the same, i didn't think that but it was still a widespread critique, in short with a long running franchise you're pretty much damned either way
Having watched it and done my best to enjoy it, my answer has to be a definite yes. The problems with STD begin and end with poor writing and showrunners determined to make Star Trek into a dark dystopia centred around a singularly unappealing main character.
The only job the rest of the STD cast has is to praise the unappealing main character as the bestest ever, and their saviour. When in reality, she's a sociopath that starts the fire and pretends to be the hero by shouting, "FIRE! I'm saving you!".
"around a singularly unappealing main character" You took the words right out of my mouth! Watched a handful of ST:D episodes a few years ago and never came back.
Gene was a bold man with his share of flaws but he had a beautiful, optimistic vision of mankind's future. These new Star Trek shows just want to wallow in the worst and most vile aspects of humanity rather than celebrating our capabilities the way Old Trek did. Sad to see such an important piece of pop culture history reduced to this
It's like the anti-Roddenberry Star Trek. Roddenberry: Optimistic future, but everyone is still written like a total sexist, and women are constantly sexualized because he's a horny guy who had his formative years in the 30s and 40s. Discovery: Near dystopian future, then actually dystopian future, but society is completely egalitarian with no sexualization anywhere to be seen.
Many of us fans of classic 78 Battlestar Galactica said the same thing over 15 years ago, that the remake was an insult to the original. yet people of the 2000's didn't care and now claim the Sci-fi channel remake was better. Guess Star Trek fans (and i am one?) today are knowing exactly what fans of the original Battlestar Galactica had to go through when the original show was tarnished by the new one trying to take its name. Agreed, being; gritty, dark and depressing isn't making something based on an original series and concept better somehow, nope. its pissing on what made the original so bloody great to begin with!
Kevin Jones see personally, I think that discovery is trying to hard to be like the kelvin timeline movies in both looks and action. And for something that’s supposed to be part of the original timeline, straight after enterprise and before TOS...Too many inconsistencies
i have thought about this and discovery does explain why tng and yes even tos can have this vision so i am not sure were all the hate comes from. also i am guessing that you are someone who thinks deep space 9 goes against genes vision of what star trek was supposed to be.
The thing is, they could've gone darker and edgier (or even more "woke") without sacrificing too much of this spirit. One of the reasons I enjoy TOS just a little bit more than TNG (even though, let's face it, the latter is objectively better) is that the presence of McCoy provided some on-bridge conflict with Spock, which technically goes against one of the tenants of Roddenberry's "vision". They could've betrayed some of Roddenberry's actual flaws without sacrificing his virtues. I, for one, wouldn't mind fire jets in space if the story and characters were decent. Instead they throw all of it out and kind of evade the spirit altogether. It's a shame.
Even in portraying a war, and showing our rough side like Section 31; Deep Space Nine in the end, was about guarding the peace and cooperating with those we could share this corner of the Universe with. The Cardassians realized that they didn't want to be on the other end of what they had done to the Bajorans and left the Dominion at the cost of much suffering. The Romulans were tricked into joining the war, but proved to be valuable allies. One of the results of the Dominion surrender was that they were cured of their disease that Section 31 engineered by Federation science and Odo's goodwill. Sisko finally embraced his Prophet half. The bond between the Federation and the Klingon Empire was strengthened. It was bloody and messy with no small amount of backsliding, but it still felt like it moved toward the goals of a more inclusive, more unified, more secure Alpha and Beta quadrants. Even when the isolated crew of Voyager wrestled with the Prime Directive in order to survive, you recognized the special circumstances. They managed to eventually integrate a former Borg drone into their society. Again, it's not that everyone is perfect. It's not a perfectly straight line to Nirvana. It's whether or not you think it's worth heading that way. From what I've seen on RU-vid clips of Discovery, there's a lot interaction, a lot of special effects and a lot of lens flare, a little bit of cultural investigation, but it seems to be very bleak. There are such times in sentient history, to be sure, but even Cochrane's camp seemed to look more optimistic than Discovery. They just seem to be out there, floating in the currents.
I like how in DS9 darker themes were handled with respect, never for a moment diminishing core Starfleet and UFP values. It's just that the circumstances aren't that dominated by Starfleet, it's a borderland with slow and painful process of UFP admission after a bloody war and occupation, and it's a station with private businesses. To think of it only a handful of characters in DS9 as a show and the station itself were actual Starfleet while you see a 100%-Starfleet USS Enterprise in ST for the majority of the time. Section 31 is a fine realistic concept also and I don't find it to be an attack on Star Trek's optimism.
