How old do you think I am?

Descriptive with gay overtones?

"I hate Lower Decks, its animated!" So was TAS... So was TAS... Edit: Another fav; the musical episode is rubbish of SNW. They'd totally have done it in TOS or TNG is they'd come up with it. The series has the first on screen racial kiss... I do agree DIS is more woke then ST should be, but if thats their whole issue with DIS, thats sad because there has always been a element of "woke" to ST with a Japanese, Black woman and Russian on the main crew staff during an era of the USA history when the cold war was on, they knew what they were doing. My issue with the main character is she reads like a fanfiction self-insert. But heres the thing, I didn't go off the entire franchise because of DIS. Its badly written, most agree, with some of the worst ST writing ever in places and concepts that are far out there even for ST. But its what the crew wanted to do and thats it. I came into ST off of TNG, my father was a TOS fan and thats how I became a ST fan. To this day I still like ST because of TNG. I think the series you ride in on will be the reflection of your opinions of ST. But I see people act like Scotty didn't say "I know this ship like the back of my hand" and ST has always been this conservative, joke-less serious series. Its always been cringey, camp thing. Its popularity is mostly built on out of all its era, it was the only sci-fi show prepared not to be some dystopian future where mankind screwed up. The idea of going to space and discovering new things, making peace with alien races, while faces various challenges, that was a reflection of America they wanted the series to ask. I'm British, and the message the series message wasn't lost over the pond either.

Sure

Ha?

Sure

Because they should all like 60s cardboard sets?

@TrekTrav Did DS9 or Voyager, or even the red-headed stepchild that is Enterprise look like exacrly that? Why, no... no they didn't. Even Lower Decks manages to feel and look like Trek when it tries, and it tries fairly frequently.

Sure

Agreed

Could you name any of these 'new worlds' they discovered? I can't recall any. And weren't they nororiously going about the universe not 'boldly' but emotionally and crying like teenage girls all the time.

Sure

Yahhh

I actually did a video called 'The Ultimate Timeline' and another called 'First Contact Theory', basically discussing that every time travel episode in Trek alters details slightly. Meaning that the correct way to watch Trek is in creation order. Specifically in First Contact, the Borg incursion changed the Enterprise timeline, which altered other timelines etc. It's a very interesting topic. Thank you for commenting😁

* round of applause * Masterfully said , Thank you moon moon.

@@TrekTrav - It is very interesting, indeed. The First Contact scenario is interesting because the question arises, did it change the “original” timeline or was that what “secretly” happened all along? Did Q truly introduce the Borg and Federation to each other when he flung the Enterprise-D across the galaxy? Or did he simply make Picard and crew aware of something the Federation was secretly already aware of, as the Hanson expedition seems to suggest? It remains an open question. My frustration with Discovery was never whether or not Burnham should exist as Spock’s adopted sister (I defended her existence on my own channel) or who is or isn’t gay (I couldn’t care less). But I admit I am a stick in the mud when it comes to adhering to continuity-and yes, for me, that does include honoring visual continuity, as well as (and especially) making chronological EVENTS line up in a logical manner. It’s possible to not be overjoyed by the narrative direction a story takes, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it breaks continuity. Disney Star Wars has had its writing issues, but I have openly praised Disney for honoring and meticulously recreating the look and feel of 1970s sci-fi. We know that, the TOS Enterprise and the 60s visual esthetics and hairstyles of that era existed in the 2260s, because TNG “Relics,” DS9 “Trials and Tribble-ations” and ENT “In a Mirror, Darkly,” all reconfirmed and celebrated it, without the use of “cardboard” as has been often snarked. SNW, to its credit, has gone to great lengths to bring back a sense of that look and feel-which I appreciate. But as I mentioned above, the Gorn being the major Big Bad in a not-at-all subtle or ambiguous way, is a very concerning issue if this is supposed to be a direct prequel to TOS. That was my primary issue with Discovery. Why say that you’re writing a direct prequel to a beloved series if you’re just going to ignore it? What’s the purpose of that other than to deliberately piss off your existing fanbase? And I don’t adhere to strange logic of some that you win a windfall of new fans by telling your existing fans to eff off. That doesn’t make any sense. I’m a fan of a number a pre-existing franchises, because my parents were fans of them-and I’m actively introducing things that I love to the next generation, and the kids love them. Don’t think for a second that kids don’t adore old Hanna-Barbera cartoons just because they were made fifty to sixty years before they were born. They love them because they are timeless. And Star Trek is timeless. There were two things they could have done with Discovery. They could have taken the same basic storyline, and set it post-Nemesis, and no one would’ve batted an eye in terms of continuity. A “spore drive” that could instantly send you anywhere in the universe would be a great storytelling device in that context, without Janeway opening a classified file and yelling, “Wait! WTF!?” LOL! Or…second option, the thing I was really excited about in 2016-ish, would have been to do an actual TRUE prequel to TOS, set in the Cage-era, instead of an unrecognizable mess from writers who seemingly never watched the series they claim to be writing a prequel to. And if the goal is to attract new fans in addition the old ones, then why base your whole premise on such a “deep cut” as the Cage-era? Novice fans don’t know or care anything about The Cage-era, but old timers like me certainly do-and they’re effectively telling me to eff off. So, who was it for? It never made sense. I think the primary difference between the 90s Berman era and the current Kurtzman era, wasn’t that the writers back then got everything right, but they at least made an attempt to work within the existing continuity and reconcile existing errors. We Trekkies are the kings and queens of nitpickers (that’s part of the fun), but there was never any perception that they openly hated the source material. Let’s just say we get a far different impression from first season Discovery. So, the question is (perhaps similar to the First Contact scenario) is, could the events of Discovery and Strange New Worlds ultimately BECOME reconcilable with the canonical chronology of The Original Series? It’s a tall order, but not necessarily impossible. “Enterprise” basically fixed the potential continuity error when it came to Seven of Nine’s origin story, in which her family was studying the Borg, apparently years before the Enterprise-D encountered them. “Enterprise” effectively canonized a fan theory that Starfleet already secretly knew about the Borg, with a rather well written sequel to “First Contact.” The time paradox comes full circle, the existing timeline preserved. Could SNW have taken steps to repair the anachronism that is “Star Trek: Discovery?” I think they could have, and in early SNW season 1, I was cautiously optimistic that they were attempting to do just that. But then here came the Gorn in the most in-your-face way they possibly could. <sigh> That’s when I basically lost hope that the writers cared anything at all about continuity with TOS. But then (to their credit??) came out with “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow” in which they basically said, “Na, don’t worry about it. It’s a new timeline.” Not the solution I would have preferred, but at least it’s a solution.

