The Vandalization of Star Trek

[@PsionNovastar]

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?

[@szlingozec8395]

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?

[@WoodysAR]

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.

[@WoodysAR]

Star WARS is about WAR. IT IS THE EVIL! Star TREK is about Adventure. It is perfection.

[@szlingozec8395]

Welp, Looks like there are some real dipshits on this side of things.

[@berttully1046]

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.

[@CaptWesStarwind]

They named it STD and nobody caught this.

[@marikroyals7111]

It's fitting and could have been done on purpose. It was a warning.

[@MKDumas1981]

Discovery is also the name of the ship from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[@we-got-green__lightsabersy1807]

Capt'Wes Starwind I saw that it fits perfect!

[@MKDumas1981]

Apparently, Fuller noticed it, and ran with it.

[@enevitableparadox3735]

It's fitting because it's like Star Trek has been sleeping with the wrong writers and ended up diseased.

[@joehellar8123]

The U.S.S. Discovery looks like a pizza cutter.

[@sseltrek1a2b]

ugliest Star Trek inspired design ever, imho...

[@thehumanvulcanthv5712]

Steve Selinsky It used to be concept art for the Enterprise?

[@sseltrek1a2b]

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...

[@contentunwanted9228]

ya

[@Jessie-wd3yo]

do you know they made enterprise pizza cutter?

[@khfan4life365]

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. 🤦🏻‍♀️

[@user-po8ri5pq9g]

"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.

[@HughMansonMD]

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..

[@enriquemino9963]

sounds like a JJ adams quote

[@myriad1973]

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.

[@kylejdahl5358]

myriad1973 Star Trek: Unrecognizable

[@darwinxavier3516]

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.

[@allank534]

Yeah really makes you appreciate the good old days of ST!

[@DannyKnightblade45]

I'll take Rick Berman at his very worst over the trash currently passing as Star Trek.

[@zonefreakman]

I'm just into Star Trek and I'm finding the old shows way better than the reboot.

[@EgoEroTergum]

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.

[@FlamingoKicker]

Oh, it isn't a reboot. They will tell you that. Yeah, right.

[@condew6103]

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?

[@kayseek1248]

Todd Whelan I like the new shows better then the old ones, that might just be because I’m only 13

[@kayseek1248]

condew HacDC what does SF stand for?

[@bubblehed738]

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.

[@jonathanberry9502]

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)

[@Dimmary]

For me this is not Canon.

[@orionaquila420]

@@jonathanberry9502 Yea but Orville season 3 was pure perfection

[@jonathanberry9502]

@@orionaquila420 Orville is awesome no doubt.

[@OmegaZyion]

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]

Agreed, Spock being half human had nothing to do with the conflict between him and his father

[@leohillmann6717]

Not only that But Sarek himself even stated that when it came to his son he was unable to remain logical

[@sykune]

@@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]

@@sykune Then why would Spock's father marry and impregnate a human in the first place?

[@sykune]

@@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.

[@FrankZ06]

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.

[@tacotoosday42]

Lot of Trek producers are involved with Orville now

[@exexpat11]

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.

[@TheShattenjager]

I love The Orville.

[@Teomo13]

The Orville is the next big thing by being true to the core of Star Trek.

[@akcalo]

Matt Brown that explains alot

[@H2Obsession]

I heard that Johnathan Frakes directed one of the episodes! (Now I'm going to have to find that one...)

[@gallendugall8913]

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.

[@Masterge77]

@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.

[@SirBroadsword]

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.

[@gallendugall8913]

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.

[@Fridaey13txhOktober]

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.

[@gallendugall8913]

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.

[@ri3m4nn]

Gene Roddenberry vision was not to be conflict free amongst humans... his vision was that humans would know how to resolve their conflicts admirably.

[@richardneufeld545]

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.

[@ri3m4nn]

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.

[@condew6103]

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.

[@WarCriminalPhlox]

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.

[@ri3m4nn]

condew HacDC that's called military decorum. That's nothing revolutionary.

[@cinemike8207]

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.

[@Creshex8]

Don’t worry, Picard is great. They realized what the fans wanted: tons and TONS of violence, torture, screaming, murder, and cussing.

[@orionaquila420]

Picard is the shittiest "sci-fi" I have ever witnessed.

[@cinemike8207]

@@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.

