After watching your rant on both ST:D and The Last Jedi, I am going to suggest something that may be unpopular. Perhaps it is time that Trekkies and Star Wars fans work through their differences and join forces against this evil?
I'm a trekkie and I don't really care about SW but I have never had any problem with it or its fans. I don't think the problem is so much having significant adversity to work thorough I think there's just not a ton to join forces on. We have the same enemies but different goals, should trekkies work on making SW? should SW fans work on making trek?
Star Trek is open ended storytelling. Adventure, exploring. It's ideal, wonderful, fun, endearing, engaging, uplifting. It is for smart people. Star Wars is about: War... is closed story telling. More about the past than the future. It is horrifically bad, unwatchable, pointless, depressing. It is for stupid people.
I don't believe it to be fair nor accurate to say that the two are mutually exclusive. As a child of the 70's, I was mesmerized by both. The perceived rivalry is of much hype and little substance imo.
true....but they didn't go with it, and ended up with a much better design...i agree with Dave on this subject- using a discarded concept as the main ship for the show is aiming pretty low...
"it no longer belonged to its fan base because its fan base were no longer necessary" That is sad, I am not a Star Trek fan, but that should never happen to anyone's franchise that they follow.
Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Who, Fallout, Battlefield.. bonus points for almost every major comic book series for still needing their fans despite neglecting them..
There's a lot of good trek out there. Can't beat Captain "Soldier of the Federation" Kirk, but Sisko comes pretty close, and pretty much all the Treks have likeable qualities.
So much good SF never gets filmed, so why desicrate SF that was done well with lesser sequels, spinoffs and reboots when a creative team could start with something fresh?
Yes, there were lots of conflicts in the TOS and other series. The Corbomite Maneuver was likely one of the best examples from the original series. Or how about Galileo 7.
Gerry C your response does not address my comment at all. Good writing or bad, Gene's future was that humans can resolve conflict, not be free from them.
I believe the rule was no conflict among the crew. No matter what happens, a crew member can depend on another crew member, even if they differ in other cultural and genetic ways.
Gene didn't have full creative control over TOS, that's why time and again there are also references to God, which is REALLY something he didn't like. He only got 100% of control in early TNG, and he made clear that there was to be NO conflict between crewmembers, the conflict could only come from outside (aliens). You can see the writers themselves talking about how their scripts were rejected by Gene because of these things.
The Original Series was created at the height of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the chaos of the Civil Rights Movement. It optimistically said that we could solve all those problems and build a better future. STD says everything is shit, everyone is shit, and the future will be shit.
@Gallen Dugall Exactly! This is one of the main reasons I don't like Discovery and refuse to consider it as part of the Star Trek franchise, and that's primarily because it's pretty much cut from the exact same cloth as shows like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead in which intense drama and action are king. TOS was created at a perfect time in which people needed to be injected with hope and optimism at a time when the world was incredibly pessimistic. Today we live in a similar era to the 1960's, in which there are conflicts in the Middle East, and tensions with nations like Russia and North Korea, as well as the fears that World War III could begin at any moment... and what does Star Trek do? Make a new series that ENCOURAGES those pessimistic views and make people feel more grim about the future, that's what. And it's all done in the name of money.
Even with those tensions, humanity is far better off overall in 2017 than it was in the 1960s. The notion that DIS can't present an optimistic future because it needs to be grim in order to reflect and comment on the issues of today's world is nothing more than supreme laziness and a case of Mean World Syndrome taken to its most illogical extreme.
It's absurdist narcissistic pandering. STD is for all those people who have to believe that they are the most important people who have ever lived and living at the most important time in history and literally the entire universe was created just to give them personally this time.
Same thing w/ Star Wars, in 30 years you go back to another Empire, all the struggles in the first 6 movies were for nothing. It is foolish to think that is not coincidental, the purpose is to demoralize the public, to make people accept how shitty the world is today and how it will be tomorrow... Take a lesson or two from the Klingons, do not give in, do not back down, be defiant, reject and fight this evil as long as necessary.
I would disagree if they weren't being so ham fistedly obvious. Why can't Hollywood make a single decent movie anymore? Because it has to be crap - deliberate crap. The Soviets did the same garbage in their entertainment - seriously try to watch an old Soviet era movie and it's a mirror image of depressing crap.
I have to say, as a long time Star Trek (fan since the 60's), I really wanted to like the new Star Trek Discovery. At first, I liked it. But, now I realize I was watching it through rose colored glasses while overlooking the obvious glaring plot holes and watered down story lines. In my zeal and love for the Star Trek universe, I wanted so much to like it, I talked myself into accepting it. Thank you for opening my eyes. You are exactly right.
Yeah, give a starving man a dog shit sandwich and he'll eat half of it before he realizes it's not peanut butter... However it won't take long for 100% of true Star Trek fans to realize it's a Faaake! At least there is the Orville (as much as I only liked a handful of season 2 episodes, but those few were great)
Did the STD writers even watch the original series? The reason there’s friction between Sarek and Spock is because Spock joined Starfleet, which Sarek viewed as a militaristic organization. It has nothing to do with Spock being half-human. Sarek married a human woman because it was logical (translation: he loved her), so Sarek being hostile towards Spock for being half-human makes no damn sense. 🤦🏻♀️
Although I used to have a problem with Rick Berman (in some instances) at the time in the 90’s, I’d take that any day over what Star Trek has become now.
Don't worry, the JJverse and Discovery aren't canon to the main universe. No matter how much the apologists piss and moan about alternate timeline bullshit. They're set not just in an alternate timeline, but an alternate timeline to an alien parallel universe that only kinda looks like the main universe. Its such a departure from canon that even if it was canon, it might as well not be.
Wulfgar Axanar died due to Alec Peters' greed and dishonesty. Just over the weekend, he was caught selling perks (patches and such) through a third party that were originally supposed to go to donors, who have waited 2 years and *still* haven't received them. This third party tried to claim that she had no connection to Peters whatsoever. This was quickly proven false with a little sleuthing. This third party actually goes back with Peters at least a couple of years. So basically, Peters was caught trying to subvert the terms of his settlement with CBS. Par for the course with that slug. Axanar is dead because of Alec Peters and Alec Peters alone.
Besides the SJW stuff, what bothered me the most about this show was the breaking with Established canon and disrespecting the original content of The Original Show, while at the same time stealing storylines from TOS and TNG and altering the established history of our beloved character Spock. At least the Star Wars version Star Trek movies respected Nimoy's Spock. I am captivated by the beautiful special effects, but I still prefer the original thought driven stories.
I totally agree with most of everything said in the video. I also blamed Rick Berman to a degree for the fall of Star Trek back when but now I wish we had him back. As was said in the video, he at least understood the soul of this franchise and protected it. He perhaps over protected it but it’s better than the new creative team who doesn’t seem to care much at all. I’m nervous for this new Picard series because I love the character and would love to see him back but I’m concerned they’ll ruin him.
@@orionaquila420 Yeah Picard killed Star Trek for me. Never thought that I'd say that sentence. I've resorted to just watching Red Letter Media reviews of the Picard seasons because they are so bad.
@@cinemike8207 I re watched almost all TNG episodes to remind myself of what star trek used to be after watching that sh*t... And apparently, Picard used to be a realistic character back then. Fascinating.
I know, right? Was a fan since the first episode. Even Jimmy Doohan's son is playing a role as Scotty and they got support from actual Star Trek veteran actors too. Can't get any better blessing than that. CBS could have cashed in on that but legal difficulties with Paramount are the reason why we will never get an actual official Star Trek from them. Also why they had to kill Axanar.
Check out Phase Two as well.Wonderful job there as well. They even have a duplicate of TOS sound stage and open it to the public from time to time. If you want to walk the halls of the Enterprise and are in NY check them out and see if they are offering tours during your stay.
I'm more of a fan of Phase 2 than Continues. Phase 2 had some powerful episodes without getting preachy. I'm afraid "What Starships Are For" had SJW stamped all over it to the point it was unpalatable.
now now let's be fair, the first abrams trek was only half bad. The first half of the movie was actually watchable. The movie turn to shit when kirk got on the enterprise.
Joshua Roberts jj abrams and the jjshitverse need to be swallowed up in a black hole. The shit for brains has screwed up all that he touches....what a twat!
I seem to remember that the reason why Sarek and Spock never got along was because Spock joined Starfleet. Sarek never really liked Starfleet because he viewed it as a military organization. That was literally stated in TOS. Sarek not liking his son because he was only half human doesn't make allot of sense considering he married a human. With that said, it still ruins his character when they make Michael Burnham the reason and not his core values. It's almost as if the writers were more concerned about making the most unrelatable character in the history of Star Trek the center of the universe rather than adhere to established canon.
@@nataliedenton1299 in star trek the final frontier it is brought up that Spock felt he was a disappointment to his father by being part human and not full Vulcan. But that was from spocks point if view not Sarek.
@@SoulSir5vr he fell in love with a human. What I was referring to was Spocks fear which was revealed to be being a disappointment to his father for being more human then Vulcan. It actually had nothing to do with spocks father, as it was all in spocks mind watch the final frontier and it will become quite clear.
I watched my first episode of Star Trek: next generation when I was 6, I have since been a huge fan! Star Trek is awesome! I’m 13, and I didn’t like the new movies. I love huge explosions, but that’s what’s Star Wars is for, not Trek!
Television in general, and Star Trek TOS specifically, were far better in the 1960's (and up to the early 90's) when most writing was done by Independent writers. (Not Staff Writers) Star Trek TOS was often written by Actual Science Fiction Writers (Harlon Ellison, Theodore Sturgis, Richard Matheson) who expanded the Ideas and Originality.
Then TNG made it better. Then DS9 made it more gritty but still great. Then Voyager made it still pretty damn good...then came the Jar Jar Abrams and Pooamount
I feel like you hit that pretty much on the nose. The brain dead crap they are churning out these days shouldn't be allowed to bear the name "Star Trek". To all the ACTUAL Star Trek fans reading this, watch The Orville. That show is closer to Star Trek than anything else on.
The pilot was a little wobbly and the episode "The Krill" had me rolling my eyes far more than once. Other than that, I've enjoyed every Orville episode that's aired so far. The Altar of Trek is there with the not-too-heavy-handed irreverence that McFarlane is known for. Great mix.
@@KiltBill2 Star Trek 2009 was horrible. They rebooted the franchise for THIS? No story, nothing of value added to the franchise, just shocking the audience with cheap shots like the destruction of Vulcan, destruction of Starfleet, near destruction of Earth, etc., every 5 minutes.
@@JAnx01 for a Treky I bet it hurt. But most Trek movies were pretty bland, and to get new fans it needed freshening up. As a reboot, like with TFA, it revitalised the franchise. But it is clear JJ cannot follow up on good starts.
I know they had to make everything at least 25% different for STD, but those "Klingons" are awful! I tried oh so hard to give STD a chance, but after the first episode I just couldn't do it.
I cringed when jar jar rebooted star trek into a different universe...dimension..reality... shit idk what... including old Spock wasn't genius it was bs... felt like it insulted the fans.. who have spent decades growing with their sci-fi crush
The issue is that they HAD to do it with the Kelvin timeline because the Star Trek license is split between CBS and Paramount. That is why Uniforms have to look different as well as any other thing that looks remotely similar. Basically these legal issues are the reason why neither CBS nor Paramount are able to do a new Star Trek that looks exactly like Star Trek. Which pretty much means that Star Trek is dead. The new Star Trek is only carrying the name because Brand recognition.
