Star Trek: Lower Decks.
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
After rewatching TNG season 1, Discovery and Picard look like a masterpieces. Even season 2 so far doesn’t better the new ones. And I think the new ones, including Orville, are pretty average.
Just rewatched Measure of a Man. It was a very memorable episode for me when I was younger. But... It’s not a well written story and the arguments are pretty terrible.The whole thing is laughable because of the clear Conflict of Interest. The tension is so overdrawn and has a simple resolution. River doesn’t get a chance to rebuff Picard and then we wonder why he wins. It is not good Sci Fi or good TV.
Picard and Discovery has its problems. But so has TNG
So has all Star Trek, like any long runner. I still think the episode that best captures the spirit of Star Trek is “Darmok”.
And if legal stuff is your bag, season 5’s “The Drumhead” is a much better put together episode. I still love “Measure of a Man”, though. And the conflict of interest was forced on them by the JAG officer: Riker didn’t want a bar of the proceedings but a summary finding against Data was hung over his head if he didn’t. So, Starfleet JAG is full of dicks
One might say they're JAGging off.So, Starfleet JAG is full of dicks
I watched the video. And while it has some good points, it goes too far in the other direction.
Like, I'm going to use a personal example that no-one's ever really explained to me. Star Trek 2009. It wasnt' the first Star Trek media I experienced, but it was my first 'proper' introduction. Now, whatever criticism the film warrants or doesn't, I'm going to focus on one. The idea that the film uses soft science. And to that, yes, that's true. Except Star Trek's always had soft science. TOS has some rediculous, utter nonsense. So it is utter baffling to me that someone can criticize the Kelvinverse films for scientific inaccuracy, while singing the praises of earlier Star Trek for scientific accuracy.
Like I said, the video accurately describes some behaviour, but it's perilously close to a double standard. Off the top of my head, Nostalgia Critic, in his Temple of Doom review, pointed out the weirdness that people can accept that Indy and co. can use an inflatable raft to jump out of a plane and survive, but can't accept that Jones can survive a nuke via a fridge
This is we now live in a world where the internet and the vastness of human knowledge is a few clicks away while in TOS you'd need multiple experts on hand to get that info. Also in the Kelvinverse it's silly stuff that tends to be inaccurate or the problem or strangely stuff done for script convenience because the plot needs to go there.
You don't need experts to tell you how unlikely it is that there's an energy barrier surrounding the galaxy, or that there's a Law of Parallel Planetary Formation, or that the US Constitution is going to be replicated word for word on an alien planet, or that most aliens will be phenotypically identical to humans, or...well, you get the idea.
Again, that's the same with TOS. That's the same with a lot of Star Trek, period, heck, most of sci-fi.
Like, we can rag on Star Trek 2009 for its take on supernovas, or how Spock can see Vulcan destroyed from another planet, but don't pretend that this stuff wasn't in Star Trek before. Motion Picture had a giant cloud larger than the Sol system. Star Trek IV had whale diplomacy. Even Wrath of Khan had Ceti Alpha V move out of position because another planet was destroyed. Like, criticize the Kelvinverse films all you want, but at least be honest about it.
I get the idea but on the point about humanoids most of the SETI research suggests humanoid is most likely the form of what intelligent life will take though quadruped (centaur like) is also possible.
TROS was the original series and a product a fair bit of it's time and was being developed still. It was kind of "Wagon train to the stars" still but slowly evolved over time. The Kelvinverse to many seems like a regression from what Star Trek became which was about ideas and solving things that conflicted with ideas and beliefs back to "Wagon Train to the Stars" again only without the excuse that it was just trying to find it's footing.
Humanoid? Fine. Identical to humans? I find that harder to swallow.
Star Trek's not the only sci-fi show with this problem, but from the real-world perspective, it's far away from "hard" sci-fi. And from a narrative standpoint, other series have managed to get around the issue better than Star Trek has.
That seems to be more a discussion of narrative rather than a discussion of scientific accuracy. But even then, two of the three Kelvinverse films (Into Darkness, Beyond) deal with themes that feel appropriate to the IP. Maybe a bit more action-orientated, but that same criticism was applied to Wrath of Khan. Yeah, The Motion Picture tries to be more cerebral, but I've never seen anyone who considers it to be superior to WoK.