So good.

It is kinda😁

Lol, the episode Momento Mori. Actively inserts itself in to canon. By referencing events in TNG (Unification 3 and The Chase), it once again aligns it's timeline with TNG. As much as people dislike Discovery, it's firmly in there.

@@TrekTrav What comes after does not affect what came before. Discovery was not mentioned in Unification 3 or The Chase and therefore does not exist within them. I think, like Billy Pilgrim, you've become unstuck in time. Discovery can insert itself all it wants, if it is not cannon, those insertions are meaningless to what came before. If someone never watched Discovery, those episodes still work fine.

@PeBoVision except SNW

@@TrekTrav I said exactly that

Slimy?

@@TrekTrav Yes, a lot of focus on 'slimy' personal relationships that have no place in a Scifi series, we have soap opera's for that. Plus the religious undertone of it all, writers that seems to live in a mystical world with ghosts and creators, and on top of that of course NASA should invest in mushrooms for their next space travel means of propulsion. I don't know what's going on in the heads of the writers, but I wouldn't want to be there.

@brulaapgaapmeester8052 A. Star Trek was built on Captain Kirk and other being "slimy" B. Ghosts and creators? What are you on about? C. Warp drive is just as fanciful as Mycelium.

@@TrekTrav If you think warp drive is as fanciful as space tardegrades you really need to read up on some modern up to date physics

Definately

Just going to planets to eat and getting in to trouble...lol

It just annoys me so much. I actually wish they would ignore people and just do what they want.

@@TrekTrav Didnt Leonard Nimoy say something to that effect? Something about how its not a directors job to listen to the fans, The fans don't know what they want. Something like that, Probably not as insulting I cant find the original quote :D

@greg6500 it's something I firmly agree with. Don't try to please fans, just try to make a good show or movie.

I understand what you are saying. All I'm pointing out is the pattern of hatred the seems prevalent on Facebook from a certain demographic

Also the skeleton crew isn't terribly written and I enjoy that show.

So, this is just genuine dislike, which is fine. I have no problem with people who genuinely don't like a show. You do mention 'lore' but the jump to your opinion of something you didn't like, which has nothing to do with lore. I'm glad you commented, it was nice to read your opinion. Although, did you forget Season 4? You don't mention anything about the Ten-C? TBH, the best thing about Stamets and Culver was they were representing the drug crazy, promiscuous gays like every other tv show.