Insulting fans is what modern Hollywood, Comic writers, and Games "Journalists" do best these days. It's because they are SOOOO much more moral than the rest of us. It's as if the public were on Weinstiens casting couch instead of themselves, and they are here to give us a good sermon on our degeneracy, hold the story and game play since they are irrelevant compared to their unsubtile message.
CallMeMrRook that's the point with reboots. Fans of geeky franchises aren't allowed to have nice things. So they reboot and do "prequels" as a means of changing the canon so they can appropriate the series for their chosen new fans.
charles ryanlee Well, you being tired does not explain TFA's plotholes, does not make acting and dialogues any better, and main characters aren't in any way more intresting, so we still have right, and in some way obligation to shit upon this movie
Jar jar abrams / kurtzman / orci "Star Trek" 2009 is completely Stupid from beginning to end. Apart from the fact that it does not respect the spirit, it's not even a good movie. It's completely incoherent, the motivations and acts are incoherent, changes do not make sense, and science is completely flouting, which makes it all unlikely.
I generally liked Enterprise. it didn't start off strong, and it had some new ideas like Section 31, that we're new to the series from DS9. it usually takes a few seasons for people to fall into a new show, and good SciFi is very lacking. Dark Matter was climbing the ratings when it got canned and I genuinely liked the show.
Enterprise was my personal favorite series. The main and supporting cast I liked completely. My favorite captain was Picard, but I wasn’t fond of many of TNG supporting cast. Klingons never worked for me because they are always warlike simpletons, Riker was a creepy sexaholic, Geordi was a dork, everyone hated Wesley, I like Dr Crusher but she was given SO LITTLE airtime for a face like that, Data was too often used as a Deus Ex Machina, and I liked Troi fine. Voyager’s cast was fine, but Enterprise simply had the most likable and relatable characters. None of them were so full of themselves like in other shows.
I love Enterprise. It's so good. I think having an almost entirely human cast works really well because the characters have to be interesting on their own, without an alien gimmick. The show does a really good job paying attention to details in the characters behavior, and develops them well. Even the emotionless Vulcan is well-rounded (eh, pun not intended). But I also liked The Next Generation's cast, I think it may be my favorite crew. I thought Voyager was weak, and Deep Space Nine was a mixed bag. Quark was brilliant. Cisco was OK. Kira and Dax were annoying. Odo was a cool idea for a character. And O'Brian was finally given the attention he deserved, even if he was tortured in all of his best episodes... 🤣
The "No Conflict" idea didn't start until TNG and indeed, conflict between characters was a main staple of TOS. Under stress Kirk could snap at fellow crewmen and certainly Spock and Bones were always on each other. It's part of what made TOS unique (in a positive way).
SW died before JJ came on board as director Star War's Death was guaranteed when Lucas sold the rights over to Disney Since then it's about rebranding the image, Mary Sue's, and toy sales over interesting stories, symbolism, and good ole good vs evil.
The EU put Jar Jar in his place actually. become the town jester during the days of the empire. But i can tolerate Jar Jar, he's a better character the collection Disney's teams of Mary Sue and Gary Sue
I agree with all you say, except that the original vision was the weakness of ST. The utopian idea was and still is a wonderful thing for an SF show. Conflicts are a part of human existence and they were never lacking in any of the series, it is that the interpersonal conflicts were handled by mature and responsible characters if we exclude the antagonists. This reasonable way of handling differences was what people did not like, some people anyway. At present most social conflicts on screen and on the streets of our lives are usually handled stupidly, with immaturity and irresponsibility, maybe it was like this in the 60s I would not know. Star Trek is utopian but not just in the sense that our circumstances of existence change for the better, it is utopian in the state of individuals and that is what the true vision of it was. If maturity and responsibility is boring then that is our choice(perhaps failing), not the fault of Genes beautiful vision.
No, being in space being peaceful is the right vision, in STD, you meet someone who wants to be you friend, you blow them to bits. Remember what begins every time The Original Series starts. Space the final frontier, these are the voyages of the starship Enterprise, her 5-year mission, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.... In what sentence does that have action? Starfleet is about exploring, not blowing everything up in their path...
You speak from my heart Nes Ra!!! I absolutely agree with you! Maturity and reason is part of Roddenberry's vision, not dramatic soap opera style fights aboard the Enterprise.
I had heard that ST:D was supposed to have a group of 'trek experts' making sure that storylines from old shows would not be reused by accident on the new one. Yet the first two episodes managed to be a very poor remake of the classic episode "Balance of Terror." Overall the new show feels to me as if CBS threw millions of dollars at fan fiction and if they're going to do that then they should at least throw those millions at me. I try harder to stick with established canon than the makers of ST:D have done.
stephenjdutton fun fact the “experts” were only brought in in episode seven and their job is to make sure they don’t reuse stories that Trek has already done
The first two episodes of ST:D didn't manage that at all. "Balance of Terror" was about how war was a chess game, and neither Captain would've dreamed of beaming over to the other's ship just to lure them then stab them when they're vulnerable. Where is the Klingon honor? Where is the thought process? It's all "Game of Trek" to me. They're going with what works for modern audiences, not what made Star Trek great.
@condew HacDC Examples of actual fans of Discovery, y'know the users who haven't been banned for bullying others. This is all taken from just last week can you believe it. trekcore.com/blog/2017/10/new-star-trek-discovery-sanest-man-episode-photos-and-video-preview/ The Science Fiction Oracle: "Looks like the little baby was complaining to the mods and got my humorously sarcastic, but not by any means mean spirited, graphics deleted. What a spoiled sport! LOL" DC Forever: "Are you wearing pants while viewing those photos?" trekcore.com/blog/2017/10/star-trek-discoverys-canon-connections-episode-106/ shannon smith: (about TOS) "Still looks old, dated and cheesy as all hell." "No man, its a fact." trekcore.com/blog/2017/10/star-trek-discovery-107-spoiler-discussion-magic-to-make-the-sanest-man-go-mad/ "shannon smith: (when people tell her Discovery isn't the Prime Universe) "It is prime, your inablity to accept facts will not change that." She continues trolling... "It is not an opinion. The fact remains it is prime, because the people who gets to decide what is and is not prime have said about 47 times, It is prime. You rejecting that fact is not an "opinion". It is a rejection of a stated fact." "So very true. They have a head canon and accept that and only that as canon. All the while ignoring real canon because they do not understand it." "Yes, son ot is. They write canon. You have a profound lack of understsning of what canon is" "He does not understand what canon is and he is trolling. He is trying to cause confusion and change the meanings of terms." "He is basicly spreading a lie he knows is a lie." TUP (he thinks everybody else is a troll, ha, ha! : "It works for the vast majority of people too. Some people think its cute to create an internet identity for themselves as the rebels who argue the facts. I mean, whatever, good for them. Too bad life isnt interesting enough without trolling fans on a message board. lol" "The people who are STILL whining about this not taking place in the Prime Universe are getting really really tiresome. The rest of us are laughing at how silly you're acting. Its PRIME. Unless they do something in-universe to change that, its a stone cold fact." "Good grief. This is spamming now and should be a bannable offense! lol" "What personal attack? The "you're personally attacking me" is the last gasp of a desperate argument. You're posting many many posts picking arguments over something that is fact. That is trolling and spamming." Can you tell? I got banned weeks ago because of these idiots.
I agree with what you were saying. When I watched JJTrek and then STD...what a disappointment! When I watched the Orville I recognised it as being much more Star Trek than STD. Looking forward to the 2nd series of the Orville. Good Shout Brett on the web series!
I have no interest in "dark and gritty" Star Trek. There's plenty of dark and gritty in other entertainment and real life. We need the optimism of Star Trek to give us a light at the end of the tunnel.
He said next generation. Picard was hardly losing his shirt every episode like Kirk. There was not a ton of action in the next generation, it was more cerebral. That said, I thought season one of Discovery was pretty good. I liked the captain and it was a crazy way to end the season. Next season went straight to stupid. But Trek has NEVER been really 'great'. Keep in mind the original series was cancelled after two years.
I think most of the seasons were excellent. Enterprise I like more than other series because the characters are far more likable and interesting. Whenever you get something like a Ferengi or Klingon on another series, they have this full of themselves attitude that destroys a lot of the dialogue, because they have utterly intolerant cultures that make everyone else take a backseat to their single minded philosophy. The idea behind Enterprise is that we have a crew who are genuinely uncertain of themselves with new situations, and they work hard to think things through. The actors and actresses were all great too, which helped.
trha2222 how about ppl might like the show if it was, you know, actually good. but i see you're the kind of fucktard that can only use racism as an answer to everything and don't have the brains to debate a cockroach high on meth.
trha2222 pretty sure? so the monkey spunk between your ears is so useless that you don't even know if you like being called fucking stupid? i'm gonna guess that you calling the oc racist was just you remembering something trendy someone posted and thought, "i can make myself feel better by calling someone that bad word". holy fuck, and i thought the crackheads roaming around my town were stupid. 'm screen-shotting this and passing it around so they will feel like the gods amongst men that your super intellect will make them fell like they all should be.
@Bruce Walters - yeah because UA-cam is still free. CBS saw fit to put STD behind a streaming paywall, which (as far as I am concerned) has nothing else of value behind it - and the more STD reviews I hear/see, there is a strong case to remove the "else" from the preceding sentence!
At least Simon Pegg knew Star Trek as well as the average Trekkie. Rewatching some of my favorite TNG episodes, and the writing is downright amazing in many episodes. The single episode Yesterday's Enterprise dances circles around STD in its writing quality. Speaking of 90s market saturation, I grew up with a Christmas tree that had only Star Trek ornaments, to my father's insistence
Kalell1701 yeah we spent almost an hour on the phone last week talking about Blade Runner 2049. He hates talking on the phone normally. His dedication to fandoms is admirable. He tracked down a digital copy from a laserdisc of the Theatrical release of the original Blade Runner when he found out I saw the infamous Director's Cut before the Final Cut came out. I aim to not be ashamed of my geeky hobbies in front of my kids too. I guess "geek" is mainstream now anyway.
Dear CBS/Paramount. I've got some bad news for you. The only Star Trek fanbase you guys have left aren't even Star Trek fans. They're fans of big, dumb action movies and you've been catering to these knuckleheads for the last 15 years. The kind of people who write, "what a powerful scene" in the UA-cam comments section of a Transformers movie. Your "Star Trek" is about explosions and phasers and shouting and lens flares and stab-you-in-the-face. I know there's a market for this, but it's mostly among teenage boys and psychopaths. It's not how Star Trek got its start and that's not what actual Star Trek fans want. You studio execs represent absolutely *everything* that Gene Roddenberry hated when he was trying to pitch Star Trek to TV.
There is nothing wrong with a Series based on a fictional War (Deep Space Nine) if it is thought out. If it is given a fictional historical context. S-PLOSIONS! Just for the sake of having them - NO! BLUEY PHASERS REDDY BADDIES Phew Phew Phew! Welcome to your STD - did you bring your Penicillin?
The executives to whom you pen your comment could not care less about Trek fans or its principles. As long as $$, they’ll pander like ten dollar whores.
STD Klingon war was not real, there was only a Romulan War between 2062 through 2260, and that was the only war back then, CBS has to screw over everyone
I agree with you, but I still enjoyed Abram's Star Trek movies. For me, Movies need lots of action and a good plot, but only TV shows really have the time to explore thought provoking scenarios. For me ST: Discovery (Did they not think STD?) is the big failure here.
I Love the Orville. The characters feel fresh. When the Captain's ex became first officer, I thought oh here we go. The Captain get's the ship into trouble and it's his smart ar$e female first officer who always bails him out before chastising him for being too impulsive. But before the second episode was done, she was apologizing to him for her errors. How often do you see that on TV these days?