Nah, man. The problem is I grew up and started using critical thinking. I know that's the biggest crime to some people, enough to yell that the government should invade universities to rip apart it curriculum.
Dont worry. I dont think that highly of Star Wars either. Or Ghostbusters. Goonies isnt great. Baulders Gate 1 does not hold up but 2 sort does. Aliens was still pretty good. I also have never given a 10/10 for a game or movie. No movie has ever been that good. Nor have I given 1. Favourite show is Babylon 5 but am very willing to point out its flaws.
Because I think nostalgia is the stupidest thing. It makes you pretend how good a piece of media should be, rather than actually. Closely followed by the either love or hate mentality with no nuance. As I doing with TNG now, I revisit properties that I dont like as much as other to see if Im being prejudiced. Turns out I was but...I found a bunch of other problems. I care about being accurate rather than holding into old assumptions
But, you know, if you want to lump me in this group of people. Sure, go ahead
Edit: I also do care for any of this 'gotta follow what the general consensus' crap that most fandoms have. People keep saying that TNG is the best Star Trek. I cant even place it above Voyager. And Im not really going to change my mind because that's what the majority thinks
Last edited:
That was fantastic. Thanks for sharing.
I think this guy's observations can be fun:
I understand these new sequels and spinoffs are meant to be divisive. Why would anyone want that? If they weren't divisive, couldn't they be, er, unifying and make more money?
For his sake, we can hope! "Go away now!"
EDIT: I gotta laugh at this young pup, amazed that, y'know what? 1975's "Jaws" really is a good movie! Duh!
Below, I write to @Trunkage about "appreciation mode". I don't think I need to even turn that on to enjoy that movie to this day. One of the, "did not age badly" movies of all time.
I find a lot of the time, you have to watch things in what I call, "Appreciation Mode." Things age. Some age worse than others. I loved "Spy Who Loved Me" back in the day. Watch today as in near slow motion, "Jaws" kills a guy. Today's audience would be in a deep slumber before the victim was dead. Especially since the Jason Borne movies, action styles have just changed so much.
When I watch ST the Original series? For the time in which they were made? They blow me away.
Last edited:
Jason Bourne cause so much problems for action films. For a good while, most of the 2010, action films had to spruce up the jitter, shaky cam, or quick cuts and call it realistic or realism. while the Bourne series is not the worst of this, except for that feel that sample of force film that brought back Matt Damon. It cost a huge amount of problems. The fact that Bourne's action sequences are not looked at fondly says something. And believe it or not I actually prefer the first film over the other sequels. Because the action was basic and you could see what was going on. The sequels took themselves too seriously. This is more so the second film though. The third film brought a bit more humor back and I do appreciate that. Legacy should have been its own film, and the less said about the fourth official movie the better.
*shame faced* I only watched the 1st 2.
Their action style did change so much though. I'll try to post if a find it. I think it was on cracked.com . Two room mates fighting Jason Bourne style over who gets to finish the last and only box of cereal in the apartment. Love it or hate it, the fight scenes had a style. And it was copied a googillian times.
Yes, the fight scenes had style I did not particularly enjoy. The only time I feel jitter cam ever work the best was in Saving Private Ryan and the Raid films. Because both directors kni not to go overboard. Especially Gareth Evans. Problem with people copying was that they all made the excuse that it was "realism", when they couldn't direct an action sequence to save their own life. The same way a lot of shooters were claiming "realism" during 7 generation making the colors dogshit brown, gunmetal grey, or sometimes sepia piss filter yellow. Or hiding behind cover to regain health.
This isn't entirely true, as there are plenty of new generations that find the old classics just as scary and/or exciting as we did when we saw them. So it's not entirely just appreciation mode/nostalgia glasses.
I remember an issue of the webcomic PVP, where the characters were debating the prequel trilogy of Star Wars, and comparing it to the OT, and one of the group kept pointing out the bad parts of the OT. And the last panel was "wait...so were the OT films actuall....BAD?! Are we just remembering them fondly because of being children?!" The final shot being all of them in a cliche look of horror at the thought, end of that weeks panel. Then the following panel, was a conversation with the guy who makes PVP's dad, who frequently showed up for moments of real world humor, because his dad would say stuff he found hilarious, and would share. And he basically said "I was in my 30s when Star Wars came out, and Star Wars was cool damnit! It's not just because you were a naive 6 year old!"
