Too soon for me, my friend. I might look at the show 10 years from now, provided Kurtzman and the Secret Hideout/Bad Robot team are no longer in charge. I want to forget what I've seen. I fear watching STD or PIC or SNW will just further ruin my fondness for characters from real ST. It was bad enough to have seen some of the reimagining of Spock, Picard, Seven, Mudd, Sarek, etc. I only saw one clip of Beverly Crusher from PIC and I fear I can never look at her the same way again.
@@stevearts85 The canon issues and changes to lore definitely make the show offensive to fans. But at the same time, the plots never make sense, the characters are unlikable, the motivations make no sense, there is no respect for science, etc.
Honestly, I've watched enough of this guy's videos to realize that he's just upset he's getting older. It's not just that he hates DISCO. Hell, if anyone bothered to ask me I could provide a list of issues with DISCO. But, he becomes fuming mad if you ever suggest that any Star Trek show prior to DISCO wasn't flawless. I swear to God he doesn't see how the Enterprise meeting Apollo was silly.
What are you on about? I plan to live to 100- I love the perspective being older gives us- I love having 1st hand experiences from decades others just read about & watch in period dramas. What does a show being destroyed & no longer there for people to enjoy & be inspired by have to do with ageing?
@@stevearts85 Because basically nothing has changed about the show. Every issue you have with "Nu Trek," except for maybe a bit too much focus on Michael in DISCO, was present in some earlier iteration of Trek. It just bothers you because you feel older seeing new things come out.
@@stevearts85 Who said I was dismissing it? I don't consider something being "silly" a detriment. But, I can acknowledge when I've seen something that's impossible.
Ah, but you can do it well, as Roddenberry did, and just show a future where diversity and equality are so normal no one can even imagine living with prejudice. Or you can go out of your way to make Vulcans and Starfleet racist, as STD did.
_"I'd say diversity and inclusivity is the epitome of Star Trek at its core"_ That is a reductive conclusion if there ever was one. _Genuine_ Star Trek is about exploration. The exploration of mankind's place in the universe by exploring the wonders and horrors of space. 1 part of that exploration is IDIC, but it is _NOT_ the epitome. It would be like someone saying science is the ultimate representation of Star Trek
It IS.... the problem with Nu-trek is that it's empty, hollow box-checking, instead of meaningful diversity and social commentary, which is something Star Trek always did well.. Before Kurtzman, Star Trek was (for the most part) an optimistic and hopeful vision of a better tomorrow for humanity... a look at what we could maybe achieve, if we pull our heads out of our asses, and work together, instead of constantly being at each other's throats.. Yes, there was still conflict, but humanity, for the most part, had gotten it's shit together, and was living in peace. The social commentary was done by way of allegory, and it approached sensitive topics tastefully, with subtlety, and nuance.... The diversity was natural, and organic....it didn't seem out of place for peoples from all over the earth to be serving together as one crew... It was popular, because of these things.. It was good television, that told compelling stories, filled with likable characters that you could relate to, and care about....it also made you think a little.. And also important was that it was a family-friendly show... people of all ages could sit down together, and it would be entertaining, and age-appropriate for everyone watching. Nowadays, with Kurtzman's nu-trek, it is the exact opposite of everything Trek was....because it's not written, produced, or directed by creative, imaginative people, who love star trek.... it's written, produced, and directed (for the most part) by activists, who just want to co-opt something popular, in order to push their political and ideological agendas... There is no optimism, no hope...everything is dark, dreary, borderline dystopian....the stories are (for the most part) dull, depressing, and devoid of the kind of heart that made what came before so special. There's no subtlety, or nuance....you're very regularly beaten over the head with the writer's social, political, and ideological views.. Nothing is done tastefully - there's nudity, foul language, violence, and gore... these new shows aren't family-friendly at all (with the exception of prodigy, which i feel is the very best thing to come out of the Kurtzman era of trek). The diversity is clearly forced, and doesn't feel natural....it feels like corporate mandates and activism, because that's exactly what it is. It's diversity for the sake of diversity, checking boxes, in order to satisfy a quota, or to cater to the hateful whims of the activists writing the stuff. Characters are shallow, soulless caricatures, or 2-dimensional tokens...it's fake representation. In a lot of ways, it's MORE bigoted than if the characters didn't exist. The characters are also often entirely unlikable, because of the way they're written. With that said, i will say that SNW is a FAR better show than Discovery....however, it's still tainted by virtue of being a spin-off of discovery... additionally, SNW DOES tend to violate canon A LOT.. However, if you approach the show, with the understanding that it IS an alternate continuity, it makes a lot of canon violations far more forgivable.
I think you're doing yourself a disservice by going back to rewatch corporate slop like STD. It's finally over and instead of moving on, you wanna dwell on this garbage that was antithetical to Gene's vision of the future? You're like a member of a monastic order who intentionally seeks pain by flogging themselves
Totally agree. We should support better entertainment, not wallow in garbage. If Hollywood can't produce anything worth watching, perhaps turn to books or indy content?
@@dramaticwords _"We should support better entertainment..."_ Exactly! Making more content on STD won't help Star Trek in any way. It would be far better to focus on other Sci-Fi right now
It may not pass as Star Trek but it is by no means "Corporate slop" The People who made it believed in it & their Agenda. It is a valid work of Art. Flawed but certainly not just corporate Content. You are listening to too much Toxic Fandom.