Trek was never Utopian. It was optimistic. In TNG Roddenberry's vision for future humanity radically changed. TNG and TOS do not fit together. DS9 adds new twists as does Voyager. JJ's Trek gave us nothing new as it took the most accessible aspects that had already been introduced and removed anything thoughtful, but it retained optimism. STD takes the JJ frame and adds layers of angry, petty, pessimistic, racist, sexist, glorification of violence. It is an ugly show about evil people.
you know the kelvin timeline is different canon than the prime timeline right? And I was introduced with voyager, and while I know a lot of hardcore fans don't like voyager i grew up on it and if it didn't exist i wouldn't be a star trek fan similarly i had grown out of star trek until the kelvin timeline movies came out and while they have flaws and are not perfectly the same as the rest of star trek i would not have gone back to voyager and then started watching the rest. so i think that has been a effect on many for the kelvin timeline.
Gallen Dugall And that is why I don't like any of the shows and stick with TOS. So you've actually made the case even stronger as to why STD sucks ass.
Gallen Dugall Absolute rubbish. Star trek discovery and the JJ Abrahams films keep totally with gene Rodenberrys vision. He got his vision from the work of Jaques Fressco and the Venus project. You should check it out instead of making a fool out of yourself. And star trek discovery is set in a different time period so the Klingon and other races are not going to abide by the same societal rules they follow in the other series. Your comment is that of a butt hurt ass hat. And how would you describe the Venus project society? Progressive? Liberal? If it's along the lines of any of those then all of your comments are full of shit, and you are at odds with all star treks. STD isn't shoving anything down our throats for anyone's sake, it's doing exactly what the others have done, stick with a vision of a possible future, whilst bringing up social issues of the day and how these visions compare. There's no sjw bullshit anywhere in STD, I don't give two tosses if someone was going to take a knee, America gives it's citizens the right to protest doesn't it?
Hollywood is trash. Has been for a while, and generally speaking anything they touch these days turns to absolute piss and shit. That established, the fact that we have continuations of a show when they stray so far from the original design and thinking is clearly for monetary purposes. They want to milk it more. So for my part, Discovery, for it is not Star Trek, just fanfiction on tape, never happened. Done. Problem solved.
Right, going all the way back to the pilot episode "The Cage" with Captain Pike, through Kirk's TOS, and all that came afterward, all of the commissioned women crew onboard the Enterprise and subsequent ships were "Officers and Gentlemen" in the true Naval tradition, then in space. Only God knows what this "captain" and crew of these, very aptly named, "STD people" are supposed to be!
The Abrams films were NOT profitable. They generated the most revenue. That's how movies like Into Darkness and Beyond underperformed to bombed. They cost too much to make and the Abrams general audience did not materialized to pick up the slack.
I am forced to disagree with you completely regarding what you call the "weakness" of star trek, the idea that within a few hundred years we would attain global peace and cooperation and no longer be in conflict with ourselves.....this is the very core of why star trek was so important and special to it's fans....the promise of a better future. A promise that we would gain the wisdom not to destroy ourselves. That is the very core of what made star trek special and unique. You act like this is bad idea....conflict can indeed be incorporated...it was done many times in the original series.
You ever notice there's also no Christianity, no Judiasm, no human religion of any kind in Star Trek? It's an entirely secular society, and that's for a reason.
For the record, Dave, NO, the Abrams Trek films are NOT the most successful in the franchise. When you adjust all the numbers you have to adjust to make a fair comparison, the Trek films of the 80s are far more successful. The 1979 film "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" made the most money, while 1982's "The Wrath of Kahn" was the best return on investment. BTW "The Voyage Home," released in 1986 is runner up in both categories. In fact, When you factor in the real costs of doing business, Abrams Trek films may have actually LOST money. But Hollywood doesn't seem to want to tell THAT story.
The 2009 Star Trek movie completely tanked virtually anywhere outside the US. In much of Europe it was hardly even advertized (mostly due to the TV show being relatively obscure there, save maybe for the likes of the UK and Germany). Its domestic box office accounted for almost 70% of its global revenues which is laughably low compared to other hits of that year, such as Harry Potter 6 or Avatar, whose domestic box office was only in the areas of 30%. The next two movies did better but even in their case the US and Canada make for some 50% of the overall income which most definitely does _not_ put them in the category of a global success. At any rate, to say that the "original" ST reboot made the franchise popular for new audiences is a _gross_ overstatement.
Star Wars has also always been more geared towards the Americans than, say, the likes of the franchises I mentioned before but it is nevertheless a global phenomenon. It's absolutely beloved in Europe, Australia and Japan (I think only Italy is somewhat indifferent: Rogue One scored only around $10 million there which is quite low). It differs from country to country, sure, but I can assure you that every man between, say, 10 and 65 in the UK, Germany, Poland or Scandinavia will be 100% aware of who Darth Vader is, as well as the Force, the dark side, the evil Empire and so on. The release of every new SW movie around here is a great event. Contrary, it doesn't seem like Star Wars is all that popular in Latin America.
Fair point. I think my only point here was that Star Wars is less of a phenomena around the world than it is here, where it is indisputably the biggest movie franchise in history. Star Trek's popularity has always been even more localized, but that has always been counterpointed by the franchises success in merchandisng and overall staying power year over year. Especially impressive when you consider that Star Trek is really a Television franchise not a movie franchise. Either way, I think we both agree that Abrams films are NOT the most popular versions of the series.
It's not awkward. My dad (a legit trekkie) and some other people think that Enterprise was the last time it was good. After that it went downhill. (I've never seen Enterprise so...)
I liked Enterprise too. But I couldn't shake the feeling that eventually Archer would make that final leap home ..... (Al?! Are you there Al?! ....) As weird as it might be for someone who liked the show, I can't help thinking that if they'd cast someone else as Captain Archer (Bakula was too well known) and maybe recast Tucker with someone more 'serious' as well (even though I did like the actor playing Tucker) that it would have been more successful. It just felt like it was missing something to me ..... the cast wasn't quite right.
Enterprise got a lot better in the second half, but you're absolutely right about Bakula. Also really hated T'Pol - she was literally just there to be the new 7of9 and have weird sweaty scenes after missions. Absolute waste.
Good you feel awkward, that is your first step toward realizing that 'Star Trek' was only added to the title in season three, when the network insisted they commit to it or GTFO. They (B&B) never intended to make that connection, because they only wanted the intellectual property name value to sell their own time travel series.
Great comments Dave - I watched the first ever Star Trek and have been a trekkie through the years - still am at 65 but unfortunately it has lost its soul - I dont recognise it anymore and struggling with Discovery. This may be the end of ST for me - I will have to be happy to watch old re-runs
Correct me if I'm wrong. The Orville has had one, count 'em ONE, season, right? AND, that 'season" was, what, SIX episodes? StarTrek, TOS, didn't really start finding itself until the SECOND season, and that was after TWENTY-SIX episodes in season one! The people tearing Orville down must be studio heads; they have the same "it's gotta be a fucking WINNER from the VERY FIRST show, or it gets cancelled!" mentality. You don't give the show time for character development, script betterment, or anything ELSE! The show is "funny"? It's INTENDED to be. Cheap? I think it matches the special effects of films costing MUCH more than the budget the show works with. Maybe the scripts could use some work; THAT'S a function of TIME, to improve and adapt, to let the writers feel their way into the characters and situations. How do you expect the show to get better if you don't give it a chance to? Or is it that you just don't give a shit?
Right. He was the Vulcan ambassador to Earth who married a human. If he's angry at Spock for being half-human he should reevaluate his life choices. And bearing all that in mind, it wouldn't seem out of character for him to adopt a human child that was orphaned during a Klingon attack.
Vulcans have emotions, they just suppress them. Spock lost control on several occasions, and when Sarek was dying of old age, he also lost control on Star Trek: TNG.
I'm not paying CBS to view their ads and thus haven't seen any Discovery show. But maybe Michael is just transgender? You know, a former dude who didn't change its name after changing its sex ? Did they never explain the reason for her masculine name? I hear the homosexuals blatantly remind the audience of their sexual preference in many episodes.
The actress Michael Learned was born in 1939. So Michael Burnham’s name, though unusual for a woman, is not unique. Quite a few Hebrew names can be borne by members of either sex - Michael, which is Hebrew, may be one of them. Language-wise, I don’t think there is any reason why it can’t be a girl’s name. In 300 years’ time, it may be. Non of which means that SJWishness is not at work here.
You had issues with Star Trek's core philosophy from the beginning? Really? Let alone it has nothing to do with "humans gettin' along, there's no conflict", in fact every single episode is about some conflict of ideas, reason and logic vs feelings, etc... Roddenberry used alien planets and alien people to discuss human conflicts, and analyze them through the eyes of reason. Watch again "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" to understand Gene's criticism on racism, for example, and to grasp his storytelling, and when you'll get it, you'll start to understand what Star Trek is.
All of the conflict was human verses aliens, or aliens verses other aliens. There was very little if any human on human conflict. The "humans" of the Star Trek franchise have always had this disquieting "Its a Small World" snow globe look and feel about them. No person in an actual military looks or acts anything like the crew members of the various Star Trek shows.
Nice to see some of the fans taking matters into their own hands. If the current professional writing staff for Star Wars and Star Trek is inadequate, then just make the effort to produce your own shows. I've seen some of these so-called "fan productions" and many of them are VERY good. Much more compelling and faithful to the original shows and plotlines than the current crop of professionally produced shows.
If surviving into the modern age means Trek has to replace external conflict (conflict with aliens, obstacles, etc) with internal conflict (bitchy whining between crew members), then I say it would be better for the franchise to go back to being dead and buried. Anything that ditches the fundamental premise that humans (and the Federation in general) have learned to work together, even when they have differences of opinion, is ditching the heart of Star Trek.
Maybe the point of STD is to show how humans were before the TOS days? But isn't STD in the same time frame as STE ? Captain Archer's crew wasn't a bunch of whiny back-stabbers like the STD characters seem to be.
And we need some positivity on television! There's nothing wrong with having people get along. There's gotta be _some_ way to make a good show with ridiculous amounts of conflict. I mean, come on, be creative! Figure something out!
@@H2Obsession STD is contemporary with TOS (starts about 10 years before Kirk's 5 year mission). Presume you've not watched the end of the season, but the meet the 1701 and Capt Pike is commanding Discovery at the start of S2.
It's just so sad :-( that one person can kill such a great and huge franchise :-\ one person should not have such power, ever. By the way i hate JJ and everything he represents and do.
The first episode of Star Trek Discovery didn't keep my attention because even though it happens 20 years before Captain Kirks' 5-year voyage, the technology was way beyond the original series. That being said, JJ Abrahams' Star Trek happens in the "alternative-universe" and should be looked as such. I do love consistency but the franchise was dying and needed a new direction and new fans to survive.
I usually don't like anything to say, but here you hit the nail on the head but I personally enjoy all of Voyager. And thought the whole point was the Janeway refused to break ties with Starfleet nomatter what happen
vitamindubya what about Worf's quest redemption in TNG? Or Picard's PTSD after becoming a Borg? Or in TOS, Spock's constant quest to come to grips with his dual nature? Just because they did their story arcs in the way that was not quite traditional a different type of telling does that not make them story arcs? I would disagree
He means an entire season long story arc, where one each episode affects the next and so forth, with no stand alone episodes. Yes, other Star Trek series had story arcs, but none were like Enterprise season 3.