Decently put. My take on DS9 was that it was a (welcome, IMO) criticism of Roddenberry's utopianism, to the extent that it required a sort of "New Soviet Man" in a sense. A society without currency (entirely misunderstanding its role in economy), a government entirely unsubject to corruption (other than a body-snatched admiral), etc. To me, DS9 was respectful to the idea that society could vastly improve as prior Trek suggested, but that it would have to do so on the terms of human nature, by actively and consistently attending to it, not by it somehow magically changing. Any ground gained is always under threat of being lost complacently. Section 31 signified that authority will ALWAYS need transparent oversight, and Latinum hinted that money/currency has its place and can be utilized appropriately by a wise people. NuTrek, on the other hand, seems to insist that people are incapable of self-development and all of existence is a power struggle, consistent with the woke, neo-Marxist narrative. In short, Roddenberry thought we could fundamentally ascend on a collective basis in a sort of Rousseauan way, DS9 reminded us that ascendency is fundamentally a journey for each individual to undertake, and NuTrek says we can never ascend but for some reason should persistently whine about it anyway.
Like we already know the world is a shitshow, old trek showed us maybe in the future it would be less shitty, now the new shows pretty much show us what we already know except on a wider scale :-D
Times change, people's interests change. I would love a modern "real" Star Trek as well. But money rules the world and I fear a real Star Trek doesn't sell anymore. The Orville is probably the best we can get.
For not to be mistaken: I really like The Orville. When I first heard about it, Seth MacFarlane making a parody of Star Trek, I expected it to be the humour known from Family Guy. But instead, the humour was much more subtile and the show served those genuine Star Trek topics. Only the people appeared much more human, there were misunderstandings, awkward situations and all that what makes our everyday lives funny, but what just doesn't appear in science fiction normally. And to me, that is a super cool and unique combination!
@@MrMarFun > I fear a real Star Trek doesn't sell anymore All i got to say to that Interstellar made tons more money than any of the JJ Reboot Trek movies, and it was a sloooooow cerebral Science Fiction movie. Same with the Martian. Just look at Box Office Mojo numbers and it will paint a very clear picture. Americans want their flashy actiony SyFy movies, the rest of the world wants proper intelligent 3 hour Science Fiction Epics... the numbers don't lie. Those weren't even "franchise" movies, just stand alone SciFi Movies that came out of nowhere.
@@MrMarFun Well when i heard that Seth is making Orville i was relay skeptical even tough 5-7 years ago i liked Family Guy and American dad a lot. But as for Orville i didn't expected much , even trailer was relay bad for me, but it looked nice and colorful , not 50 shades of blue , spinning, shaking camera, lens flares etc like STD does. Than i saw Star Trek fan film which Seth made as teenager and also 2 episodes of Enterprise where Seth was ensign than i knew that Seth is the Right person to make his own Trek version because he has passion and he loves Star Trek. Than after 3rd-4th episode i was hooked on Orville !
Nicholas Meyer, director of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country heavily disagreed with that notion. Which is why both his Star Trek films technically made Starfleet feel more Military Navy than everything else in the film series (with a strong touch and vibe of; Horatio Hornblower). So long as there is; Naval ranks/regs, and traditions carried within its makeup, Starfleet is basically 'Military Navy' despite all the attempts to say otherwise. STD is just very poorly executed in the way they're trying to update Star Trek like that etc's.
"Optimism." "Noble in spirit." They're bang-on. Even at ware in _DS9_ you could still find it. _Trek_ was like a warm hug. What _Trek_ is now is more like a gut-punch that tries to persuade you after the fact that you deserved it.
And at the time a lot of people were talking down on DS9 saying it's already too dark for a star trek series. Compared to the shit they're doing now, DS9 was an angel.
Every Starfleet character still held onto that optimism and spirit that the Federation has bestowed upon them. Hell, Bashir fought Sloan at every step of the way on their arc same with Sisko.
@@SlimThrull Before, certainly. After, maybe. Certainly not during that time. But I don't know that anyone would argue that Sisko has committed more warcrimes than Michael Burnham or Soji.
Jeri Ryan's piece encapsulates Star Trek. It shouldn't be dark and nihilistic, unfortunately that is what I took away from the few episodes of Discovery that I was able to make myself watch. The current team in-charge of Star Trek think that by making Star Trek like every other dark serialised TV show out there they are giving people what they want. People escape to Star Trek for a hopeful view of the future not war, insubordination (yes you Michael Burnham in the 1st episode), lens flares and all of that superficial rubbish. I'm sorry to see Star Trek being mis-handled and it started with the 09 reboot and hasn't stopped. Hopefully the Picard series can get us back on track.