[@orionaquila420]

@@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.

[@brianjlevine]

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).

[@enriquemino9963]

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.

[@rosemaryjones5550]

Yep I love tng’s pilot but starting by proving humans are no longer savages stunted the rest

[@Strifegar]

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.

[@Tigerhawk30]

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.

[@czechmarque]

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.

[@manend2]

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

[@Thekhajjah]

This is not Star Trek. It is a grave robbing expedition with an unlikable cast and an unneeded revision of its history

[@knightmoritz1895]

still better than TOS

[@andrewcurlutu6422]

This.

[@andrewcurlutu6422]

Base on what? The captains of STD have all the charisma of an anvil, compared to Kirk and Picard.

[@andrewwblanchard6037]

@@Novarcharesk TAKE YOUR MEDICATION SPAZ

[@tnndll4294]

@@knightmoritz1895 still better than TOS Nah. TOS is a classic. we wouldn't have Star Trek if it wasn't for TOS.

[@wpatrickw2012]

Beware when they say "appeal to a broader audience."

[@ronschlorff7089]

read: "Dumber" audience. "Logic would dictate" this approach; because it is "without question"!

[@chookvalve]

Less of a audience!

[@MidnightSt]

half of your video is perfectly and reasonably formulating all of my complaints about STD. the other half is providing reasonable, realistic, and very possibly effective solution, and formulating it clearly and well, where i have been unable to properly formulate any for several months. Very well made and though out video. I have nothing to add. Have a nice day, Sir :)

[@IloveOtherPplsMsry]

Vic Mignogna's web series "Star Trek Continues" is more faithful to Star Trek and it's a crowdfunded fan production.

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

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.

[@francisdhomer5910]

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.

[@edrosa3485]

Star Trek Continues is a love letter to Rodenberry. Were Gene alive he'd blush.

[@asatruteacher]

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.

[@maxbrandt6]

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!

[@NEWNORMALNEWSNETWORK]

“Are u afraid of me or disgusted by my presence” loved it

[@amaristudios8573]

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!

[@Piet76]

Sad to say, but since J.J. Abrams, the Star Trek franchise is dead. ;-(

[@we-got-green__lightsabersy1807]

Peter Frankemölle same thing WITH starwars jjabrams makes a good Obama lackey total screw up of everything they touch!

[@KiltBill2]

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.

[@djackson4657]

JJ movies were silly.All they did was blow things up,how many starships can you destroy?

[@JAnx01]

@@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.

[@KiltBill2]

@@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.

[@triggerhippy2826]

it's not StarTrek - it's not a bad Sci fi as they go I guess, but it's not StatTrek

[@jcubs1950]

So true, it is not!

[@EWil313]

Long Live the Orville.

[@TheStarSquid]

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.

[@TheVeritas1]

You're aware that the original Trek had Hollywood tropes and lots of action.

[@korvo3427]

@@TheVeritas1 No it hadn't.

[@TheVeritas1]

@I don't feel so good. Yes, TNG did draw from Hollywood tropes from time to time.

[@mikearchibald744]

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.

[@dustinshadle732]

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.

[@Creshex8]

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.

[@josephbrandenburg4373]

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... 🤣

[@ChristianIce]

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.

[@ChristianIce]

You are not sure about something, sure about something else, still your reply is useless.

[@ChristianIce]

Me neither, do you have a point?

ChristianIce chill nigga

[@ChristianIce]

+Deep Peace Bro, everybody can be wrong from time to time ;)

[@GreyWolfLeaderTW]

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.

[@nesra8786]

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.

[@thehumanvulcanthv5712]

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...

[@prince-solomon]

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.

[@stephenjdutton]

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.

[@gimzod76]

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

[@richardneufeld545]

ouch. At least they are consistent with their 2 dimensional thinking!

[@dibenj]

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.

[@pferreira1983]

@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.

[@Killerspieler0815]

and "The Orville" is more Star Trek than JJ "star trek" 11 (2009) & especially "star trek" Discovery

[@andrewmarch37]

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?

[@edwardhochman5466]

Killerspieler0815 the writers in Orville were from classic and tng Trek

[@robertkess9907]

I really enjoyed the third Star Trek movie, it felt like an episode from TOS to me.