I recently binged enterprise for the first time since I watched it as a kid and the first 2 seasons are good, the entire series is good. I really don't understand the hate, I think people just like to hate new things.
Yes. Yes! OH MY GOD, YES! First time I've watched one of your vids and I cannot agree more. Though disheartened when I saw pre-production photos of STD, I sat down with an open mind to watch it. I couldn't even make it five minutes before I had to start writing down all the issues with the look, feel, and tone of the show, not to mention story elements that made no sense. After finishing episode one, I had zero interest in seeing the second part (I have since read from those who like STD that it gets "a lot" better, but I don't know if I'm willing to invest my time in trying to get there).
In my opinion, the Star Trek franchise is pretty much dead at this point, and that's mainly because of how little CBS cares about it by basically dumbing it down to the point where it doesn't even recognize Gene Roddenberry's original creation. It's true that Voyager had problems, but it was the last series to stay true to the Star Trek formula, and to many fans was the last good thing to come out of the franchise. After that, the franchise began to fall apart and became progressively worse with each new installment, starting with Enterprise, which was cancelled just when it started to get good, and then after a few years of waiting, we get the very divisive film trilogy, which despite it's problems, resembles Star Trek FAR more than Discovery ever has. The shutdown of the fan-film Axanar was the final nail in the coffin, showing how little CBS cared about Star Trek's fandom and how much the fans cared about the franchise, placing all these unfair rules and restrictions that suppressed the fandom's creative talent. This leads us to Discovery, a sci-fi series cut from the same "dark and edgy" cloth that Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead were made from and injected with SJW ideals that were on the complete opposite side of the spectrum from what Star Trek was. The worst part is that we live in a time where Star Trek just isn't relevant anymore... in fact, science fiction in general isn't really big anymore considering superheroes are what everyone's into right now no thanks to the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. When it comes to mainstream sci-fi franchises, your only real choice is Star Wars, and that's really it. Unless you count a parody series like The Orville, there's nothing that's really like Star Trek out there for fans to enjoy.
Masterge77 if you think that Orville is parody, you haven’t watched it. It’s the best show on tv as far as I’m concerned. It’s the truest Trek without a stick up it’s ass. It’s heartfelt, sincere, but also humorous. The writing is casual but believable and the actors are terrific. I haven’t watched STD since the pile of crap free premier, but I’ve already rewatched all of The Orville season 1 - twice.
Since there's obviously a division, I think we need a collective name for people who like STD and Abrams Trek. I'm leaning toward "Drekkies", (or "Dreckies" since Drekkies are probably too stupid to get it unless you really spell it out),
Javier Gallegos I reckon they will be way over the top, cause whilst they did treat their women like second class citizens, they also had some good qualities, like no slavery or wars, so this time round they will be slave owners and have wars.
Badly, Ferengi became real characters when they moved away from hur durr capitalism is evulz in ds9. Considering the liberal tendencies in discovery I supose they would regress to their strawman status.
My biggest gripe about DS9 is what they did to the Ferengi over the course of the story. Using them as the comic relief in an often-dark plotline was fine (you could always tell when there was a really painful pitched battle in the Dominion War there'd be a Ferengi episode coming next week) but the writers couldn't even straw man them properly when they were taken something approaching seriously. Quark was arguably the deepest and most nuanced character of that whole series.
The problem was they never quite let the Ferengi play the intellectual foil to the Federation. I mainly blame bringing in Quark's mom as a character. That simply dragged the show into feminist ranting. Episodes that featured her were usually painful.
I dunno, Quarks mom was sound for me because she actually used economical arguments for women being treated equally instead of some feminist cultural bullshit. It was actually something that if they played ferengis as real hardcore capitalists would have come sooner, but since they were built as a strawman from the get go, the writers had to solve that in some way.
the 3 moments in new star trek that made me realize that trek was dead: 1. when they reversed the scene with Kirk and spock in into darkness. 2. when spock and u'hura decided they needed a public makeout session in the middle of a space battle 3. the Chinese character had to show how Chinese he was by having a samurai sword battle on top of a space laser drilling platform. the reversal of Kirk and Spock was such an awful slight to both of their characters and an obvious snub to the original film i l almost walked out of the theater except it was nearly the end of the movie at that point.
dedf15 and then in 3rd one they made the Asian character gay for no reason. They actually blended the real life of the original actor with the character. Ridiculous
I Disagree that the first two seasons of Enterprise were bad. I enjoyed the temporal cold war story arc that people seem to forget was a thing, and Silik was a really interesting character. It should be noted that ratings were actually higher for the first two seasons then the latter and at their lowest the second season was still over 4 which is actually pretty good. If anything seemed bad it was the end of the final season as it seemed like they crammed in as much as they could, knowing there would not be another season.
I think I respect the ENT the most: it was built on most difficult premise (starting from looking less modern than other shows) - but it was worthy prequel. Had great story arcs (like one with Brent Spinner), best doctor in the franchise (Phlox), complex relations with races - Vulcans and Archer Shran chemistry worked superbly. VOY was basically TOS clone in modern settings, DS9 interesting departure and TNG what Roddenberry's vision was supposed to be. Also, most episodes had better concept and writing than today's blockbusters (even those that aren't that bad) - e.g. Darmok vs. Arrival.
My first Star Trek show that i watched was Discovery, and I enjoy it, but I understand why someone who is a Star Trek fan would hate it. I know the feeling when something you like is dumbed down.
The kid dressing up as Batman for Halloween isn't Batman. He's just a kid dressed as Batman. This new crap is dressed as star trek, but it's not star trek.
Great review! Glad I wasn't the only one who saw the dumbing down and SJW dilution of Star Trek. I call this series STD. Appropo. Agree with your assessment at the 2:07 mark. Creative and cultural vandalism. Keep it up Dave!
They named it STD and nobody caught this.
It's fitting and could have been done on purpose. It was a warning.
Discovery is also the name of the ship from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Capt'Wes Starwind I saw that it fits perfect!
Apparently, Fuller noticed it, and ran with it.
It's fitting because it's like Star Trek has been sleeping with the wrong writers and ended up diseased.
After watching your rant on both ST:D and The Last Jedi, I am going to suggest something that may be unpopular. Perhaps it is time that Trekkies and Star Wars fans work through their differences and join forces against this evil?
I'm a trekkie and I don't really care about SW but I have never had any problem with it or its fans. I don't think the problem is so much having significant adversity to work thorough I think there's just not a ton to join forces on. We have the same enemies but different goals, should trekkies work on making SW? should SW fans work on making trek?
Star Trek is open ended storytelling. Adventure, exploring. It's ideal, wonderful, fun, endearing, engaging, uplifting. It is for smart people.
Star Wars is about: War... is closed story telling. More about the past than the future. It is horrifically bad, unwatchable, pointless, depressing. It is for stupid people.
Star WARS is about WAR. IT IS THE EVIL! Star TREK is about Adventure. It is perfection.
Welp, Looks like there are some real dipshits on this side of things.
I don't believe it to be fair nor accurate to say that the two are mutually exclusive. As a child of the 70's, I was mesmerized by both. The perceived rivalry is of much hype and little substance imo.
Lot of Trek producers are involved with Orville now
If Paramount is going to kill Trek I am sure some Ex Consultants who were shunned are helping put some nails in the coffin of STD by helping Orville.
I love The Orville.
The Orville is the next big thing by being true to the core of Star Trek.
Matt Brown that explains alot
I heard that Johnathan Frakes directed one of the episodes! (Now I'm going to have to find that one...)
The U.S.S. Discovery looks like a pizza cutter.
ugliest Star Trek inspired design ever, imho...
Steve Selinsky It used to be concept art for the Enterprise?
true....but they didn't go with it, and ended up with a much better design...i agree with Dave on this subject- using a discarded concept as the main ship for the show is aiming pretty low...
ya
do you know they made enterprise pizza cutter?
"it no longer belonged to its fan base because its fan base were no longer necessary"
That is sad, I am not a Star Trek fan, but that should never happen to anyone's franchise that they follow.
Star Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Who, Fallout, Battlefield.. bonus points for almost every major comic book series for still needing their fans despite neglecting them..
sounds like a JJ adams quote
I'm just into Star Trek and I'm finding the old shows way better than the reboot.
There's a lot of good trek out there. Can't beat Captain "Soldier of the Federation" Kirk, but Sisko comes pretty close, and pretty much all the Treks have likeable qualities.
Oh, it isn't a reboot. They will tell you that. Yeah, right.
So much good SF never gets filmed, so why desicrate SF that was done well with lesser sequels, spinoffs and reboots when a creative team could start with something fresh?
Todd Whelan I like the new shows better then the old ones, that might just be because I’m only 13
condew HacDC what does SF stand for?
Gene Roddenberry vision was not to be conflict free amongst humans... his vision was that humans would know how to resolve their conflicts admirably.
Yes, there were lots of conflicts in the TOS and other series. The Corbomite Maneuver was likely one of the best examples from the original series. Or how about Galileo 7.
Gerry C your response does not address my comment at all. Good writing or bad, Gene's future was that humans can resolve conflict, not be free from them.
I believe the rule was no conflict among the crew. No matter what happens, a crew member can depend on another crew member, even if they differ in other cultural and genetic ways.
Gene didn't have full creative control over TOS, that's why time and again there are also references to God, which is REALLY something he didn't like. He only got 100% of control in early TNG, and he made clear that there was to be NO conflict between crewmembers, the conflict could only come from outside (aliens). You can see the writers themselves talking about how their scripts were rejected by Gene because of these things.
condew HacDC that's called military decorum. That's nothing revolutionary.
The Original Series was created at the height of the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the chaos of the Civil Rights Movement. It optimistically said that we could solve all those problems and build a better future.
STD says everything is shit, everyone is shit, and the future will be shit.
@Gallen Dugall Exactly! This is one of the main reasons I don't like Discovery and refuse to consider it as part of the Star Trek franchise, and that's primarily because it's pretty much cut from the exact same cloth as shows like Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead in which intense drama and action are king.
TOS was created at a perfect time in which people needed to be injected with hope and optimism at a time when the world was incredibly pessimistic. Today we live in a similar era to the 1960's, in which there are conflicts in the Middle East, and tensions with nations like Russia and North Korea, as well as the fears that World War III could begin at any moment... and what does Star Trek do? Make a new series that ENCOURAGES those pessimistic views and make people feel more grim about the future, that's what. And it's all done in the name of money.
Even with those tensions, humanity is far better off overall in 2017 than it was in the 1960s. The notion that DIS can't present an optimistic future because it needs to be grim in order to reflect and comment on the issues of today's world is nothing more than supreme laziness and a case of Mean World Syndrome taken to its most illogical extreme.
It's absurdist narcissistic pandering. STD is for all those people who have to believe that they are the most important people who have ever lived and living at the most important time in history and literally the entire universe was created just to give them personally this time.
Same thing w/ Star Wars, in 30 years you go back to another Empire, all the struggles in the first 6 movies were for nothing.
It is foolish to think that is not coincidental, the purpose is to demoralize the public, to make people accept how shitty the world is today and how it will be tomorrow...
Take a lesson or two from the Klingons, do not give in, do not back down, be defiant, reject and fight this evil as long as necessary.
I would disagree if they weren't being so ham fistedly obvious. Why can't Hollywood make a single decent movie anymore? Because it has to be crap - deliberate crap. The Soviets did the same garbage in their entertainment - seriously try to watch an old Soviet era movie and it's a mirror image of depressing crap.
I have to say, as a long time Star Trek (fan since the 60's), I really wanted to like the new Star Trek Discovery. At first, I liked it. But, now I realize I was watching it through rose colored glasses while overlooking the obvious glaring plot holes and watered down story lines. In my zeal and love for the Star Trek universe, I wanted so much to like it, I talked myself into accepting it. Thank you for opening my eyes. You are exactly right.