@@stevearts85 A show can be made by people who believe in it and their agenda... but they can still be the wrong people for the franchise. Kurtzman should have made an original sci-fi production he believed in. It might have bombed even worse, but at least it wouldn't have damaged ST.
People with any sense will go watch good sci-fi shows that were killed off before most people knew they existed. Like Invasion, Space Above and Beyond, Humans. And if you are gen m/z, you are too young to remember The New Outer Limits from the 90s. The Outer Limits and Twilight Zone were black&white shows from the 60s and have some good episodes, but of course are VERY dated now. The New Outer Limits ran for 7 seasons and has a lot of very good episodes. And the worst episodes are better than any of the new star trek or star wars garbage...
Were any of those shows really any good? I didn't think invasion or space above & beyond were that interesting nor the writing very good- I watched them once & never thought of them again- which I guess everyone else did, which is why I guess they were cancelled. Never heard of "Humans" but I have a few seasons of from the new Outer Limits but I haven't watched them.
I’m with you to a point, but then you completely lose me when you adopt the talking points of the new trek apologists. The writing was in fact bad. Admit it you have stated this multiple times when talking about discovery. You were a Star Trek fan through all that patriarchy and military hierarchy. It’s one of the things that made the show work. In fact, it made all the shows work up till Discovery to pretend that a bunch of millennials sitting around talking about their feelings is the equivalent to a well written Star Trek show is Ludacris. I have heard you literally complaining about the stupidity inherent in that show so I don’t understand why you were suddenly forgiving it or fundamentally changing the naval hierarchy premise of Starfleet I would much rather watch an original show built on the premise you speak of Ben for Alex Kurtzman to pervert a known and loved franchise. What he did to Star Trek certainly did not make it any better.
Steve has always had this sick relationship with Kurtzman Trek, where no matter how many times it hurts him, he continues going back to it. He's like an addict who can't face facts longterm
Totally agree. The problem with Kurtzman-trek is that it can seem okay at first glance. It's flashy and gushy. It's only later, when you think more about it, that you realize the values are terrible, the stories don't make any sense, the characters are mentally immature, and there's nothing behind the cheap theatrics. Sure, it sounds nice to say you're taking the military aspects out of ST. But when you replace that with gratuitous violence and gore... not to mention bickering among crew... what have you actually accomplished? Does it even work as a virtue-signal?
Half the haters hate it for it's actual flaws, the other half hate it for it's "Diversity & Representation" & blame the old "Bad Writing" dog whistles.
It depends on how you view the show- if you are an existing Star Trek Fan & view it as a Star trek series it has a lot of issues but most of them are intentional (which is more frustrating) & Artistically driven. If you view it as just a sci-fantasy series- it's fine- even good at times. The Haters & bigots are just out right lying about the writing & quality "Issues" because they see anything with progressive themes or Diversity as bad & use the old "Bad Writing" dog whistle to justify their hatred of Black people & Gay People & Trans People.
@@stevearts85 Yeah, but "it's actual flaws" are its "bad writing," as well as the fact that it's a reboot that disrespects canon and Roddenberry's vision. Even if it didn't have the ST brand, it's still bad SF.
Wtf even is a "generic science fiction show?" It sounds like you think all non-Star Trek Space Operas are the same. Babylon 5, Farscape, and Lexx are nothing alike.
_"Wtf even is a "generic science fiction show?"."_ Can't say it's shocking straightforward language is hard to grasp to a narrow mind. STD is generic in how its "writers" approach Sci-Fi. Just uninspiring, cynical corporate product to lure fans of Star Trek to a paywall of a failed streaming site.
Most SF movies and shows offer up a generic set of messages. They all tend to be set in a dystopian future where life is cheap most of today's social problems have gotten worse. Usually it's either rule by corporations or rule by the military, or a dictatorship. The hero is usually someone who uses violence for ends that are only slightly better than the villains he fights. Star Trek was unique in showing a future that was utopian and optimistic -- where all of today's social problems have been solved on earth, and that's what allows humanity to focus on things other than survival and competition. Instead, humanity can turn its attention to exploration of the frontiers of space, science, humanity, and the self. It gave us characters driven by higher ideals who you could aspire to.
@dramaticwords Firstly, you didn't describe "most SF movies and shows." You described the glut of YA fiction that was published to cash in on Hunger Games. I'm actually struggling to think of any TV shows that fit your definition. Maybe Earth: Final Conflict if you squint and turn your head. Secondly, unless you count the Mirror Universe episodes, your description of "most SF movies and shows" doesn't even apply to DISCO. I mean, yeah, it's darker than other Trek shows, but the Federation is at worst portrayed as a functioning government that isn't immune to infiltration by corrupt individuals. You might notice the same thing happened in TNG.
@@SerpenThrope Oh no, dystopian SF has been the dominant form long before Hunger Games. Dune, Bladerunner, Johny Neumonic, Star Wars, Farenheit 451, Brazil, Max headroom, X-Files, Riddick... the list is very long. Very few SF stories are truly optimistic for the future. All ST starting with ST2009 has been dystopian.