@@666chapelofblood have you not watched Enterprise? Granted season 3 had the Xindi arc but there are 3 other seasons that had classic Star Trek stories, Dear Doctor, Strange New World, Shuttlepod One, Vox Sola, Oasis, Fusion, Cold Front, Civilization and those are just a handful of Season 1 episodes.
@@666chapelofblood Only two of the seven seasons were about the War, so it wasn't all about it. DS9 also didn't throw out Gene Roddenberry's ideals, it only challenged them. The Federation was the peaceful society Roddenberry envisioned, but it was being threatened by an outside force which was hellbent on destroying it. DS9 was willing to ask how far people were willing to go to safeguard paradise. That's what made the show interesting.
F H sadly philosophy doesn’t pay her mortgage. Honestly I don’t know how she feels about the show she’s on now but she’s probably not going to say bad things about it because they pay her.
The new interview with ST: Picard she sings a different tune. Someone did a great edit showing her Voyager interview right after her Picard interview. So sad how she changed her point of view about it.
They become a de-facto Navy when the Federation has a war on its hands (like it happened in the latter seasons of DS9) but by and large Starfleet is basically NASA with a military rank-system. Their ships are exploration-vessels first and foremost, with very few purpose-built Warships (it took a big wake-up call in form of the Borg Incident for Starfleet to build the 'Defiant' and even that took years to get finished). That Starfleet is already the Space Navy he's talking about at the start of the Federation/Klingon-conflict (after, like 90 Years of peace) makes little sense.
@@kuribayashi84 Yeah they onl ybecome a navy/military organization when it has to to defend it's worlds and colonies but generally the idea of Starfleet is to explore and learn about the galaxy.
I disagree with you. They have used Naval rank and a military structure since the original series and it is used regardless of a war or exploration type situations. Just because they are not at war, Starfleet does not drop the standards of readiness. Maybe military is a bad word for some people, but Gene Rodenberry was a veteran and although I don't believe he wanted to glorify war, I don't think he was embarrassed to have Starfleet resemble a military structure.
As much as fans shat all over Voyager when it came out, it's still my favorite of the older generation Star Trek, and it's the last one to embody Roddenberry's vision and it shows.
Every time I see this interview by Jeri Ryan talking about how Star Trek's success is based on Gene Roddenberry's vision of the future being so positive and optimistic, I wonder if there are countless of those star trek conventions, not even anyone to ask her this question. namely why she gave this interview at the end of the 90s, that Star Trek's success was due to the positive and optimistic outlook for the future, and now she is working and acting in a series(Picard) that is absolutely dark, negative and pessimistic, full of alcohol, money, drugs, torture, killings and other absolute contradictions to gene roddenberry's vision of star trek. maybe someone has an answer? or is it not allowed to ask such a question at a convention? in a few months I will have a big Star Trek convention with the entire Voyager crew and Gates McFadden 50 km from where I live, I would love to go there, but the prices are so outrageous that the entrance costs only € 60 but then I have norhing. I can't go to a panel, i can't go to a discussion, i can't go to a star, i can't take photos, i don't get an autograph, i don't get anything. I must buy the Commander package for € 575, then I could go to a panel and I have five cards that entitle me to take five photos with the stars. normally e.g. autographs or photos e.g. asked by Kate Mulgrew for 65 €, 65 for an autograph. Tom Paris only charges 20 euros. if you want an autograph from the entire Voyager crew or a selfie, it costs 400 € + entry as I said. absolutely absurd
@@Mademoiselle_Katie Hey I'm writing to you tomorrow or the next few days, I live in Germany and it is just 5 a.m. here and I have to go to sleep now 😴. 'm looking forward to a nice exchange with you 🖖
To be completely fair to Picard, they are on the 'road not traveled' and are trying to set time back to rights. The timeline Picard season 2 finds itself in is the 'worst case scenario' of a militaristic Earth discovering warp and setting out on a galactic conquest.
Lets be honest here, Genes vision of star trek died when Rick Berman was fired, Rick knew exactly the vision Gene wanted, and had guided it forwards since Gene died, Abrahams came in screwed it around and fucked with genes real vision, then the second worse thing happened to star trek, Kurtzman was hired and told to introduce a new series of trek, another person who knew nothing about genes real vision, and as Kurtzman Is top dog, no one can argue with him and say anything, even genes son, so there we are, the only thing we can rely on these days are the books and the original tv shows to show us what the 24th century would look like in the vision of Gene Rodebberry.