Yeah, give a starving man a dog shit sandwich and he'll eat half of it before he realizes it's not peanut butter... However it won't take long for 100% of true Star Trek fans to realize it's a Faaake! At least there is the Orville (as much as I only liked a handful of season 2 episodes, but those few were great)
For me this is not Canon.
@@jonathanberry9502 Yea but Orville season 3 was pure perfection
@@orionaquila420 Orville is awesome no doubt.
Did the STD writers even watch the original series? The reason there’s friction between Sarek and Spock is because Spock joined Starfleet, which Sarek viewed as a militaristic organization. It has nothing to do with Spock being half-human. Sarek married a human woman because it was logical (translation: he loved her), so Sarek being hostile towards Spock for being half-human makes no damn sense. 🤦🏻♀️
Although I used to have a problem with Rick Berman (in some instances) at the time in the 90’s, I’d take that any day over what Star Trek has become now.
myriad1973 Star Trek: Unrecognizable
Don't worry, the JJverse and Discovery aren't canon to the main universe. No matter how much the apologists piss and moan about alternate timeline bullshit. They're set not just in an alternate timeline, but an alternate timeline to an alien parallel universe that only kinda looks like the main universe. Its such a departure from canon that even if it was canon, it might as well not be.
Yeah really makes you appreciate the good old days of ST!
Axanar died for our sins.
#TwoNukesWasntEnough
+creapsmantic
the sin of being beguiled by lense flares.
Wulfgar Axanar died due to Alec Peters' greed and dishonesty. Just over the weekend, he was caught selling perks (patches and such) through a third party that were originally supposed to go to donors, who have waited 2 years and *still* haven't received them. This third party tried to claim that she had no connection to Peters whatsoever. This was quickly proven false with a little sleuthing. This third party actually goes back with Peters at least a couple of years. So basically, Peters was caught trying to subvert the terms of his settlement with CBS. Par for the course with that slug. Axanar is dead because of Alec Peters and Alec Peters alone.
Because of the Axanar scam, CBS slapped down the fan films which is why Start Trek Continues is closing.
Axanar died because STD showrunners and writers were embarrassed by how good Axanar was, and how well it fit into the ENT - TOS timeline.
Besides the SJW stuff, what bothered me the most about this show was the breaking with Established canon and disrespecting the original content of The Original Show, while at the same time stealing storylines from TOS and TNG and altering the established history of our beloved character Spock. At least the Star Wars version Star Trek movies respected Nimoy's Spock. I am captivated by the beautiful special effects, but I still prefer the original thought driven stories.
I totally agree with most of everything said in the video. I also blamed Rick Berman to a degree for the fall of Star Trek back when but now I wish we had him back. As was said in the video, he at least understood the soul of this franchise and protected it. He perhaps over protected it but it’s better than the new creative team who doesn’t seem to care much at all. I’m nervous for this new Picard series because I love the character and would love to see him back but I’m concerned they’ll ruin him.
Don’t worry, Picard is great. They realized what the fans wanted: tons and TONS of violence, torture, screaming, murder, and cussing.
Picard is the shittiest "sci-fi" I have ever witnessed.
@@orionaquila420 Yeah Picard killed Star Trek for me. Never thought that I'd say that sentence. I've resorted to just watching Red Letter Media reviews of the Picard seasons because they are so bad.
@@cinemike8207 I re watched almost all TNG episodes to remind myself of what star trek used to be after watching that sh*t... And apparently, Picard used to be a realistic character back then. Fascinating.
Beware when they say "appeal to a broader audience."
read: "Dumber" audience. "Logic would dictate" this approach; because it is "without question"!
Less of a audience!
This is not Star Trek. It is a grave robbing expedition with an unlikable cast and an unneeded revision of its history
still better than TOS
This.
Base on what? The captains of STD have all the charisma of an anvil, compared to Kirk and Picard.
@@Novarcharesk
TAKE YOUR MEDICATION
SPAZ
@@knightmoritz1895 still better than TOS
Nah. TOS is a classic.
we wouldn't have Star Trek if it wasn't for TOS.
Vic Mignogna's web series "Star Trek Continues" is more faithful to Star Trek and it's a crowdfunded fan production.
I know, right? Was a fan since the first episode. Even Jimmy Doohan's son is playing a role as Scotty and they got support from actual Star Trek veteran actors too. Can't get any better blessing than that. CBS could have cashed in on that but legal difficulties with Paramount are the reason why we will never get an actual official Star Trek from them. Also why they had to kill Axanar.
Check out Phase Two as well.Wonderful job there as well. They even have a duplicate of TOS sound stage and open it to the public from time to time. If you want to walk the halls of the Enterprise and are in NY check them out and see if they are offering tours during your stay.
Star Trek Continues is a love letter to Rodenberry. Were Gene alive he'd blush.
I'm more of a fan of Phase 2 than Continues. Phase 2 had some powerful episodes without getting preachy. I'm afraid "What Starships Are For" had SJW stamped all over it to the point it was unpalatable.
It is an excellent little series, I need to watch it more and that gorgeous redheaded woman....what's her name? I'll figure it out!
I hated all the new star trek stuff ever since Jar Jar Abrams was involved.
Me too. When people were saying his first Trek movie was good - or wasn't bad - I was like lolwut? I hated every second of it.
dat 7 of 9 booty tho
now now let's be fair, the first abrams trek was only half bad. The first half of the movie was actually watchable. The movie turn to shit when kirk got on the enterprise.
Joshua Roberts jj abrams and the jjshitverse need to be swallowed up in a black hole. The shit for brains has screwed up all that he touches....what a twat!
TheBlackB0X i hate everything jj abrams has done to star trek except the u.s.s. vengeance. That ship is ballsy.
I seem to remember that the reason why Sarek and Spock never got along was because Spock joined Starfleet. Sarek never really liked Starfleet because he viewed it as a military organization. That was literally stated in TOS. Sarek not liking his son because he was only half human doesn't make allot of sense considering he married a human. With that said, it still ruins his character when they make Michael Burnham the reason and not his core values. It's almost as if the writers were more concerned about making the most unrelatable character in the history of Star Trek the center of the universe rather than adhere to established canon.
Agreed, Spock being half human had nothing to do with the conflict between him and his father
Not only that But Sarek himself even stated that when it came to his son he was unable to remain logical
@@nataliedenton1299 in star trek the final frontier it is brought up that Spock felt he was a disappointment to his father by being part human and not full Vulcan. But that was from spocks point if view not Sarek.
@@sykune Then why would Spock's father marry and impregnate a human in the first place?
@@SoulSir5vr he fell in love with a human. What I was referring to was Spocks fear which was revealed to be being a disappointment to his father for being more human then Vulcan. It actually had nothing to do with spocks father, as it was all in spocks mind watch the final frontier and it will become quite clear.
I watched my first episode of Star Trek: next generation when I was 6, I have since been a huge fan! Star Trek is awesome! I’m 13, and I didn’t like the new movies. I love huge explosions, but that’s what’s Star Wars is for, not Trek!
Television in general, and Star Trek TOS specifically, were far better in the 1960's (and up to the early 90's) when most writing was done by Independent writers. (Not Staff Writers)
Star Trek TOS was often written by Actual Science Fiction Writers (Harlon Ellison, Theodore Sturgis, Richard Matheson) who expanded the Ideas and Originality.
Then TNG made it better. Then DS9 made it more gritty but still great. Then Voyager made it still pretty damn good...then came the Jar Jar Abrams and Pooamount
it's not StarTrek - it's not a bad Sci fi as they go I guess, but it's not StatTrek
So true, it is not!
I feel like you hit that pretty much on the nose. The brain dead crap they are churning out these days shouldn't be allowed to bear the name "Star Trek". To all the ACTUAL Star Trek fans reading this, watch The Orville. That show is closer to Star Trek than anything else on.
The pilot was a little wobbly and the episode "The Krill" had me rolling my eyes far more than once. Other than that, I've enjoyed every Orville episode that's aired so far. The Altar of Trek is there with the not-too-heavy-handed irreverence that McFarlane is known for. Great mix.
Sad to say, but since J.J. Abrams, the Star Trek franchise is dead. ;-(
Peter Frankemölle same thing WITH starwars jjabrams makes a good Obama lackey total screw up of everything they touch!
JJ's 1st re branding I thought was great fun, and had potential for a good follow up. Same with Star Wars....
Seeing a trend, here.
JJ movies were silly.All they did was blow things up,how many starships can you destroy?
@@KiltBill2 Star Trek 2009 was horrible. They rebooted the franchise for THIS? No story, nothing of value added to the franchise, just shocking the audience with cheap shots like the destruction of Vulcan, destruction of Starfleet, near destruction of Earth, etc., every 5 minutes.
@@JAnx01 for a Treky I bet it hurt. But most Trek movies were pretty bland, and to get new fans it needed freshening up.
As a reboot, like with TFA, it revitalised the franchise. But it is clear JJ cannot follow up on good starts.
I know they had to make everything at least 25% different for STD, but those "Klingons" are awful! I tried oh so hard to give STD a chance, but after the first episode I just couldn't do it.
I cringed when jar jar rebooted star trek into a different universe...dimension..reality... shit idk what... including old Spock wasn't genius it was bs... felt like it insulted the fans.. who have spent decades growing with their sci-fi crush
The issue is that they HAD to do it with the Kelvin timeline because the Star Trek license is split between CBS and Paramount. That is why Uniforms have to look different as well as any other thing that looks remotely similar. Basically these legal issues are the reason why neither CBS nor Paramount are able to do a new Star Trek that looks exactly like Star Trek. Which pretty much means that Star Trek is dead. The new Star Trek is only carrying the name because Brand recognition.
Insulting fans is what modern Hollywood, Comic writers, and Games "Journalists" do best these days. It's because they are SOOOO much more moral than the rest of us. It's as if the public were on Weinstiens casting couch instead of themselves, and they are here to give us a good sermon on our degeneracy, hold the story and game play since they are irrelevant compared to their unsubtile message.
CallMeMrRook that's the point with reboots. Fans of geeky franchises aren't allowed to have nice things. So they reboot and do "prequels" as a means of changing the canon so they can appropriate the series for their chosen new fans.
50 years ago, Hollywood had to carefully disguise its true nature, now they can be a whole lot more open about their real objectives.
JJ Abrams has killed Trek. In a month or two, he'll finish killing Star Wars. He is evil incarnate.
GarthKlaus well said
charles ryanlee
Well, you being tired does not explain TFA's plotholes, does not make acting and dialogues any better, and main characters aren't in any way more intresting, so we still have right, and in some way obligation to shit upon this movie
You mean Jar Jar Abrams.
Also, he's no longer evil incarnate. That was stolen from him by Ruin Johnson.
Jar jar abrams / kurtzman / orci "Star Trek" 2009 is completely Stupid from beginning to end. Apart from the fact that it does not respect the spirit, it's not even a good movie. It's completely incoherent, the motivations and acts are incoherent, changes do not make sense, and science is completely flouting, which makes it all unlikely.
@ Philippe Alain
Wow... you re so full of shit! =)
Long Live the Orville.
I generally liked Enterprise. it didn't start off strong, and it had some new ideas like Section 31, that we're new to the series from DS9. it usually takes a few seasons for people to fall into a new show, and good SciFi is very lacking. Dark Matter was climbing the ratings when it got canned and I genuinely liked the show.