[@TheIronSavior]

A central theme of Voyager was that ideals can and should survive trials of hardship. I admired that Janeway never completely compromised her sense of right and wrong (alternate time line and mirror universe Janeways excepted, of course) for the sake of convenience or selfishness. In addition to being a compelling source of conflict, I think it's a powerful and important message. See the episode Equinox.

[@thomasn3882]

Dave savagely criticized that episode, because Janeway acted like such a naïve moralist in that episode. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d6G5YqSmZ9t9l9k

[@maxheadshot3287]

@@thomasn3882 Abysmal review i guess.

[@pt29999]

so you missed the episode where Janeway destroys the timeline to save 7of 9 and Tuvok? Janeway was written terribly and contradicted her own beliefs many times. Also in the episode Equinox, she chastises the Equinox Captain, standing on her perch with a spotless ship. Gimme a break...

[@TheIronSavior]

@@pt29999 she was a complex character in extraordinary circumstances that tested her ideals. Her ideals could not perfectly fit the reality she found herself in. What you see as contradictions, I see as character development. Neither she nor anyone in the crew were unchanged by the long journey. She had to compromise and I'm fairly certain that was the point of those episodes where she did. Even Sisko got entangled in a plot to bring Romulus into war that got a man assassinated. He even admitted to himself he'd do it all again by the end. Good characters are flawed because nobody is perfect.

[@allank534]

Voyager is my favourite for so many reasons, it had a good balance of everything with a great variety of characters

[@oopsydaisy4637]

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!

[@dragonknightleader1]

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.

[@dragonknightleader1]

They had Nokia phones.

[@CallMeMrRook]

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

[@KRAFTWERK2K6]

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.

[@TheJeremyKentBGross]

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.

[@kt6892]

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.

[@Fridaey13txhOktober]

50 years ago, Hollywood had to carefully disguise its true nature, now they can be a whole lot more open about their real objectives.

[@Flufferz626]

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]

Flufferz626 your father sounds cool

[@Flufferz626]

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.

[@Inductica]

Love your Startrek videos man. Keep up the good work.

[@greyofpta5305]

There has always been a simple formula for the quality of Trek shows. As time goes on, the better the effects get and the worse the stories get. It's like watching a slowly dying patient drag himself across the ground. Just let Trek die. Well..it already died. Just bury it and and be done with it.

[@semmicolon]

I almost thought I was the only one who felt like this until i found your videos

[@gallendugall8913]

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.

[@fernarias]

None of the shows fit with TOS, they're derivative.

[@kavinskysmith4094]

I couldnt have said it better myself, and I'm not one to complement people either lol

[@theAverageJoe25]

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.

[@Skelly5962]

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.

[@nihilityjoey]

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?

[@richardtrue2786]

I agree with everything you said STD doesn't have a clue CBS is shitting on all Star Trek fans

[@firestarter000001]

I disagree with some arguments. It was never said that Kilgons would fear the Vulcan hello. It was said that they woudl respect and that is a world of difference and actually inline with Kilngons.

[@dain6492]

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.

[@GarthKlaus]

JJ Abrams has killed Trek. In a month or two, he'll finish killing Star Wars. He is evil incarnate.

[@cszw2987]

Crystal Gibson ask Cloverfield He really fucked up that franchise

[@Guardias]

Abrams, Slayer of Sci-fi, Scourge of Galaxies, Lord of the Lens Flare.

[@Hadex79]

Dark Lord of the Lens Flare actually. Or, maybe, Dork Lord of the Lens Flare?

[@davidsnead1132]

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.

[@mlapointej]

David Snead this😚🤗

[@sicilianotoronto]

I agree with you completely, thanks for writing exactly what I was thinking about this review.

[@MusicandGamesandStuf]

Remember there was no Muslims in Star Trek. Why do you think that is ;)

[@VeshSneaks]

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.

[@jayjeckel]

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.

[@H2Obsession]

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.

[@jamesrussell2936]

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!

[@Nosphorus85]

@@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.

[@fercuscuelalopez9454]

The fact that they don't realize that casual fans won't spend a dime on Star Trek or Star Wars merchandise still amazes me. You can change a franchise in order to make it mainstream, so you no longer need the fan base... but it won't pay in a long term scenario, true fans are the ones who buy your shit in the end.