No, I didn't just jump to my opinion of something I didn't like, trektrav. I demonstrate a nuanced understanding of star trek's legacy as well as a deep understanding of discovery's story structure and eloquently explain how discovery fails to honor this by supporting my statements with examples from the series. I focus on character development and story telling in a well supported and well reasoned manner. You just used a strawman argument. Which is what I'm used to you doing. You completely missed all the nuance in my argument yet again. Just like discovery misses all of the nuance of Star Trek. And no I didn't miss season 4. That was the season the mutant child destroyed all the warp drives in the galaxy when he screames. Burnham's boyfriend tries to genocide the 10-C, displaying extremely poor judgement on Burnham's part. She should have been demoted for that alone. Whataboutism btw. So you like Staments and Culber because they're not stereotypes? That they're just no story at all? Btw I knew that about you. You told me before and I gave you an example of decent story telling about the lgbt struggle. And you strawman fallacied that argument too.

@Jamex07 ohhhhh....now I know who this is. Welcome back.

@@TrekTrav yup. Good job. I dont come back often anymore. I think if you were able to acknowledge more of the diverse opinions out there about the show you would probably appeal to a broader cross section of viewers rather than just shooting down opinions you dont like. Look at it like a personal challenge. There are personal checks that we must all hold ourselves to in order to a) determine whether our own views are valid or not and b) in order to grow as individuals. Blaming it all on anti-wokism reminds me of Trudeau ignorantly shooting down any criticism of his government because its anti wokism even though his government lead the country into the greatest era of wage disparity in canadian history and yet he remains completely oblivious to his growing loss of support and popularity and is completely out of touch with the people he is supposed to represent or deliver information to. His hard headedness is leading him, and the country, to his/its doom. Leaving voters/viewers completely alienated and disenfranchised. This is meant to be more constructive criticism. Not a jab. Note how I had to preface i was gay 3 times in my first comment. I shouldn't have to do that to make a well reasoned argument. Which still hasn't and definitely won't be responded to.

Yea, I mostly agree.

Agreed. Season 1 of discovery was actually decent, and its 100% because of Jason Isaacs. I also didn't mind Michelle Yeoh's character, but again she's an amazing actress. Outside of that though, I think the following seasons are easily some of the worst written scripts in TV history. 7 signals All life destroyed All warp engines destroyed 5 puzzle pieces These are recycled season arcs and lazy quests fit for a video game for a 12 year old. I expect star wars to be better than this. And star wars is for kids.

TNG season one is a ruff ride, DS9 and VOY too

The first 2 are the same season

That's what I like😁

Oh yea, The D as a kid was a huge loss.

You dislike Discovery then?

Agree so much! Thanks for commenting!

It wasn't erased at all. In order for it too be then you would have to erase SNW, TNG, TOS, and a million other things.

I didn't say it was erased? I literally said the opposite? You seem confused.

Agree 100%

@@alexanderdeburdegala4609 TrekTrav often responds to the things that appeal to him the most. This whole video is that. Blaming all the criticism of Discovery on anti-wokism and sexism. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the show, including many in this comments section. I often got in debates with him and he would repeatedly ignore all my valid points and just respond with oversimplified ones. This is the problem with believing in appeals and not reason. Which is how Discovery differs from the other star treks like TOS, TNG, Voyager and DS9. Discovery is to these shows what religion is to science. What misinformation is to information. It appeals to people that like misinformation which is why the cross section of people that like Discovery often does not overlap with traditional trekkies. Traditional trekkies can clearly tell that it does not carry on the original values of the show, but that doesn't matter to people that would prefer to believe in conspiracy theories and tiktok junk.

@@Jamex07 All the straw all the man.

Lower Decks is canon. It's always been canon. I look at it as Star Trek told from a Lower Decker's pov

@@TrekTrav the last episode to me that split timeline of previous zklibgon design and Discovery klingons was a 4rth wall joke. But if its canon, no wonder we have diffrent factions of the fandom at odds with eachother.

@@TrekTrav No it isn't. You've been duped. It's a satirical comedy, and you look silly trying to say it's as legit as TNG. Get over it. It's a cartoon.

@joemitchell2589 I think you need to watch more behind the scenes stuff. Maybe 'Those Old Scientists' in SNWs. Lower Decks is definately canon.

Lol....I'd like to point out that the Spore drive is just as unrealistic as FTL warp drive. They are both made up things. It took me a while to get used to the Spore Drive too, but if you look at it as Discovery being a experimental ship then it makes more sense. At least in my head. I don't get the Pinball thing though.??

Disco Cultists always immediately run to people being " anti-woke " as the reason people hated the horrible writing. Then stick their fingers in their ears and go " la la la " when it comes to an reasonable debate. Also the comparison of warp drive doesn't exist so it's the same as magic mushrooms, is peak false equivalence. Warping space is grounded in actual science you know the SCIENCE part of Sci-Fi, Magic Mushroom drive is Sci - Fantasy., heavy on the Fantasy. It belongs in something like Star Wars. not Star Trek.

@@TrekTrav The pinball thing references one of the more implausible scenes in startrek, the in turbolift fight.