Enterprise was my personal favorite series. The main and supporting cast I liked completely. My favorite captain was Picard, but I wasn’t fond of many of TNG supporting cast. Klingons never worked for me because they are always warlike simpletons, Riker was a creepy sexaholic, Geordi was a dork, everyone hated Wesley, I like Dr Crusher but she was given SO LITTLE airtime for a face like that, Data was too often used as a Deus Ex Machina, and I liked Troi fine.
Voyager’s cast was fine, but Enterprise simply had the most likable and relatable characters. None of them were so full of themselves like in other shows.
I love Enterprise. It's so good. I think having an almost entirely human cast works really well because the characters have to be interesting on their own, without an alien gimmick. The show does a really good job paying attention to details in the characters behavior, and develops them well. Even the emotionless Vulcan is well-rounded (eh, pun not intended).
But I also liked The Next Generation's cast, I think it may be my favorite crew. I thought Voyager was weak, and Deep Space Nine was a mixed bag. Quark was brilliant. Cisco was OK. Kira and Dax were annoying. Odo was a cool idea for a character. And O'Brian was finally given the attention he deserved, even if he was tortured in all of his best episodes... 🤣
The "No Conflict" idea didn't start until TNG and indeed, conflict between characters was a main staple of TOS. Under stress Kirk could snap at fellow crewmen and certainly Spock and Bones were always on each other. It's part of what made TOS unique (in a positive way).
And the conflict part is thanks to network execs at the time because had tos ad eared to this philosphy, TOS will never had been as popular as it was.
Yep I love tng’s pilot but starting by proving humans are no longer savages stunted the rest
And now Jar Jar Abrams is doing the same to Star Wars :( :/
SW died before JJ came on board as director
Star War's Death was guaranteed when Lucas sold the rights over to Disney
Since then it's about rebranding the image, Mary Sue's, and toy sales over interesting stories, symbolism, and good ole good vs evil.
Brandon Derive true. Still it would be hard to do all of this without Jar Jar.
The EU put Jar Jar in his place actually. become the town jester during the days of the empire. But i can tolerate Jar Jar, he's a better character the collection Disney's teams of Mary Sue and Gary Sue
Brandon Derive oh didn't knew that about Jar. I was talking about Abrams. How Disneys changes to SW was easier with him on board than without.
Abrams took away the best part of SW: The lore
I agree with all you say, except that the original vision was the weakness of ST. The utopian idea was and still is a wonderful thing for an SF show. Conflicts are a part of human existence and they were never lacking in any of the series, it is that the interpersonal conflicts were handled by mature and responsible characters if we exclude the antagonists. This reasonable way of handling differences was what people did not like, some people anyway. At present most social conflicts on screen and on the streets of our lives are usually handled stupidly, with immaturity and irresponsibility, maybe it was like this in the 60s I would not know. Star Trek is utopian but not just in the sense that our circumstances of existence change for the better, it is utopian in the state of individuals and that is what the true vision of it was. If maturity and responsibility is boring then that is our choice(perhaps failing), not the fault of Genes beautiful vision.
No, being in space being peaceful is the right vision, in STD, you meet someone who wants to be you friend, you blow them to bits. Remember what begins every time The Original Series starts. Space the final frontier, these are the voyages of the starship Enterprise, her 5-year mission, to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.... In what sentence does that have action? Starfleet is about exploring, not blowing everything up in their path...
You speak from my heart Nes Ra!!! I absolutely agree with you! Maturity and reason is part of Roddenberry's vision, not dramatic soap opera style fights aboard the Enterprise.
I had heard that ST:D was supposed to have a group of 'trek experts' making sure that storylines from old shows would not be reused by accident on the new one. Yet the first two episodes managed to be a very poor remake of the classic episode "Balance of Terror." Overall the new show feels to me as if CBS threw millions of dollars at fan fiction and if they're going to do that then they should at least throw those millions at me. I try harder to stick with established canon than the makers of ST:D have done.
stephenjdutton fun fact the “experts” were only brought in in episode seven and their job is to make sure they don’t reuse stories that Trek has already done
ouch. At least they are consistent with their 2 dimensional thinking!
The first two episodes of ST:D didn't manage that at all. "Balance of Terror" was about how war was a chess game, and neither Captain would've dreamed of beaming over to the other's ship just to lure them then stab them when they're vulnerable. Where is the Klingon honor? Where is the thought process? It's all "Game of Trek" to me. They're going with what works for modern audiences, not what made Star Trek great.
@condew HacDC Examples of actual fans of Discovery, y'know the users who haven't been banned for bullying others. This is all taken from just last week can you believe it.
trekcore.com/blog/2017/10/new-star-trek-discovery-sanest-man-episode-photos-and-video-preview/
The Science Fiction Oracle: "Looks like the little baby was complaining to the mods and got my humorously sarcastic, but not by any means mean spirited, graphics deleted. What a spoiled sport! LOL"
DC Forever: "Are you wearing pants while viewing those photos?"
trekcore.com/blog/2017/10/star-trek-discoverys-canon-connections-episode-106/
shannon smith: (about TOS) "Still looks old, dated and cheesy as all hell." "No man, its a fact."
trekcore.com/blog/2017/10/star-trek-discovery-107-spoiler-discussion-magic-to-make-the-sanest-man-go-mad/
"shannon smith: (when people tell her Discovery isn't the Prime Universe) "It is prime, your inablity to accept facts will not change that."
She continues trolling...
"It is not an opinion. The fact remains it is prime, because the people who gets to decide what is and is not prime have said about 47 times, It is prime.
You rejecting that fact is not an "opinion". It is a rejection of a stated fact."
"So very true. They have a head canon and accept that and only that as canon. All the while ignoring real canon because they do not understand it."
"Yes, son ot is. They write canon. You have a profound lack of understsning of what canon is"
"He does not understand what canon is and he is trolling. He is trying to cause confusion and change the meanings of terms."
"He is basicly spreading a lie he knows is a lie."
TUP (he thinks everybody else is a troll, ha, ha! : "It works for the vast majority of people too. Some people think its cute to create an internet identity for themselves as the rebels who argue the facts. I mean, whatever, good for them. Too bad life isnt interesting enough without trolling fans on a message board. lol"
"The people who are STILL whining about this not taking place in the Prime Universe are getting really really tiresome. The rest of us are laughing at how silly you're acting. Its PRIME. Unless they do something in-universe to change that, its a stone cold fact."
"Good grief. This is spamming now and should be a bannable offense! lol"
"What personal attack? The "you're personally attacking me" is the last gasp of a desperate argument.
You're posting many many posts picking arguments over something that is fact. That is trolling and spamming."
Can you tell? I got banned weeks ago because of these idiots.
Stark Trek Discovery in two words: Space Mushrooms
Keep 'em in the dark and feed them bullshit to grow a mycelium network on which a giant stolen Tardigrade can surf...
I agree with what you were saying. When I watched JJTrek and then STD...what a disappointment! When I watched the Orville I recognised it as being much more Star Trek than STD. Looking forward to the 2nd series of the Orville. Good Shout Brett on the web series!
STD = Star Trek: Still in Darkness.
Anyone miss the days when Dave had enough hair to show his face in vids?
I have no interest in "dark and gritty" Star Trek. There's plenty of dark and gritty in other entertainment and real life. We need the optimism of Star Trek to give us a light at the end of the tunnel.
condew HacDC
Your 100 percent correct.
Hell, compared to STD, "Star Trek Into Darkness" is bright and colorful.
I do miss the story and writing of shows like Star Trek next gen. Something about it not relying on huge action scenes or Hollywood tropes.
You're aware that the original Trek had Hollywood tropes and lots of action.
@@TheVeritas1 No it hadn't.
@I don't feel so good.
Yes, TNG did draw from Hollywood tropes from time to time.
He said next generation. Picard was hardly losing his shirt every episode like Kirk. There was not a ton of action in the next generation, it was more cerebral. That said, I thought season one of Discovery was pretty good. I liked the captain and it was a crazy way to end the season. Next season went straight to stupid. But Trek has NEVER been really 'great'. Keep in mind the original series was cancelled after two years.
ive had people lose their shit when i say this show sucks, ive gotten all the usual buzzwords tossed at me for it.
yup, all that nonsense and more
You fucking fascist!
GIRLS GIRLS!! You're both pretty
I lose my shit when someone says its a bad show without having watched the show. Guilty.
creapsmantic Hahaha, you got me.
The first two seasons of enterprise were the best in my opinion
I think most of the seasons were excellent. Enterprise I like more than other series because the characters are far more likable and interesting. Whenever you get something like a Ferengi or Klingon on another series, they have this full of themselves attitude that destroys a lot of the dialogue, because they have utterly intolerant cultures that make everyone else take a backseat to their single minded philosophy. The idea behind Enterprise is that we have a crew who are genuinely uncertain of themselves with new situations, and they work hard to think things through. The actors and actresses were all great too, which helped.
My recommendation would be to watch The Expanse! Superior show with fresh ideas compared to STD.
More people will see your review than will watch Discovery
Your truthful statements are hurtful to Hollyw$$d. Please stop. It's cutting their bottom line.
trha2222 how about ppl might like the show if it was, you know, actually good. but i see you're the kind of fucktard that can only use racism as an answer to everything and don't have the brains to debate a cockroach high on meth.
trha2222 pretty sure? so the monkey spunk between your ears is so useless that you don't even know if you like being called fucking stupid? i'm gonna guess that you calling the oc racist was just you remembering something trendy someone posted and thought, "i can make myself feel better by calling someone that bad word". holy fuck, and i thought the crackheads roaming around my town were stupid. 'm screen-shotting this and passing it around so they will feel like the gods amongst men that your super intellect will make them fell like they all should be.
@Bruce Walters - yeah because UA-cam is still free. CBS saw fit to put STD behind a streaming paywall, which (as far as I am concerned) has nothing else of value behind it - and the more STD reviews I hear/see, there is a strong case to remove the "else" from the preceding sentence!
trha2222 I'm pretty sure you're a race baiting piece of dog shit. Fuck you for even trying to float that bullshit.
At least Simon Pegg knew Star Trek as well as the average Trekkie.
Rewatching some of my favorite TNG episodes, and the writing is downright amazing in many episodes. The single episode Yesterday's Enterprise dances circles around STD in its writing quality.
Speaking of 90s market saturation, I grew up with a Christmas tree that had only Star Trek ornaments, to my father's insistence
Flufferz626 your father sounds cool
Kalell1701 yeah we spent almost an hour on the phone last week talking about Blade Runner 2049. He hates talking on the phone normally.
His dedication to fandoms is admirable. He tracked down a digital copy from a laserdisc of the Theatrical release of the original Blade Runner when he found out I saw the infamous Director's Cut before the Final Cut came out.
I aim to not be ashamed of my geeky hobbies in front of my kids too. I guess "geek" is mainstream now anyway.
Dude STD ripped this guy's indei game called Tardigrades
After Star Trek Enterprise Star Trek is officially dead to me
Dear CBS/Paramount. I've got some bad news for you. The only Star Trek fanbase you guys have left aren't even Star Trek fans. They're fans of big, dumb action movies and you've been catering to these knuckleheads for the last 15 years. The kind of people who write, "what a powerful scene" in the UA-cam comments section of a Transformers movie.
Your "Star Trek" is about explosions and phasers and shouting and lens flares and stab-you-in-the-face. I know there's a market for this, but it's mostly among teenage boys and psychopaths. It's not how Star Trek got its start and that's not what actual Star Trek fans want. You studio execs represent absolutely *everything* that Gene Roddenberry hated when he was trying to pitch Star Trek to TV.