[@mjohnson5030]

8:35 "Roddenberry's [vision of future humanity] was a utopian society... without conflict." Well, not exactly. A utopian protagonist would make for boring writing. In interviews he described it as a society with utopian IDEALS and values, not that humanity had already achieved utopia. We see examples of non-utopian behavior (greed, jealousy, duplicity, jingoism... ) in human characters throughout all the series. But that is the point. As Picard says in First Contact, "We strive to better ourselves." The greatest strength of human society is not that it is perfect, but it values and encourages societal improvement, diplomacy and inclusiveness.

[@TheBlackB0X]

I hated all the new star trek stuff ever since Jar Jar Abrams was involved.

[@IRONMANAustralia]

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.

[@efraim3364]

dat 7 of 9 booty tho

[@TentaclePentacle]

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.

[@sithlegacy5417]

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!

[@promnightdumpsterbaby9553]

TheBlackB0X i hate everything jj abrams has done to star trek except the u.s.s. vengeance. That ship is ballsy.

[@UltimateBargains]

J.J. Abrams: "I shall piss on it and call it mine."

[@Masterge77]

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.

[@TheShattenjager]

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.

[@Dancestar1981]

Masterge77 there are fans they just don’t listen to us

[@paulware4701]

Great video, Dave, written by somebody who actually cares about Star Trek. The reason the original series was able to dodge Roddenberry's phobia about conflict between humans was by making episodes be about big themes, not the "bitching" that one commentator mentioned below. Give people a seriously big problem and no matter how even-tempered the crew are there are bound to be disagreements. Later episodes of TNG became the soap opera that TOS never was. And TOS never had to resort to a B-story to rescue a limp A-story - the writers committed to the main plot and stuck to it.

[@rredhawk]

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.

[@wulfgarpl]

Axanar died for our sins.

[@wulfgarpl]

#TwoNukesWasntEnough

[@TentaclePentacle]

+creapsmantic the sin of being beguiled by lense flares.

[@Skelly5962]

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.

[@radiobikini6429]

Because of the Axanar scam, CBS slapped down the fan films which is why Start Trek Continues is closing.

[@SciFiFan2012]

Axanar died because STD showrunners and writers were embarrassed by how good Axanar was, and how well it fit into the ENT - TOS timeline.

[@bendekko2770]

Stark Trek Discovery in two words: Space Mushrooms

[@jonathanberry9502]

Keep 'em in the dark and feed them bullshit to grow a mycelium network on which a giant stolen Tardigrade can surf...

[@bmccarville]

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.

[@yarpen26]

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.

[@bmccarville]

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.

[@yarpen26]

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.

[@bmccarville]

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.

[@thehumanvulcanthv5712]

yarpen26 I do love the Star Destroyers crashing into each other, that was the best scene

[@DaleRoberts-xm8ye]

Modern Star Trek: an attempt to reinvent the wheel without being all that clear about what shape it's actually supposed to be.

[@kochmusicproductions3585]

Roddenberry always intended Trek to be a more cerebral venture, where characters had to think their way out of problems, not just blast them. Totally agree it's devolved into the latter where it's now mostly an excuse to have some "awesome, kick ass" action and explosions using the Star Trek brand to get people into seats, but has little relation to the original. Too bad. I used to get excited when a new ST anything was coming out. Now is meh.

[@marxnutz]

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.

[@mdrumt]

My recommendation would be to watch The Expanse! Superior show with fresh ideas compared to STD.

[@Rahzen0383]

I am loving your new intro and videos, Dave.

[@TheDaveCullenShow]

Cheers man

[@JismL-No1]

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

[@nigratruo]

Very good analysis, you bring everything to a point that I have felt for a long time.

[@KneelB4Bacon]

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 KZbin 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.

[@exexpat11]

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?

[@TheShattenjager]

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.

[@thehumanvulcanthv5712]

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

[@beayn]

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.

[@clutchingdaggerz359]

Yup.

[@MaximusEugenius]

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.

[@aserta]

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.

[@kesselrunner]

Seeing clips of real Star Trek is like a breath of fresh air after seeing Discovery.

[@ronschlorff7089]

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!

[@rmaha1965]

As a life long Trek fan, I wholeheartedly agree with every part of your assessment with the exception as to why Enterprise failed. While I agree that the first two seasons were pretty much not adhering to keeping with the promise of the shows premise of showing how the Trek we know and love came into being, it started off very much handicapped given the nature of the world at the time. Enterprise debuted a few weeks after 9/11 when most people were glued to the cable news and weren't, for the most part, in the mood for light hearted escapism. The world was crumbling around us and the likelihood of us achieving Roddenberry's vision of utopia seemed even more far fetched. When the show finally got some legs under it in 2003, out came the reimagined Battlestar Galactica with it's dark, adult, edgy theme that had redefined sci-fi. Enterprise with it's naivete and rubber masks seemed more like a Saturday morning's children's show by comparison. While I agree that they did come into their own and showed a huge increase in the quality of the writing by the 4th season, they wasted so much time on time traveling space Nazis and races that we never heard of (i.e. Xindi), that there was no room to make what we really wanted which was the Romulan War. Again, great video and insight.

[@NoahPalmer93101]

Sarek was angry that Spock joined Starfleet instead of becoming a scientist on Vulcan. That's how I always understood their estrangement.

[@archstanton9073]

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.

[@NoahPalmer93101]

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.

[@luckykennedy7364]

It's been raped and denied Justice like a male rape victim

[@SinbadNaiver]

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,

[@annulushoctar3900]

These are great videos , love to hear you talk about these subjects

[@retluoc]

I just subscribed -- I like your honesty, it's a rare thing in this troll-filled world. Keep up the good work, and don't let the haters win.

[@XMen-hw1ky]

After Star Trek Enterprise Star Trek is officially dead to me

[@skeletoncrusader]

They lost me at a woman named Michael. I thought they were calling her by her surname.

[@TheVeritas1]

Actually, women with masculine names are more common than you think.

[@michaelmartin9022]

TheVeritas1 so common people almost never meet one? And neutral names like Kris, Kim or Alex don't count.

[@cornelrebegea1451]

TheVeritas1 Agreed, but how is this justified in STD? Sex confusion is the declared intention.

[@H2Obsession]

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.

[@jamesb.8940]

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.

[@Roboshi2007]

A kingon would find opening fire first as cowardly, trying to sneak a first shot in instead of goading your enemy.

[@John-sd6gv]

Again, an absolutely spot-on summary. Thanks.

[@PoperoniNews]

I never even realize when I transition from computing forever to this channel. They both keep me so entertained and informed

[@noelienoelie8425]

Parenting, affirmative action style.

[@IRONMANAustralia]

STD = Star Trek: Still in Darkness.

[@thebenc1537]

Anyone miss the days when Dave had enough hair to show his face in vids?

[@condew6103]

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.

[@frequencyoftruth2303]

condew HacDC Your 100 percent correct.

[@kuribayashi84]

Hell, compared to STD, "Star Trek Into Darkness" is bright and colorful.

[@Zamolxes77]

The Orville is the true Star Trek.

[@liberatusblair]

trha2222 I would. Orville is the closest you can get to a true star trek series.

[@jonathanparks301]

Orville is a lame comedy show...

[@karlpj1]

perhaps in theme, but it is cheap and cartoony

[@mikegrossberg8624]

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?

[@jonathanparks301]

Mike Grossberg do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.

[@donfelipe7510]

I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment, I gave Star Trek Discovery a go but gave up three episodes in and never went back. Likewise I watched the first two JJ Abrams Star Trek movies, the first being pretty good, the second an all action slug fest that was less enjoyable and I didn't even bother with the third. I'm a long standing Star Trek fan and even used to go to a local Star Trek convention every month when I was younger and it was here I saw DS9 Series 4 opener "The Way of the Warrior" for the first time and I was awe struck. I also remember going to see Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country at the cinema before this and my bedroom at home was plastered with Star Trek posters at one time so I would say I was a dedicated fan. I would also consider myself a knowledgeable Star Wars fan too and it hurts me to see what has become of both franchises. I don't mind JJ Abrams, he has made some good movies but he wasn't the right choice for either of these Sci-fi genres. Coupled with lazy over politicized writing kids today are not experiencing the same fascination I had when I was younger and that more than anything is the real shame in this debacle. Dreams and imagination are being sold down the river for mere profit and making a point on today's political scene. Thankfully we have Game of Thrones which was conceived by George R.R. Martin and heavily involves him in the production of the TV show, while the last series was a bit lacklustre hopefully the coming final series will blow everyone away as the story deserves to.

[@arminhammerr]

Just discovered your videos. Really great insights on the Star Trek universe.

[@vitamindubya]

How was enterprise the first full arch? What about DS9?

[@mlapointej]

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

[@vitamindubya]

mlapointej they seemed lightly touched on. Nowhere near ds9 arch

[@hobbs1701a]

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.

[@zuzoscorner]

As it turned out...they didn't respect the brand, the fans , or lore at all.

[@base330films9]

...awkward moment when you like Star Trek Enterprise.

[@thehumanvulcanthv5712]

It's not awkward now, it's awkward now if you like STD

[@lonewolfcello9814]

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...)

[@MaximusX67]

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.

[@nephatrine]

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.

[@tlrlml]

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.

[@robsypes]

i could not agree LESS with your thoughts that a season wide arc would of helped Voyager... I HATED season 3 of enterprise for just that reason and the reason I stopped watching. I Don't want season arcs on my star trek. I Love them the way they are.

[@Dancestar1981]

Robnjen Sypes that’s what ruined later Voyager eps along with over saturation of Barbie Borg and the Borg as the only villain instead of a variety of aliens

[@allank534]

Yesss!!! The odd arc is great but when you have season after season of the same arc it can become very tedious....yes i mean you DS9! Voy was great, an underlying arc of being lost with a good variety of stories! I'm sure we can all agree though that after ENT, it went downhill.

[@Freelancer117]

I fundamentally disagree with your statement regarding Season 3 of Enterprise being the first season-long story arc in Trek's history, given the serialized nature of DS9. The Dominion War was longer and more expansive then Enterprise's Xindi conflict. Great video, otherwise, though.

[@stevenjames1138]

Thanks for posting this video and for eloquently articulating the exact reasons why I too feel that new Star Trek (as done/inspired by JJ Abrams) is not really Trek! Very insightful and well done video. BTW, thanks also for not ranting about SJWs or political correctness in this particular video. I'm glad to see that you don't feel the need to talk about that in every video. Regardless of point of view, it can get old.

[@efraim3364]

ive had people lose their shit when i say this show sucks, ive gotten all the usual buzzwords tossed at me for it.

[@efraim3364]

yup, all that nonsense and more

[@beardedbjorn5520]

You fucking fascist!

[@efraim3364]

GIRLS GIRLS!! You're both pretty

[@ubuu7]

I lose my shit when someone says its a bad show without having watched the show. Guilty.

[@beardedbjorn5520]

creapsmantic Hahaha, you got me.

[@finnewar]

Star trek is dead to me.

[@estherbarba1409]

Your loss.

[@thehumanvulcanthv5712]

Esther Barba No his, Star Trek's

[@jimmyb.5356]

Hey now.. Roddenberry wasn't wrong about the future of humanity... its just that he focused more on the "mirror universe" than the actual true Terran empire

[@Jackson37737]

Your analysis is high quality journalism! 5 STARS!!!!!

[@alt-animefan3231]

How do you think the Discovery writers would handle the Ferengi if given the chance ?

[@TheAutistWhisperer]

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.

[@Peagaporto]

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.

[@observantwatcher6511]

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.

[@chrislutz416]

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.

[@Peagaporto]

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.

[@GregsVlog]

Brilliant analysis.

[@OnideusMadHatter]

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.

[@sampokemppainen3041]

More like a rant.

[@HOTWHEELSCOTT]

It's why I subscribe to his channel..

[@stuffhappensdownsouth9899]

honestly i thought stargate U was the best in the whole lot an i cant stand where startrek is goin now

[@Solaxe]

nope, not really

[@dubya85]

The first two seasons of enterprise were the best in my opinion

[@Creshex8]

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.

[@LadylinaM69]

Wow! I totally agree I was just about to record my feelings on the whole star trek issues when I did a search here on KZbin and you came up I'm glad to know I'm not the only one to feel this way

[@kyleweisman8542]

The fans have wanted a movie or series that covered the Klingon war in detail. Sadly Axanar would have been far better than Discovery if the project was not killed. Maybe that is why CBS sued.

[@dedf15]

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.

[@rbname7318]

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

[@dedf15]

@Alex sounds like what you are saying is Lt Sulu was a token arxhetype, instead of being an individual.