Steve C wrote:
Supahewok wrote:...Even if it's not a joke, I don't see why yall are calling it ST:D. TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, ST:D. One of these things is not like the others.
Multiple reasons. First "Discovery" is an incredibly stupid choice for a name. There's already a Discovery TV show on the Discovery channel that's watched by the same demographic in the same timeslots that's been around for years (decades?). I'd prefer to simply call it "Discovery" (dropping the ST:) except can't because they are bad at naming things. Second, your abbreviations aren't the ones I use. I use ST:TOS, ST:TNG, DS9, ST:VOY, Enterprise, and ST:movie reboots. They aren't consistent. I would prefer if they were. Again, they are bad at naming things.
Finally ST:D is a good abbreviation for it... because they are bad at naming things. That is something that they themselves picked with hundreds of eyes seeing that name before it was finalized. That bad choice deserves to be highlighted and scorned. "ST:D" represents the defining characteristic of what's wrong with the show. ST:D makes inexplicably bad choices when it comes to the easy, no-brainer decisions. It's so bad and obvious that I feel that there's some executive somewhere that's purposely fucking this show over. A kind of poison or disease from within. By someone who must be a dick.
...that is incredibly petty and factually wrong. There is no broadcasted Discovery TV show with Discovery in the name currently running at this time. I did my due diligence and checked both Discovery US and Discovery Canada. The closest I could find was Discovery Presents in the US, which is a brand name for a series of unrelated specials that only air once every few months, and What's On Discovery in Canada, whose web page is kinda blank and weird, and my best conclusion is that it's just Discovery Presents under a different name (it isn't listed on Canada's weekly broadcast schedule at all). So, as I said, factually wrong. And, literally your only explanation for why it's a bad name was because of this non-existing other TV show, so the entire rest of your post is invalid since it assumes that you adequately demonstrated that Discovery was a bad name. And even if it were true, you seem to think that people are going to confuse Star Trek
with the Discovery channel. That's
You would have a much stronger case if you argued that Discovery doesn't fit due to it clashing with the theme, setting, or tone of the show. I could see that. From what I've read and heard from you guys who've seen it, it isn't trying to be classic Trek with exploration and a sci-fi dilemma of the week through which to examine a piece of human or universal nature, but rather more like some HBO series with a long form plot line revolving around politicking with the Klingons, which any Trekkie already knows plenty about (seriously, Klingons are played out by now). Without seeing it for myself, I couldn't say either way whether that's right or not, but I could respect the argument as one worth discussing. As it is, it just looks like you're trying to find any little excuse to bash on a show that offended you in some other way, regardless of how little sense it makes.
Daemian Lucifer wrote:...like Steve C mentioned it was never consistent.TOS shouldnt even be called that since its name is just star trek.Not to mention that both tng and ds9 are not the same type of abbreviations as voy and ent.
Both of those points are asinine. Once a second series was being made, obviously a distinction needed to be made between the original show and the rest of the franchise. It's like pointing out that we shouldn't call the first Star Wars movie A New Hope or Episode 4 because it originally played in theaters as just Star Wars. Yeah, okay, have your pedantry point while everybody else rolls their eyes and tries to have a real conversation. It is not endearing and accomplishes absolutely nothing. Same goes for saying that the abbreviations for the other shows aren't consistent because some were abbreviations of multiple words while others weren't, while ignoring the vastly more pertinent facts that they're all 3 characters and clearly identify their respective series with no ambiguity. Great, have your pedantry point. I hope you're keeping track of them. ST:D doesn't fit with them, if for no other reason than that it's 4 characters and we don't call the other single word shows ST:V or ST:E. That
is inconsistency that's actually pertinent. But hey, it's the internet, call it whatever makes you happy. Just don't act like it makes more, or even any sense.Anyways
, I'm almost through the first season of TOS and I think I've narrowed down what is causing my constant surprise and thrown expectations. The mention of Klingons above reminded me of it. There's no Klingons. Not yet. With the TOS movies (a lot of which I actually have seen) and then TNG and DS9 both having Klingons being such a large part of the setting, my expectations were unconsciously set for Klingons to have a big part in the TOS show, or at least for there to be the atmosphere of the Cold War analogy I've heard for years they're supposed to represent. But not only has there been no mention of Klingons, the Romulans showed up first and were said to have fought a war with the Federation as part of the lore of the setting when they're introduced. And the same thing goes for the Mirror Universe. It seems like it was just a single episode of TOS, yet DS9 used it once a season for most of its run. And Kirk has this big reputation as a ladies' man who sleeps with every alien he meets, but so far all he's done is bat eyes at his different yeomen and that one illusion of an ex-girlfriend from many years before (...and I guess that one uncomfortable episode of sexual assault/rape when Kirk got an "evil" half split off from him... but the show does it's best to gloss over that in 60's fashion) (and speaking of casual 60's misogyny, what the fuck with the female uniforms, there was LITERALLY
a panty shot with Uhura). Riker
from TNG is far more promiscuous than Kirk (thus far).
Now maybe this whole thing gets turned upside down in season 2 or the vilified season 3 (the latter wouldn't surprise me, based on how much dislike it gets, of setting up all the bad Trek tropes that later series follow fastiduously). But so far, I'm enjoying Trek just being Trek without trying to make its setting a whole big thing. Its more like the Twilight Zone, just with the same cast every episode and not as freaky. And honestly, despite protestations of Trek fans online, I think that's why a "true" Trek show hasn't aired in ages. It's just not a popular form of TV anymore, at least for the moment. The big deal right now is the longform, interconnected, glossy and star studded premium shows like Boardwalk Empire, Breaking Bad, Mad Men, Game of Thrones. It's a way of TV that wasn't possible, or at least deemed feasible, before internet streaming and archiving. To make an analogy, if Star Trek is an anthology series of sci-fi short stories, what's in vogue for TV right now is the big thousand page, 8 book epic series of novels. That kind of sci-fi just doesn't get made much anymore. Some novels, like whatever Sudanna is reading this week (not derogatory, some day I'm gonna go through your post history in that thread and make a list of interesting novels to read), but the big magazines back when original Trek aired that was the lifeblood of that sort of thing is long dead, and I don't think anything has taken its place to the same degree as what those magazines once held. And regardless of what people say about video vs print, the truth of the matter is that nothing happens in video that doesn't follow something that's going on in print. If short story classic sci-fi of interesting problems isn't being written, then the truth is that despite whatever demand it may hold, we aren't gonna see it on TV. It's pretty sad. That form filled a particular niche that nothing else fully satisfies. But c'est la vie. The world is what it is.
Anyway, that's my musings for the day. The episode with the man-child in a Napoleon costume sucked.