There is nothing wrong with a Series based on a fictional War (Deep Space Nine) if it is thought out. If it is given a fictional historical context. S-PLOSIONS! Just for the sake of having them - NO! BLUEY PHASERS REDDY BADDIES Phew Phew Phew! Welcome to your STD - did you bring your Penicillin?
The executives to whom you pen your comment could not care less about Trek fans or its principles. As long as $$, they’ll pander like ten dollar whores.
STD Klingon war was not real, there was only a Romulan War between 2062 through 2260, and that was the only war back then, CBS has to screw over everyone
I agree with you, but I still enjoyed Abram's Star Trek movies. For me, Movies need lots of action and a good plot, but only TV shows really have the time to explore thought provoking scenarios. For me ST: Discovery (Did they not think STD?) is the big failure here.
Yup.
and "The Orville" is more Star Trek than JJ "star trek" 11 (2009) & especially "star trek" Discovery
I Love the Orville. The characters feel fresh. When the Captain's ex became first officer, I thought oh here we go. The Captain get's the ship into trouble and it's his smart ar$e female first officer who always bails him out before chastising him for being too impulsive. But before the second episode was done, she was apologizing to him for her errors. How often do you see that on TV these days?
Killerspieler0815 the writers in Orville were from classic and tng Trek
I really enjoyed the third Star Trek movie, it felt like an episode from TOS to me.
Discovery is shite.
Trek was never Utopian. It was optimistic. In TNG Roddenberry's vision for future humanity radically changed. TNG and TOS do not fit together. DS9 adds new twists as does Voyager. JJ's Trek gave us nothing new as it took the most accessible aspects that had already been introduced and removed anything thoughtful, but it retained optimism.
STD takes the JJ frame and adds layers of angry, petty, pessimistic, racist, sexist, glorification of violence. It is an ugly show about evil people.
None of the shows fit with TOS, they're derivative.
I couldnt have said it better myself, and I'm not one to complement people either lol
you know the kelvin timeline is different canon than the prime timeline right? And I was introduced with voyager, and while I know a lot of hardcore fans don't like voyager i grew up on it and if it didn't exist i wouldn't be a star trek fan similarly i had grown out of star trek until the kelvin timeline movies came out and while they have flaws and are not perfectly the same as the rest of star trek i would not have gone back to voyager and then started watching the rest. so i think that has been a effect on many for the kelvin timeline.
Gallen Dugall And that is why I don't like any of the shows and stick with TOS. So you've actually made the case even stronger as to why STD sucks ass.
Gallen Dugall Absolute rubbish. Star trek discovery and the JJ Abrahams films keep totally with gene Rodenberrys vision. He got his vision from the work of Jaques Fressco and the Venus project. You should check it out instead of making a fool out of yourself. And star trek discovery is set in a different time period so the Klingon and other races are not going to abide by the same societal rules they follow in the other series. Your comment is that of a butt hurt ass hat. And how would you describe the Venus project society? Progressive? Liberal? If it's along the lines of any of those then all of your comments are full of shit, and you are at odds with all star treks. STD isn't shoving anything down our throats for anyone's sake, it's doing exactly what the others have done, stick with a vision of a possible future, whilst bringing up social issues of the day and how these visions compare. There's no sjw bullshit anywhere in STD, I don't give two tosses if someone was going to take a knee, America gives it's citizens the right to protest doesn't it?
Hollywood is trash. Has been for a while, and generally speaking anything they touch these days turns to absolute piss and shit. That established, the fact that we have continuations of a show when they stray so far from the original design and thinking is clearly for monetary purposes. They want to milk it more.
So for my part, Discovery, for it is not Star Trek, just fanfiction on tape, never happened. Done. Problem solved.
Seeing clips of real Star Trek is like a breath of fresh air after seeing Discovery.
Right, going all the way back to the pilot episode "The Cage" with Captain Pike, through Kirk's TOS, and all that came afterward, all of the commissioned women crew onboard the Enterprise and subsequent ships were "Officers and Gentlemen" in the true Naval tradition, then in space. Only God knows what this "captain" and crew of these, very aptly named, "STD people" are supposed to be!
Parenting, affirmative action style.
The Abrams films were NOT profitable. They generated the most revenue. That's how movies like Into Darkness and Beyond underperformed to bombed. They cost too much to make and the Abrams general audience did not materialized to pick up the slack.
They had Nokia phones.
I am forced to disagree with you completely regarding what you call the "weakness" of star trek, the idea that within a few hundred years we would attain global peace and cooperation and no longer be in conflict with ourselves.....this is the very core of why star trek was so important and special to it's fans....the promise of a better future. A promise that we would gain the wisdom not to destroy ourselves. That is the very core of what made star trek special and unique. You act like this is bad idea....conflict can indeed be incorporated...it was done many times in the original series.
David Snead this😚🤗
I agree with you completely, thanks for writing exactly what I was thinking about this review.
Remember there was no Muslims in Star Trek. Why do you think that is ;)
You ever notice there's also no Christianity, no Judiasm, no human religion of any kind in Star Trek? It's an entirely secular society, and that's for a reason.
At least Star Trek Online keeps the series intact... and it keeps the dignity of the fandom intact too, so does the prime timeline too,
Star Trek: Diversity.
For the record, Dave, NO, the Abrams Trek films are NOT the most successful in the franchise. When you adjust all the numbers you have to adjust to make a fair comparison, the Trek films of the 80s are far more successful.
The 1979 film "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" made the most money, while 1982's "The Wrath of Kahn" was the best return on investment. BTW "The Voyage Home," released in 1986 is runner up in both categories.
In fact, When you factor in the real costs of doing business, Abrams Trek films may have actually LOST money. But Hollywood doesn't seem to want to tell THAT story.
The 2009 Star Trek movie completely tanked virtually anywhere outside the US. In much of Europe it was hardly even advertized (mostly due to the TV show being relatively obscure there, save maybe for the likes of the UK and Germany). Its domestic box office accounted for almost 70% of its global revenues which is laughably low compared to other hits of that year, such as Harry Potter 6 or Avatar, whose domestic box office was only in the areas of 30%.
The next two movies did better but even in their case the US and Canada make for some 50% of the overall income which most definitely does _not_ put them in the category of a global success. At any rate, to say that the "original" ST reboot made the franchise popular for new audiences is a _gross_ overstatement.
Yes, actually this makes a lot of sense to me. The Star Wars franchise is also front loaded towards North America as I understand it.
Star Wars has also always been more geared towards the Americans than, say, the likes of the franchises I mentioned before but it is nevertheless a global phenomenon. It's absolutely beloved in Europe, Australia and Japan (I think only Italy is somewhat indifferent: Rogue One scored only around $10 million there which is quite low). It differs from country to country, sure, but I can assure you that every man between, say, 10 and 65 in the UK, Germany, Poland or Scandinavia will be 100% aware of who Darth Vader is, as well as the Force, the dark side, the evil Empire and so on. The release of every new SW movie around here is a great event.
Contrary, it doesn't seem like Star Wars is all that popular in Latin America.
Fair point. I think my only point here was that Star Wars is less of a phenomena around the world than it is here, where it is indisputably the biggest movie franchise in history. Star Trek's popularity has always been even more localized, but that has always been counterpointed by the franchises success in merchandisng and overall staying power year over year. Especially impressive when you consider that Star Trek is really a Television franchise not a movie franchise. Either way, I think we both agree that Abrams films are NOT the most popular versions of the series.
yarpen26 I do love the Star Destroyers crashing into each other, that was the best scene
...awkward moment when you like Star Trek Enterprise.
It's not awkward now, it's awkward now if you like STD
It's not awkward. My dad (a legit trekkie) and some other people think that Enterprise was the last time it was good. After that it went downhill. (I've never seen Enterprise so...)
I liked Enterprise too. But I couldn't shake the feeling that eventually Archer would make that final leap home ..... (Al?! Are you there Al?! ....)
As weird as it might be for someone who liked the show, I can't help thinking that if they'd cast someone else as Captain Archer (Bakula was too well known) and maybe recast Tucker with someone more 'serious' as well (even though I did like the actor playing Tucker) that it would have been more successful. It just felt like it was missing something to me ..... the cast wasn't quite right.
Enterprise got a lot better in the second half, but you're absolutely right about Bakula. Also really hated T'Pol - she was literally just there to be the new 7of9 and have weird sweaty scenes after missions. Absolute waste.
Good you feel awkward, that is your first step toward realizing that 'Star Trek' was only added to the title in season three, when the network insisted they commit to it or GTFO. They (B&B) never intended to make that connection, because they only wanted the intellectual property name value to sell their own time travel series.
i will not watch this show. it is not star trek
Your are correct. however I may watch it simply for research purposes so I can debate the matter more fully.
Novarcharesk lol. Straight to the name calling.
“Are u afraid of me or disgusted by my presence” loved it
Great comments Dave - I watched the first ever Star Trek and have been a trekkie through the years - still am at 65 but unfortunately it has lost its soul - I dont recognise it anymore and struggling with Discovery. This may be the end of ST for me - I will have to be happy to watch old re-runs
The Orville is the true Star Trek.
trha2222 I would.
Orville is the closest you can get to a true star trek series.
Orville is a lame comedy show...
perhaps in theme, but it is cheap and cartoony
Correct me if I'm wrong. The Orville has had one, count 'em ONE, season, right? AND, that 'season" was, what, SIX episodes? StarTrek, TOS, didn't really start finding itself until the SECOND season, and that was after TWENTY-SIX episodes in season one! The people tearing Orville down must be studio heads; they have the same "it's gotta be a fucking WINNER from the VERY FIRST show, or it gets cancelled!" mentality. You don't give the show time for character development, script betterment, or anything ELSE! The show is "funny"? It's INTENDED to be. Cheap? I think it matches the special effects of films costing MUCH more than the budget the show works with. Maybe the scripts could use some work; THAT'S a function of TIME, to improve and adapt, to let the writers feel their way into the characters and situations. How do you expect the show to get better if you don't give it a chance to? Or is it that you just don't give a shit?
Mike Grossberg do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.
Sarek was angry that Spock joined Starfleet instead of becoming a scientist on Vulcan. That's how I always understood their estrangement.
Right. He was the Vulcan ambassador to Earth who married a human. If he's angry at Spock for being half-human he should reevaluate his life choices. And bearing all that in mind, it wouldn't seem out of character for him to adopt a human child that was orphaned during a Klingon attack.
Vulcans have emotions, they just suppress them. Spock lost control on several occasions, and when Sarek was dying of old age, he also lost control on Star Trek: TNG.
They lost me at a woman named Michael. I thought they were calling her by her surname.
Actually, women with masculine names are more common than you think.
TheVeritas1 so common people almost never meet one? And neutral names like Kris, Kim or Alex don't count.
TheVeritas1 Agreed, but how is this justified in STD? Sex confusion is the declared intention.
I'm not paying CBS to view their ads and thus haven't seen any Discovery show. But maybe Michael is just transgender? You know, a former dude who didn't change its name after changing its sex ? Did they never explain the reason for her masculine name? I hear the homosexuals blatantly remind the audience of their sexual preference in many episodes.
The actress Michael Learned was born in 1939. So Michael Burnham’s name, though unusual for a woman, is not unique. Quite a few Hebrew names can be borne by members of either sex - Michael, which is Hebrew, may be one of them. Language-wise, I don’t think there is any reason why it can’t be a girl’s name. In 300 years’ time, it may be.
Non of which means that SJWishness is not at work here.
You had issues with Star Trek's core philosophy from the beginning?
Really?