@@TrekTrav FTL warp drive is actually not implausible. TOS and then TNG were largely based on prevailing theories at the time, although many discredited now. They still had an air of plausibility. For example the Alcubierre drive and Lenz drive are two theories that agree with Einstein's general and special relativity that are FTL warp drives. This is exactly the problem with discovery. Its a catch all for any dumb idea. Like logic extremists. It tries to pander that any idea is equally plausible when it isn't. TOS, TNG, Voyager and DS9 were shows about secular values and right and wrong. There were black and white right and wrong conundrums in those shows. And it taught people how to deal with those conundrums outside of the context of religion, which is where most shows got their morals from in the 60s and 80s. When it was stated on Star Trek Voyager "There are only 5 dimensions" they were alluding to Kaluza Klein theory. Subspace is an allusion to Kaluza Klein theory. A mycellium network is just pure fiction. These aren't equally comparable concepts.

Discovery lost me when: 3. Super-Captain Bernham surfed on the back of a ship travelling at warp 2. Two straships dip their noses in the sand of a planet to save a village from an avalanche. 1. A speeder scene right out of Star Wars on a planet that look suspiciously like Tatooine. And that was all in just one episode.

I've watched all of Trek. I am 39 years old, not a child. They did have a problem with Janeway and Sisko, do you not remember? If you sincerely didn't like the show because of the writing then that is fine. I have no issue with that. It does seem very VERY odd that the shows people complain about ATM are the shows without a straight white guy isn't the lead. You must admit that it's a pattern, and not a good one.

@ I don’t remember any issues with Sisko. Many older trek fans regard DS9 as pretty much the best written trek. And yes I am also gay and you do have a point about not having a gay lead but that isn’t why I dislike Discovery so much. I just feel that put up against DS9 in terms of solid writing there are too many holes. I could easily get past the over emotional crew if not for the plot holes. Even tho older trek failed in portraying gay characters I grew up watching with the notion that earth and the federation were for the most part utopian and people have evolved beyond petty differences so understanding that the show aired in the late 80s looked past that. Tho while not in lead roles there were episodes that handled that message back then with finnessy. TNG Season 5 episode 15 I believe. It was called “The Outcast”. It’s a must watch and strongly recommend you watch it if you haven’t seen it. It’s a great episode on gender. There was also an episode called “rejoined” not sure the season or episode but pleas watch that one. Also the Ferengi were used used to tell about female empowerment with Quarks mother. It’s just quality and continuity of writing for me. That’s why I dislike Discovery. All the other stuff doesn’t really bother me.

@@TrekTrav Also the problems people had with TNG, DS9 or Voy, went away... the people that bitched got over it quickly, or went away quickly, BECAUSE THE SHOWS ARE GREAT. Discovery is OVER and people STILL HATE IT with as much passion and rage as when it started. THAT is not the same as any of the other treks.

Any legitimate reasons other than you don't like it?

@@TrekTrav Why is that not enough? We don't like it. We aren't watching it. We aren't rewatching it. What star trek fan wants the future of the federation to be a collapse caused by a crying child blowing up a load of cyrstals? How is that worthy of being canonical to the history of the galaxy? Its not. Its stupid. These shows are stupid. You must be stupid or you are not telling us your real reason for liking these shows. May I ask, are you luciferian? I've noticed alot of people who like discovery are luciferian and enjoy all the luciferian references in the show.

100% All the shows I talk about get all this excess hate and it is blatantly obvious why. Thanks for commenting!

Im pointing out that if Discovery Klingons were shown to be a parallel world then so is the Enterprise D, E, Oberth Classes, Miranda Classes. All of which are caused by the same function. The Klingons in Discovery look different, but Klingons have changed before. My issue is fans using it as an excuse to target Discovery when that is not even implied in the episode.

Careful, your racism is showing.

Any particular reason?

@@TrekTrav Stop pretending you haven't be told millions of times the reasons STD sucks over the years. It and all the other nuTrek live action shows have been decanonized / quarantined in the STDVerse. Get over it.

I agree wholeheartedly. The Burn was cool until the end, the TenC were very Gene Roddenberry and Season 5 was amazing. I enjoyed every episode and wish we got more in the 32nd century. Thanks for commenting.

Spot on

I agree wholeheartedly. What helped me was thinking of it like Doctor Who. When a production team changes they want to put their own stamp on things. I think that is what Bryan Fuller wanted with Discovery. Sadly change is a bad thing to a lot of people now.

@@CoffeeBlack-VOY Thank you!

@@CoffeeBlack-VOY he has ADHD...lol

@TrekTrav same. I TOTALLY get it 🖖☕

When Generations came out I hadn't. I have since watched all star trek countless times.