I think the issue of feeling the need to defend them, simply comes from the common mindset in a lot of fans, that can't allow for something to have flaws, and also be something they enjoy.
Trunkage above talked about Measure of a Man, and one of the criticisms is that the arguments were bad. And I agree. But, that's not really unique to TNG, or Star Trek. That's legal stuff, and hollywood NEVER gets that shit right. The same way they never get science right, especially the further back you go in time for when the show was made. Because the reality is, that the people making those shows and films, are only actually skilled, in making shows/films. They aren't physicists, or lawyers, or geologists, or military experts, or pretty much every other field you can imagine, other than the ones directly related to making shows/films. They can block a shot, handle lighting, edit the shit out of something, work the soundboard, structure pacing from scene to scene, etc. But ask them to accurately depict a medical testing procedure for a cure for a virus (Like in Outbreak), and I hope you're ready to sit through a montage of 2+ years of boring testing and evaluations, and peer review, and re-testing, and all that shit that is boring to watch, so they never do that. They montage it to be like a 2 hour test, positive result, boom, done, ship that stuff off and start injecting it into people! Day saved! Roll credits!
So I don't really care if something isn't accurate, if they are at least consistent with their inaccuracies. And being inaccurate, doesn't mean the show isn't still good. Measure of a Man, for legal purposes, is completely bonkers and wrong, but the dramatic "trial" of a being's right to life, and self-realization and agency, it's a good episode. It addresses the broader questions that such a situation would present to a society, and tries (albeit stumbling) to present an opinion on it. And I think the spirit of what the episode is trying to say, gets across just fine. Yes, the legal structure is woefully inaccurate, but it's not trying to be legally accurate, just like it's not trying to be scientifically accurate.
The issue, from my perspective, is that fans dig in their heels, and refuse to admit that "yes, structurally it's not great, but it's still an enjoyable thing that I like." And equate enjoyment with perfection. Plus defining their personal identity around their love of a consumer franchise, which makes any criticism of the product, a criticism of their life, and so they react defensively.
It's all a big fucking mess. It's an understandable mess, given the way humans behave and prioritize things, but a mess none the less.
Agreed: I can watch some older things, not really in appreciation mode, and really love it anyway. Like Star Trek Originals. And yeah on show makers not necessarily knowing a thing about the science fields and botching it badly.
I recall hearing that one of the longest running Dr. Who actors using the same science sounding phrase as a fix all for EVERYTHING as he couldn't spit out other dialogue with geek speak.
But I also know from TV that if Dr. House were real, Covid 19 would be cured already!
My main gripe about inaccuracies, is if they ignore something they established earlier. The example I always use, is if you have a story on Mars, and they make a point to establish that gravity is lighter on Mars, so the hero can do extraordinary feats of strength. They show the person leaping really high, or lifting something heavy with ease, etc. Then, later on in the film, the hero has a friend who is dangling off the edge of a cliff, and they're holding onto their hand, and struggling with the cliche "hold on!! You're slipping!! gaaah!" kind of thing. And I'm like "*****! You showed him bench pressing a motorcycle not 45 minutes ago!! She's less than 50 pounds on Mars!! Throw that woman to safety like it's nothing!!" THAT kind of thing, I will call bullshit on, because it directly contradicts stuff they established earlier.
Bottom line, no creator of something will ever be able to match 7.5 billion experts in various fields. So they either have to not touch on ANYTHING within the scope of the human experience that they aren't an expert in, which would make for a boring show. Or just tell the story they want, and to hell with inaccuracies, because they aren't writing a thesis paper on stellar mechanics for fuck's sake. Or hire consultants, work their salary into the budget, and then determine if they can actually incorporate the real details into the show, constrained by bugdet, and effects capability, and if it will kill the pacing of the story being told.
And often, accuracy is what is left on the chopping block. And I'm fine with that. If being accurate makes the story less enjoyable, I'd rather have inaccuracies that are fun.
Rule of Cool wins out over Rule of Real in my book, every time.
Last edited: