
How Star Trek Discovery is challenging my understanding of Trek, my own fandom - rbanffy
http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/how-star-trek-discovery-is-challenging-my-understanding-of-my-own-fandom
======
marcoperaza
I'm only a few episodes in, but I really like the ideological conflict they've
set up. The Federation believes itself to be a unifying force for peace and
coexistence. But the Klingons see the Federation as demanding conformity,
destroying individuality, and threatening Klingon identity. Though the
Federation is clearly meant to be the "good guys", both sides are sympathetic
and there are parallels to modern politics (globalism vs. nationalism).
Hopefully, the writers can resist the temptation to turn the Klingons into an
irredeemable caricature (their statements aren't encouraging:
[https://www.salon.com/2017/09/22/star-trek-discovery-
creator...](https://www.salon.com/2017/09/22/star-trek-discovery-creators-our-
klingons-are-secretly-trumpsters/)).

------
NedIsakoff
TNG as Roddenberry’s vision of the future.

I guess the writer missed the 'African Tribal War Lords In Space' and 'Space
Irish' episodes of TNG. Or when Troi is gossiping with Beverly on how Beverly
found her grandmother's sex diary erotic.

~~~
wmil
The semi-nude fit white people oiling each other up planet (TNG Justice) is
rumoured to be a Roddenberry re-write. Roddenberry wasn't quite the person a
lot of Trek fans think he was.

------
InclinedPlane
"Star Trek" as an abstract concept across franchises has always been a few
things. It's always been about interesting, and generally likable, characters
and a backdrop setting of extensive space exploration, a galaxy full of many
civilizations and so forth. That's a comparatively small but still important
part of Star Trek. Star Trek has always been a kind of anthology project
similar to The Outer Limits or The Twilight Zone, except it has used a
constant cast of characters and setting, which makes it easier to get to
moments that have more significant impact on the viewer. You already know and
are invested in the characters, and their different traits can be used to help
tell the story. This is both the weakness and strength of Star Trek, leading
to some of its worst but also some of its best stories, stories that show what
literary SciFi is capable of achieving. TOS episodes like The City on the Edge
of Forever, TNG episodes like The Inner Light or Chain of Command, DS9
episodes like Far Beyond the Stars, etc.

Additionally, Star Trek has always had a strong set of progressive values
(peace, reconcilliation, cooperation, honesty, etc.) and has used its story
telling to further those values. It put a black woman and a Russian man on the
bridge of the Enterprise during the height of the civil rights fight and the
height of the Cold War. It's pushed progressive causes for decades, even when
it was risky to do so within the confines of the television studio system.
There was an episode of TNG that tackled issues of homosexuality and gender
identity in the '90s, for example, and of course there's that famous
interracial kiss on the original series.

The new Trek seems to be substantially in the same vein here, though it's
still a bit early to make a definitive call. The diversity of the cast is very
nice to see, and the mixture of "episodic anthology show" and long-running
plot is pretty well done and keeping with the tradition of Trek going back
even to the original show. It'll take more episodes to see how good the show
is ultimately, but so far it's doing pretty well.

------
dpkonofa
The thing that I like about Discovery (even though I'm preferring "The
Orville, at the moment) is that it feels like a lead-in to the Trek that I
know and love. Obviously, something had to happen to take people from where we
are now to where TNG was. We didn't just instantly switch as a species from
being war-hungry and emotional to being hand-in-hand with all these other
species. It's refreshing to me to think that we discovered extra-terrestrial
life (and maybe they discovered us) first and then became a unified species
and I'm enjoying seeing this first hand.

That being said, I do not trust Scott Buck, the show runner, at all. He's
taken these great concepts that had really strong beginnings and muddled them
up and ruined them too many times for me to be happy with what we have. Case
in point, the latest episode. It was absolutely great to me and felt Trek-y
and funny and smart while feeling modern and _real_. They gave a good nod to a
TOS character again while respecting him and making me prefer this iteration
of him. There was some thoughtfulness to the writing, the acting was pretty
great, and I could tell that they were trying to lead people to look at things
from a different perspective which is very Trek to me. But then it all went
sideways at the very end when the bad guy's comeuppance turns into nothing
more than an annoyance and, for some reason, the Federation allows a criminal
to (SPOILER ALERT) leave without any kind of repercussion or punishment for
trying to hijack the Federation's premiere starship and, although the
situation washes it away, kill several of its chief officers and crew members.
It's backwards.

I'm still going to keep watching and enjoying but the inconsistency is really
hard for me to get over. I don't mind if they're slightly inconsistent from
series to series but we're only 7 episodes in and they're already being
inconsistent with not only the universe they're playing in but also their own
universe that they've set up.

------
nikdaheratik
Discovery stacks up very well against their last attempt (Enterprise), and I
like the way that they're willing to avoid fixing whatever problems show up
using tachyon particles, or other magical plot devices.

It also compares very favorably to the first season of TNG, which had alot of
issues even though it a some good episodes. I kind of worry about what happens
when they get through the first season arc and have to come up with something
interesting as that's when alot of shows tend to fall flat.

~~~
sjg007
I mean time crystals are a weak plot device as well.. I enjoyed the episode
but I don't like time travel in the Trek world.

------
forgottenpass
I've been ignoring something for way too long, so if you'll excuse the slight
tangent I have a question: What do bloggers mean when they say "challenging"?
Am I missing something, or is "challenging" just pretentious-blogger speak for
things that make them want to turn their brains to "think about something for
a bit" mode instead of living life on autopilot?

------
AcerbicZero
I'd rather watch Enterprises opening theme song on repeat for an hour, than
"Discovery". But if the movies couldn't drive this franchise into the ground I
doubt this continuity breaking, sjw-ish circle jerk will.

In a few years, if we're lucky, they'll just reconn Discovery (and all its
lens flare) into the Abrams timeline where it belongs.

~~~
soylentcola
Critique of continuity and "canon" aside, I'm curious about how this show can
be seen as a "sjw-ish circle jerk" compared to the progressive, post-scarcity
utopia of TNG.

Assuming that epithet refers to something obnoxiously progressive and preachy,
I've not seen anything that so bluntly states its values the way TOS or TNG
often had such obvious "morals of the story" about racism or intolerance.

This show has struck me as a lot more action and plot focused. I see how that
is quite different from some of the older iterations and might annoy fans of
the classic style with its focus on more flashy, modern, and explosion-filled
TV action. But preachy campfire sing-along it ain't.