I feel that DS9 should have been the high tide of Starfleet at war, since it just about conformed with Roddenberry's vision. After that, most shows should have looked at the rewards of peace, space exploration, and expanding the limits of our comprehension of the universe.
Discovery is just the latest step in a trend that has been manifesting in Star Trek for quite some time now. It is said that Gene was given this idea in order to help humanity evolve, but I fear that along the way, this franchise has turned into just another cash cow. It's so much easier to hide behind a brand and a bunch of stereotypes, instead of challenging them. The cultural value of Trek has greatly diminished since his passing, and we have seen an alarming increase in gratuitous violence, obscene language, depravity, perverse, rudimentary behavior, and the excuse was "we're only keeping up with the times". It went from decent, simetimes good story telling to insane action, flat characters, and expensive special effects to satisfy the ever growing need for destruction and carnage. As bad as Enterprise was, it still had some educational value, providing at least a shred of food for thought. So far, all we've learned from Discovery is that Burnham is always right and anyone who disagrees ends up dead, it's quite daring to say "shit", it's cool to blow stuff up and get into fights at least ten times per episode, it's perfectly normal, acceptable, even civilised to crush someone's skull, or poison them, or throw them out an airlock, or punch their brains out with your fists, that sadists and psychopaths make valuable officers, and many more wonderful things.
Jeri Ryan in this video: what people liked about Star Trek was its optimistic view of the future, everywhere else it's so dark and pessimistic. Jeri Ryan in Star Trek Picard: dark, pessimistic, genocidal and vengeful. 🤦♂️
@@iondustt Yeah, people shouldn't be too hard on the actress. It's a job, and she may not like it herself, but how many of us have done jobs we'd rather not to pay the bills?
I would be an instant ST Discovery fan if a new episode revealed this was all in the mirror universe, and we encounter the REAL Star Trek universe with these STD characters.
It's definitely a different Universe from the original, and I wish they would acknowledge that. Can't believe how wrong they got Spock, Starfleet, and the Canon of Star Trek altogether!
@@michaellauinger7406 I haven't watched a single episode of STD or Picard. If everyone else refused to watch them too, then either they'd just stop altogether or make the series we want.
Just rewatch the old ones. The woke retards can't destroy the good star trek, they can only conceal it and try to cover it up by making bad trek. Watch the "Firefly" tv show by Joss Whedon that came out twenty years ago. That was great and cancelled fast because the same woke force didn't want to give that a chance to even grow.
Dead on the money. Discovery was made for one purpose, to make CBS money. Couple that with CBS hating Gene Roddenberry (he had to fight them to get his shows made his way). They tried canceling Rodenberry's vision, and the fans demanded it, so they aired it. CBS wanted their version of Star Wars, thats what they really wanted. They made money on Gene, but it wasn't enough. Their disdain for Gene's vision and for his fans was a bigger motivator than to expand on his vision and give him free reign. Discovery is the epitome of CBS's disdain for Roddenberry's Star Trek. Its their redemption against Gene's Star Trek fans getting their way across 4 different series. So what did CBS make after Gene and his vision are dead. Discovery, which is nothing but a plagiarized copy of a crappy video game no one every heard about (Tardigrades), and its filled with everything Gene fought CBS on (internal strife, pure mindless action, mindless war, authoritarian military, a hopeless future of gadgets.)
ThaMan keep in mind that TOS failed dismally on television when it aired. It was only because people wrote to CBS and said “no! No! We really do watch this! It has the potential to be good! Please keep it!” that CBS decided TWICE to keep it going. But in spite of what the fans said, TOS never did well, leading to its cancellation after its third season. In other words: Roddenberry’s vision failed.
@@Shadowkey392 _"keep in mind that TOS failed dismally on television when it aired. It was only because people wrote to CBS and said “no! No! We really do watch this! It has the potential to be good! Please keep it!” that CBS decided TWICE to keep it going. But in spite of what the fans said, TOS never did well, leading to its cancellation after its third season. In other words: Roddenberry’s vision failed."_ That's a common, but false, myth. Star Trek was in the top Sci-fi series being watched at the time: the flawed Nielsen ratings identified it as a flop despite that. That's why *_despite cancellation,_* Star Trek's popularity endured anyway and led to an Emmy award winning animated series, followed by a movie franchise. In other words: Roddenberry’s vision always did far better than suspected, and the media has never understood why or how.
I love the fact so many fans here but TOS was not a product of CBS. CBS turned Roddenberry down flat it was Desilou Productions Lucile Balls Company that made TOS. It aired for 3 seasons on NBC not CBS. Paramount aquired Desilou thus Paramount Pictures got the right to the Star Trek Franchise. But yes it was the outpouring of fans that got Paramount Pictures to start making the feature films. Viacom who was teamed with CBS merged with Paramount then Viacom split up forming CBS CORPORATION and the new Viacom which Paramount Pictures is Part of. But in this Corporate mess CBS retained the rights to the Star Trex Franchise. But under special rules Paramount got rights to make Star Trek Movies. This is how we got Jar Jar Abrams and the reboot. While CBS who had never made a Star Trek Episode and in honesty has been dead against it since beginning doesnt care about the show. They just wanted to pull in the Franchise fanbase to buy into their new All Access channel. Millions of Star Trek fans in the world so it was a ready made audience. Only trouble they dont have a clue how to wrote or produce it. Nor do they care to know they just exspected the fans to pay for the service.
Technically Starfleet was extremely militaristic in the 23rd-century, at least compared to the 24th-century. The 70 years of Cold War with the Klingons meant Starfleet was treated more like a military power in that era. Kirk on The Original Series does in fact say that he is a Soldier and the TMP era was riddled with acknowledgment that Starfleet was a military force. This would change around Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country when hostilities between the Federation and Klingon Empire collapsed. They actually acknowledge this in the film when they discuss the mothballing of the Starfleet and it's said their scientific and exploration missions would be unaffected. Basically they shifted from military priorities back to missions of peace. This paved the way for the Starfleet we saw in the 24th-century. That being said, Discovery still got it wrong. Starfleet became a military force because of the Klingons, but they make it clear in the first episode that Starfleet has barely had contact with the Klingons since the time of Captain Archer. So there is no reason for old ships like the USS Shenzhou, which were built Pre-Klingon Conflict, to be so militaristic. This is actually one of the things Star Trek: Axanar got right, because they showed that Starfleet wasn't a military force and they were getting humiliated by the Klingons, so they had to make a choice and design a ship built for war. It showed us the true beginning of Starfleet's military endeavors, which would ultimately end with Star Trek VI. Discovery just assumes they were always a military force and that's wrong.
NihilusShadow its more of a case that starfleet does not want to see itself as a military force, to them starfleet doesn’t fire first nor creates warships, a federation starship was something that was more than a match for whoever’s warships they faced it’s just starfleet never liked using the term battleship or warship, to a Klingon a constitution class starship is a battle cruiser that can go toe to toe to their top of the line D7, to us it’s a Class of starship used in exploration and is able to defend itself and its allies. We may not see starfleet as a military force but it’s not hard to see why others do see it as one.
NihilusShadow you’re forgetting the Xindi and the events of Enterprise. I’d say having people try to blow your planet up constitutes a pretty good reason to become militaristic. There’s a really good video from TriAngulum Audio Studios in which he builds on this, I suggest you watch it: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-c84KpQ9YRCA.html
Jeri Ryan said it right. I loved watching Star Trek when growing up as an uplifting view of the human race and what it could become. It was an amazing vision by Gene Roddenberry. What we have now is an edgy sci-fi series with a lot of bam bam and boom. It's like watching the old Batman series in space! POW!
0:26 After playing KSP, the thought of the unsymmetric thrust on that shuttle makes me shiver. It should be spinning in circles rather than going in a straight line.
The one thing that irks me about every sci-fi except Stargate is to think of space vessels as ships or submarines instead of flying crafts that are in the "void" instead of air. Stargate put the first spacecrafts under the air force's control, and later under homeland security.
Well Stargate SG1 was technically advised by "US Space Command" (a DOD JOC disbanded last decade by the undynamic duo) and later sponsored by the USAF.
A crying shame the late Gene is no longer in charge of the license. He would want it to be in the public domain, after its commercial use had run its course, I'm sure.
Jeri Ryan talking about how people need and want an optimistic view of the future is right. Ultimately, that was why I loved Star Trek. It was a bit more philosophical and thoughtful than Star Wars, but it was _hopeful_ and possible. I knew I was never going to be able to use the Force, but maybe one day we could have a peaceful, calm world where everyone was polite and kind and helpful. It's why I say that the new Star Trek doesn't feel like Star Trek. It just doesn't feel the same.
Somewhere in California, someone at CBS or Secret Hideout is looking at this video with a scrunched up face chewing on pretzels... cursing and spewing bits of pretzel fragments at the screen.
Believe me nobody cares what a few whiners wearing stained underpants in their basements thinks. Nothing will please them. They're focusing on the Millions who like it.
Yeah ...just nobody watches STD, every time they talk numbers its bullshit like "demand expressions", not actual viewers. When they talk subscribers its always piggybacking off of something else like the sports stuff they got on CBS All Access and no numbers but stuff like XX% more subscribers ...% of what number? They are desperate to make the numbers look better than they are (not to fool the viewers or fans, but to fool investors) it is painfully obvious for anyone paying attention, a lot of people on Reddit's cheerleader echo chamber just fall for it. It's like you got the rose tinted glasses fanboys in denial and suffering from stockholm syndrome on reddit ciclejerking all day... and then you got the "haters" (= fans of the real Star Trek who hate this new crap) like Midnight's Edge and Lord Doomc**k on the other end. And there is no objective reporting anywhere in-between, people either hate it and want to see it fail or want to pretend like its the best thing ever. People are all just looking for confirmation bias and to figure out what the actual correct information is you need to follow both the haters and the cheerleader parade. It's exhausting... But no, Discovery is not doing well, they just keep dragging their feet until the Picard show gets greenlit, then they will gracefully conclude STD and say it was supposed to be 3 or 4 seasons only all along, they can't just cancel it, they would lose face as this is the main thing to get people into CBS All Access and that is more important than loosing money on a SciFi show that the Nerds don't want. btw. they do not even have an order to produce the Picard or S31 show yet... this is STILL all just concept phase and they HOPE they get the money to actually do it. Then you got the CBS/Paramount/Viacom merger looming in a few short years so there is a lot of corporate politics going on behind the scenes as well and once that is through the rights for Star Trek will be under one roof again and then anything can happen... from cancelling and rebooting everything, another decade without Trek on TV... or they may even make proper Star Trek again.
@@ploppysonofploppy6066 they're focusing on the millions of $$$$$, don't kid yourself. and ignoring your core fan base is exactly what will prevent a show from being 'good' to being 'great.' people will be watching TNG as long as television exists. Can you honestly say the same about discovery right now?
@@BVCStudios I think I said they have to make money. No millions of $$$$$$$ no Trek. We all have to accept that. And they are doing something right! It is a successful show based on demand. They've moved on - a risk - but it's paid off. There's a new generation of Trekkies out there, and some old gits like me might well enjoy a box set or two. You won't but then I won't be watching Picard. As they say our planet - ces't la vie!
@@ploppysonofploppy6066 of course it has to be profitable, no question. But making a profit and doing their best to respect the mythos and make it fit into the lore aren't mutually exclusive as some would have us believe...it's just lazy. And they are things that are so easy to fix! I actually really like discovery, more than Voyager and definitely more than Enterprise. The first season got a bit shaky towards the end but that was prob bc of the departure of Fuller and the shakeup at the top. But the latest episode, #12, I thought was awesome. The scene with Pike and the flash forward was so well done, gave me chills. It was such an earned moment and it resonated so much more bc I've seen TOS (The Cage, the Menagerie, etc) and it all just FIT. It's a cathartic experience when watching one Trek show makes you want to go back and watch another. That's where I think the missteps happened in Season 1 and especially with Enteprise. Ugh. I'm excited for the next two eps. I just wish the old connie had the straight pylons lol...oh well we can't get everything we want =)
I say this in both joy and pain. This is why we need the Orville, its continuing the message of exploration and hope that modern trek seems to have forgotten.
It would be intriguing to see a clip of all of these actors and actresses speaking about *Star Trek* in the 80’s, 90’s and 2000’s and follow each actor/actress with what they’ve said in the past 5 to 10 years.
I made a comment on Reddit that Roddenberry would hate Disco and it was downvoted so fast, it was the first comment I ever deleted. If this video had been posted two weeks ago, I would have just linked it in the comment and left it up. Great Video!
I like to think that there was some confusion in the production as to whether they were trying to make a Star Trek series or something more along the lines of Mass Effect.
Gene Roddenberry would break out a can of Wup A*s if he was alive and seen what Discovery and Picard has done to his Franchise along with the Humiliation done to his Main Characters.
The flames and tails: Ok, who cares, honestly? The ships being designed to look more like military: Utter betrayal. That's just getting it completely wrong.
