this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
506 points (93.8% liked)

TenForward: Where Every Vulcan Knows Your Name

3781 readers
1921 users here now

/c/TenFoward: Your home-away-from-home for all things Star Trek!

Re-route power to the shields, emit a tachyon pulse through the deflector, and post all the nonsense you want. Within reason of course.

~ 1. No bigotry. This is a Star Trek community. Remember that diversity and coexistence are Star Trek values. Any post/comments that are racist, anti-LGBT, or generally "othering" of a group will result in removal/ban.

~ 2. Keep it civil. Disagreements will happen both on lore and preferences. That's okay! Just don't let it make you forget that the person you are talking to is also a person.

~ 3. Use spoiler tags. This applies to any episodes that have dropped within 3 months prior of your posting. After that it's free game.

~ 4. Keep it Trek related. This one is kind of a gimme but keep as on topic as possible.

~ 5. Keep posts to a limit. We all love Star Trek stuff but 3-4 posts in an hour is plenty enough.

~ 6. Try to not repost. Mistakes happen, we get it! But try to not repost anything from within the past 1-2 months.

~ 7. No General AI Art. Posts of simple AI art do not 'inspire jamaharon'

~ 8. No Political Upheaval. Political commentary is allowed, but please keep discussions civil. Read here for our community's expectations.

Fun will now commence.


Sister Communities:

!startrek@lemmy.world

!memes@lemmy.world

!tumblr@lemmy.world

!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world

Want your community to be added to the sidebar? Just ask one of our mods!


Honorary Badbitch:

@jawa21@startrek.website for realizing that the line used to be "want to be added to the sidebar?" and capitalized on it. Congratulations and welcome to the sidebar. Stamets is both ashamed and proud.


Creator Resources:

Looking for a Star Trek screencap? (TrekCore)

Looking for the right Star Trek typeface/font for your meme? (Thank you @kellyaster for putting this together!)


founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] julianh@lemm.ee 120 points 22 hours ago (19 children)

Don't get me started on ds9. A black captain? A trans lesbian officer? A gay interspecies couple? The federation using fear from war as an excuse to become a police state? Can't believe they made my colorful space communism show woke.

[–] MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world 27 points 20 hours ago

A gay interspecies couple?

Rick Berman:

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] Norin@lemmy.world 69 points 23 hours ago (13 children)

You hated Discovery because it was too woke.

I hated Discovery because it wasn’t woke enough.

We are not the same.

[–] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 18 points 16 hours ago (6 children)

Yea, Discovery is the best case for virtue signaling being a real thing, which is unfortunate because Trek's literal entire thing is coming off as "common sense" while spreading a progressive message through allegory.

[–] T156@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

Even then, Trek hasn't really pushed the boundaries for a good long time. When it hit it big by TNG/TOS Syndication, it ended up being the cash cow, and thus not worth risking for such controversial things.

At most, it's just been nudging the norm, but the kind of radical shove that TOS had, and nearly got it pulled off the air twice is basically nowhere to be found.

At most, we got one or two token characters or plots, but a lot of it is mostly the norm, or just a little ahead of it.

Compare it to something less established and free to take on more risk, like the Orville. Since it doesn't have the big brand that networks want to keep reaping without sowing, it gets a lot of flexibility Trek doesn't really have any more.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] kshade@lemmy.world 15 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Yeah, really. There wasn't much enlightened future stuff going on and they pointlessly killed (and then returned, but still) one of the gay guys for shock value(?). It's just so poorly written that neither that nor any of the empowerment messages landed for me.

[–] FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee 8 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Yeah.. exactly. Although after all that I only fully gave up on the show when they jumped forward in time to a depressing future in which the Federation had dissolved. Like, way to completely and utterly miss the point of the setting. I’m gonna go cry into my earl grey now.

[–] kshade@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago

I was totally on board with that premise, thinking they might basically do their version of Andromeda mixed with late-season Enterprise. But then the actual plot happened.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] accideath@lemmy.world 56 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I hated it because half of the characters annoyed me and the other half didn’t have enough screen time

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EtherWhack@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I was more annoyed at the klingon subtitle style/font being difficult to read quickly. Each one talking like a kid who just shoved a whole pack of Big League Chew in their mouth from all the prosthetics also bothered me.

