• kbal@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    I started trying to place them on a triangle with the three corners labelled “good trek”, “bad trek”, and “not trek” but I soon ended up arguing against my own choices of where I’d put them.

    • Stamets@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Not to mention that gatekeeping is kinda gross and actively goes against what Star Trek stands for. You wanna label good trek or bad trek, fine. But not trek? Come on.

      • Banrik@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I think on the mindset of what trek stands, bringing humanity together & tearing down divisions is really at the core. I think it’s completely fine to dissociate with elements of the media that seem to go contrary to that when you want to engage with something that pushes the idea of a positive future.

        • Stamets@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          I think it’s completely fine to dissociate with elements of the media that seem to go contrary to that when you want to engage with something that pushes the idea of a positive future.

          What elements? I’m begging you. I keep seeing people claim that the newer Treks go contrary to the older Treks but no one has ever been able to give me any examples of stuff that hasn’t already been done in Trek before. Stuff they either didn’t know about, forgot about, or purposefully ignored.

          • Banrik@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Answering everything with combat & lasers? Like I love a good kirk fight on a rock outside cali but give me a well written “we are stronger together speech” or some introspective or our differences make us stronger together, which I think most trek has been able to do.looking at kelvin trek or picard & saying no thanks to that I think is fine?

            • Stamets@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago

              but give me a well written “we are stronger together speech” or some introspective or our differences make us stronger together, which I think most trek has been able to do

              Dude. That was literally the resolution of the first season after everything that they had been through. The war was won with a speech.


              Season 1: Episode 15 - Will You Take My Hand?

              Beginning of Act 3:

              Burnham: Is this how Starfleet wins the war? Genocide?!

              Cornwell: You want to do this here? Fine. Terms of atrocity are convenient after the fact. The Klingons are on the verge of wiping out the Federation.

              Burnham: Yes. But ask yourself: Why did you put this mission in the hands of a Terran and why the secrecy? It’s because you know it’s not who we are.

              Cornwell: It very soon will be. We do not have the luxury of principles.

              Burnham: That is all we have, Admiral… A year ago, I stood alone. I believed that our survival was more important than our principles. I was wrong. Do we need a mutiny today to prove who we are?

              <Shots of the bridge crew looking with Burnham in solidarity before Acting Captain Saru stands up>

              Saru: We are Starfleet.


              Not enough? Same episode but later when they’re talking to L’rell.


              <Burnham and L’rell enter the shrine where the hydrobomb was planted by Georgiou>

              L’rell: What is this?

              Burnham: This is the place the Federation crushed the Klingons. We planted a bomb in the heart of your homeworld. Qo’noS will be destroyed.

              L’rell: You bring me here to gloat?

              Burnham: No. To offer you an alternative. Klingons respond to strength. Use the fate of Qo’noS to bend them to your will. Preserve your civilization rather than watch it be destroyed.

              L’rell: But… I am no one.

              Ash Tyler: You once told Voq that you didn’t want the mantle of leadership. It’s time for you to leave the shadows.

              <They then give L’rell the codes for the bomb. The only piece of leverage that Starfleet has, they have now given to the Klingons. Do note that the episode also shows Birds of Prey heading towards Earth. This was the last stand.>


              Then there’s the speech that Burnham gives to Starfleet after the war: Link here

              So, how does that not fit the criteria? I can find examples from the other seasons too, if you’d prefer.

              The only difference between Star Trek: Discovery using speeches and any older Trek is that Star Trek: Discovery is serialized. Meaning that character growth happening instantly in one episode is going to feel awkward, stilted and like bad writing. If you want a speech like that you need to earn it now. You can’t just throw it out willy nilly for major threats like that. Yet, when they deal with smaller threats in the other seasons, they do use speeches like that. First thought that comes to mind was when they head to earth in Season 3 and force a chat that ends a standoff been going on near a century. Or the other chat they had with the Vulcans in Unification III.

              There are plenty of those speeches.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            4 days ago

            IMO it’s got to have a healthy shot of humor. Running gags work for me, but keeping it light at least at the edges or the ending is very important. Too much humorless drama, too much self-seriousness, too many traumas means I’m not going to watch it. Make it fun. Give me zingers to balance the shooting and screaming. Have Spock insult McCoy every so slightly. Let Kirk side eye them both. That’s a good wrap for Trek.

          • kbal@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            If mentioning the existence of critics of this particular film isn’t wholly forbiedden now, here is one take which mentions some ways in which it perceived by some as atypical of traditional Star Trek.

            • Stamets@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              4 days ago
              1. That movie was released today. That straight up does not count. If it hasn’t been released for 24 hours then it can’t have had an impact on all the Trek shows that have been going on for nearly the better part of the past decade. Also, you can quite easily ignore literally everything about that movie and it will never have an impact on the overall lore or standing of Star Trek.

              2. It’s about a black ops CIA organization within Starfleet that is morally corrupt and fucked. Section 31 is literally supposed to be contrary to the rest of Starfleet. I wouldn’t be shocked if that movie is too.

              3. I haven’t seen it yet and cannot comment on the substance of the movie at all nor do I want to read it considering it says there are spoilers.

              Do you have any examples from the past 10 years?

              • kbal@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                I wasn’t aiming to argue with you. Discovery is fine although it’s not for me. I was just expressing hope that the movie won’t be as bad as they say, since I still have some.

                • Stamets@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 days ago

                  I wasn’t aiming to argue with you

                  I asked for examples and you offered examples. You also started it with an argumentative phrase suggesting that critics of a movie cannot be mentioned on this community.

                  I was just expressing hope that the movie won’t be as bad as they say, since I still have some.

                  I heard people describe Discovery as essentially murdering the barely warm corpse of Star Trek. The show isn’t nearly as bad as that. All of these loud critics always end up being that. The loudest. Things are rarely as bad as they claim to be. I’m also very hesitant to accept criticisms from people whos livelihoods depend on clickbait.

                  • kbal@fedia.io
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 days ago

                    I was referring to my earlier comment which you deleted. It suggested that some people believe the new movie is unfaithful to the ideals they expect Star Trek to uphold, in a way that would represent “stuff that hasn’t already been done.” It is not difficult to find such opinions expressed all over the net. It was in that comment that I expressed the hope that they would be proven wrong.

      • abbadon420@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        I disagree. The orville is more trek than most new series. I also can’t recommend the podcast “Star Trek Outpost” enough. It’s brilliantly made.