Let alone it has nothing to do with "humans gettin' along, there's no conflict", in fact every single episode is about some conflict of ideas, reason and logic vs feelings, etc...
Roddenberry used alien planets and alien people to discuss human conflicts, and analyze them through the eyes of reason.
Watch again "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" to understand Gene's criticism on racism, for example, and to grasp his storytelling, and when you'll get it, you'll start to understand what Star Trek is.
You are not sure about something, sure about something else, still your reply is useless.
Me neither, do you have a point?
ChristianIce chill nigga
+Deep
Peace Bro, everybody can be wrong from time to time ;)
All of the conflict was human verses aliens, or aliens verses other aliens. There was very little if any human on human conflict.
The "humans" of the Star Trek franchise have always had this disquieting "Its a Small World" snow globe look and feel about them. No person in an actual military looks or acts anything like the crew members of the various Star Trek shows.
Nice to see some of the fans taking matters into their own hands. If the current professional writing staff for Star Wars and Star Trek is inadequate, then just make the effort to produce your own shows. I've seen some of these so-called "fan productions" and many of them are VERY good. Much more compelling and faithful to the original shows and plotlines than the current crop of professionally produced shows.
J.J. Abrams: "I shall piss on it and call it mine."
JJ Abrams has killed Trek. In a month or two, he'll finish killing Star Wars. He is evil incarnate.
Crystal Gibson ask Cloverfield He really fucked up that franchise
Abrams, Slayer of Sci-fi, Scourge of Galaxies, Lord of the Lens Flare.
Dark Lord of the Lens Flare actually. Or, maybe, Dork Lord of the Lens Flare?
I'm a huge star trek fan. But I love the new movies. I like discovery.
It's been raped and denied Justice like a male rape victim
Modern Star Trek: an attempt to reinvent the wheel without being all that clear about what shape it's actually supposed to be.
I agree with everything you said STD doesn't have a clue CBS is shitting on all Star Trek fans
Star trek is dead to me.
Your loss.
Esther Barba No his, Star Trek's
If surviving into the modern age means Trek has to replace external conflict (conflict with aliens, obstacles, etc) with internal conflict (bitchy whining between crew members), then I say it would be better for the franchise to go back to being dead and buried. Anything that ditches the fundamental premise that humans (and the Federation in general) have learned to work together, even when they have differences of opinion, is ditching the heart of Star Trek.
Maybe the point of STD is to show how humans were before the TOS days? But isn't STD in the same time frame as STE ? Captain Archer's crew wasn't a bunch of whiny back-stabbers like the STD characters seem to be.
And we need some positivity on television! There's nothing wrong with having people get along. There's gotta be _some_ way to make a good show with ridiculous amounts of conflict. I mean, come on, be creative! Figure something out!
@@H2Obsession STD is contemporary with TOS (starts about 10 years before Kirk's 5 year mission). Presume you've not watched the end of the season, but the meet the 1701 and Capt Pike is commanding Discovery at the start of S2.
It's just so sad :-( that one person can kill such a great and huge franchise :-\ one person should not have such power, ever. By the way i hate JJ and everything he represents and do.
Why did they go with a prequel (Discovery) after a prequel (Enterprise)?
I'm still waiting for one between TOS and NEXT GEN.
Brilliant analysis.
I dunno, I think he could have summed it all up a lot quicker by just saying that the new series is the Stargate: Universe of the franchise.
More like a rant.
It's why I subscribe to his channel..
honestly i thought stargate U was the best in the whole lot an i cant stand where startrek is goin now
nope, not really
I want anaxar!!!!! and we still need to fight the new 'quidelines' for fan made stuff. that prevents making Actual good fan stuff.
tacpaws And if a Fan Film actually had better ratings than Studio Produced Product? That would be embarrassing. Herpes vs Axanar? Axanar for the win.
Very funny that Klingon scene.
The first episode of Star Trek Discovery didn't keep my attention because even though it happens 20 years before Captain Kirks' 5-year voyage, the technology was way beyond the original series. That being said, JJ Abrahams' Star Trek happens in the "alternative-universe" and should be looked as such. I do love consistency but the franchise was dying and needed a new direction and new fans to survive.
I usually don't like anything to say, but here you hit the nail on the head but I personally enjoy all of Voyager. And thought the whole point was the Janeway refused to break ties with Starfleet nomatter what happen
Well said
I almost thought I was the only one who felt like this until i found your videos
How was enterprise the first full arch? What about DS9?
vitamindubya what about Worf's quest redemption in TNG? Or Picard's PTSD after becoming a Borg? Or in TOS, Spock's constant quest to come to grips with his dual nature? Just because they did their story arcs in the way that was not quite traditional a different type of telling does that not make them story arcs? I would disagree
mlapointej they seemed lightly touched on. Nowhere near ds9 arch
He means an entire season long story arc, where one each episode affects the next and so forth, with no stand alone episodes. Yes, other Star Trek series had story arcs, but none were like Enterprise season 3.
Axanar should have gotten the green light, not this tripe.
I recently binged enterprise for the first time since I watched it as a kid and the first 2 seasons are good, the entire series is good. I really don't understand the hate, I think people just like to hate new things.
Yes. Yes! OH MY GOD, YES!
First time I've watched one of your vids and I cannot agree more. Though disheartened when I saw pre-production photos of STD, I sat down with an open mind to watch it. I couldn't even make it five minutes before I had to start writing down all the issues with the look, feel, and tone of the show, not to mention story elements that made no sense. After finishing episode one, I had zero interest in seeing the second part (I have since read from those who like STD that it gets "a lot" better, but I don't know if I'm willing to invest my time in trying to get there).
It doesn't get better. The whole show makes tripe look appetizing by comparison.
In my opinion, the Star Trek franchise is pretty much dead at this point, and that's mainly because of how little CBS cares about it by basically dumbing it down to the point where it doesn't even recognize Gene Roddenberry's original creation.
It's true that Voyager had problems, but it was the last series to stay true to the Star Trek formula, and to many fans was the last good thing to come out of the franchise. After that, the franchise began to fall apart and became progressively worse with each new installment, starting with Enterprise, which was cancelled just when it started to get good, and then after a few years of waiting, we get the very divisive film trilogy, which despite it's problems, resembles Star Trek FAR more than Discovery ever has.
The shutdown of the fan-film Axanar was the final nail in the coffin, showing how little CBS cared about Star Trek's fandom and how much the fans cared about the franchise, placing all these unfair rules and restrictions that suppressed the fandom's creative talent. This leads us to Discovery, a sci-fi series cut from the same "dark and edgy" cloth that Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead were made from and injected with SJW ideals that were on the complete opposite side of the spectrum from what Star Trek was.
The worst part is that we live in a time where Star Trek just isn't relevant anymore... in fact, science fiction in general isn't really big anymore considering superheroes are what everyone's into right now no thanks to the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. When it comes to mainstream sci-fi franchises, your only real choice is Star Wars, and that's really it. Unless you count a parody series like The Orville, there's nothing that's really like Star Trek out there for fans to enjoy.
Masterge77 if you think that Orville is parody, you haven’t watched it. It’s the best show on tv as far as I’m concerned. It’s the truest Trek without a stick up it’s ass. It’s heartfelt, sincere, but also humorous. The writing is casual but believable and the actors are terrific. I haven’t watched STD since the pile of crap free premier, but I’ve already rewatched all of The Orville season 1 - twice.
Masterge77 there are fans they just don’t listen to us
Since there's obviously a division, I think we need a collective name for people who like STD and Abrams Trek. I'm leaning toward "Drekkies", (or "Dreckies" since Drekkies are probably too stupid to get it unless you really spell it out),
@IRONMANAustralia: Then I should call you a *TREK NAZI* because like them you claim the right to *SEGREGATE* people in to categories.
"OMG, how dare you do the exact same thing I do??!"
TREKTIFA
How do you think the Discovery writers would handle the Ferengi if given the chance ?
Javier Gallegos I reckon they will be way over the top, cause whilst they did treat their women like second class citizens, they also had some good qualities, like no slavery or wars, so this time round they will be slave owners and have wars.
Badly, Ferengi became real characters when they moved away from hur durr capitalism is evulz in ds9. Considering the liberal tendencies in discovery I supose they would regress to their strawman status.
My biggest gripe about DS9 is what they did to the Ferengi over the course of the story. Using them as the comic relief in an often-dark plotline was fine (you could always tell when there was a really painful pitched battle in the Dominion War there'd be a Ferengi episode coming next week) but the writers couldn't even straw man them properly when they were taken something approaching seriously. Quark was arguably the deepest and most nuanced character of that whole series.
The problem was they never quite let the Ferengi play the intellectual foil to the Federation. I mainly blame bringing in Quark's mom as a character. That simply dragged the show into feminist ranting. Episodes that featured her were usually painful.
I dunno, Quarks mom was sound for me because she actually used economical arguments for women being treated equally instead of some feminist cultural bullshit. It was actually something that if they played ferengis as real hardcore capitalists would have come sooner, but since they were built as a strawman from the get go, the writers had to solve that in some way.
Or more simply put, new Star Trek is all of the form, none of the substance.
Yup, the name, logo, ships, the universe, but, none of Star Trek's essence. That has found a new host.
the 3 moments in new star trek that made me realize that trek was dead:
1. when they reversed the scene with Kirk and spock in into darkness.
2. when spock and u'hura decided they needed a public makeout session in the middle of a space battle
3. the Chinese character had to show how Chinese he was by having a samurai sword battle on top of a space laser drilling platform.
the reversal of Kirk and Spock was such an awful slight to both of their characters and an obvious snub to the original film i l almost walked out of the theater except it was nearly the end of the movie at that point.
dedf15 and then in 3rd one they made the Asian character gay for no reason. They actually blended the real life of the original actor with the character. Ridiculous
@Alex sounds like what you are saying is Lt Sulu was a token arxhetype, instead of being an individual.
I Disagree that the first two seasons of Enterprise were bad. I enjoyed the temporal cold war story arc that people seem to forget was a thing, and Silik was a really interesting character. It should be noted that ratings were actually higher for the first two seasons then the latter and at their lowest the second season was still over 4 which is actually pretty good. If anything seemed bad it was the end of the final season as it seemed like they crammed in as much as they could, knowing there would not be another season.
I think I respect the ENT the most: it was built on most difficult premise (starting from looking less modern than other shows) - but it was worthy prequel. Had great story arcs (like one with Brent Spinner), best doctor in the franchise (Phlox), complex relations with races - Vulcans and Archer Shran chemistry worked superbly. VOY was basically TOS clone in modern settings, DS9 interesting departure and TNG what Roddenberry's vision was supposed to be. Also, most episodes had better concept and writing than today's blockbusters (even those that aren't that bad) - e.g. Darmok vs. Arrival.
star trek discovery is the daycare show for the kid generation
As it turned out...they didn't respect the brand, the fans , or lore at all.
My first Star Trek show that i watched was Discovery, and I enjoy it, but I understand why someone who is a Star Trek fan would hate it. I know the feeling when something you like is dumbed down.
The kid dressing up as Batman for Halloween isn't Batman. He's just a kid dressed as Batman.
This new crap is dressed as star trek, but it's not star trek.
I am loving your new intro and videos, Dave.
Cheers man
and the Klingons look like the magog from andromeda
A kingon would find opening fire first as cowardly, trying to sneak a first shot in instead of goading your enemy.
Love your Startrek videos man. Keep up the good work.
Great review! Glad I wasn't the only one who saw the dumbing down and SJW dilution of Star Trek. I call this series STD. Appropo. Agree with your assessment at the 2:07 mark. Creative and cultural vandalism. Keep it up Dave!