[–] SatyrSack@feddit.org 5 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Each one talking like a kid who just shoved a whole pack of Big League Chew in their mouth from all the prosthetics also bothered me.

Even worse than how bad the Ferengi were with that

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

You know, you just reminded me of the episode of Enterprise where the Ferrengi took over the ship. And I was surprised how much I enjoyed (most of) it, and thought the first act where they didn't bother giving the Ferrengi subtitlea, everything was communicated without the benefit of dialog.

I'm sure everyone else hated it, especially because of some of the weak plot points and how there wasn't supposed to be any contact with the Ferrengi for 200 years and because everyone hates Enterprise.

On the other hand, it had Jeffrey Combs.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 107 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (10 children)

Pretty sure the downvoters didn't finish reading that...

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

The only question I have about Discovery is: do you think Michael Burnham is ever capable of crying?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 20 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

My only major critiques for Discovery are that they walked back a Calvin-verse reboot after fan backlash (my interpretation), and that the theatrics usually don't mesh well with the action-oriented flow of the rest of the episodes around it.

The reboot thing was, to me, overly clear with the changes in aesthetics and technology. Especially the Klingons. And I get it: it's hard to dazzle audiences through vibrant creative direction, with decades of canon on your back. All that older stuff has compromises from old effects tech and budget baked in, so breaking from it is incredibly tempting. But the fans will not let you do this: just ask the Dr. Who production people. So we get some really oddball stuff happening in the first few seasons.

To the latter point, we get moments like: "The ship is going to explode in one minute, so let's argue for at least ten before we deal with that." This kind of thing happens a lot in Discovery and a binge-watch would have you thinking that the ship's counselor is either dead or contemplating transporter suicide. The dissent between characters feels valid most of the time, but other times is just jarringly out of character or contrary to self-preservation as to break suspension of disbelief. But there's usually angry, loud, arguing dissent. Which is a shame since these same episodes is hitting the mark on every other metric, IMO.

[–] TipRing@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago

My response to the first five episodes was very much "It's like the writers are justifying a councilor being on the bridge crew."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 31 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (7 children)

I find many of these shows and movies that are accused of being woke is because they create protagonists without flaws, out of fear of making non traditional characters look bad I guess? But protagonists without flaws are boring.

I'm trying to think what Burnham's fatal flaw is, or her deadly sin. It's mostly stuff that has happened to her and she has to overcome but that's not the same thing. Interesting protagonist have flaws like hubris, vice, hypocrisy, greed, something that makes them more real. You look at characters like Rey from star wars and again, flawless except for her past, which again is something that happened to her not something she is.

That's why people didn't like when Han Solo didn't shoot first. Yes Han Solo is overall a good guy, but he's also ruthless and a gangster when we meet him. If he's already a flawless good guy at the start,that just sucks. Anakin as well, good but arrogant and controlling

[–] Ostrakon@lemmy.world 17 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (3 children)

I think i agree with the general premise that flawed characters are more interesting, and i also feel (with no data to back up that feeling, so bear with me) that these 'woke' characters sometimes fall into a pitfall where they're just so boringly written that it does feel like the writers are either afraid of being perceived as 'punching down' or (edit: finishing this thought) want to misguidedly write a perfect character for the sake of superficial representation of some group.

That said, for this show in particular (i have watched TNG/DS9/Voyager but not Discovery), is it a valid criticism for this captain that couldn't be applied to the older series? Picard's flaws are heavily understated - sure, he was a violent little shit off screen when he was younger, and he can be a little more of a hardass than called for occasionally, but I always felt he was pretty consistently portrayed as the voice of reason, and his flaws were only relevant in a couple episodes. I think I would say that's also true of Sisko and Janeway, though Sisko has a lot more nuance to his pragmatism that is really interesting as DS9 continues.

[–] Hugin@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago

Picard doesn't have many flaws but the writing doesn't usually make him the main character. TNG is more a problem solving show than a character drama. When they have character drama it's usually the B story.

When we do have a Picard centered episode they usually remove him from the rest of the crew. So you could say his main weakness is dependency on a crew. (Diehard in space doesn't count)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 54 points 1 day ago (5 children)
[–] SatyrSack@feddit.org 60 points 1 day ago (3 children)

BALD?? I have hair! Why else would I visit the best barber in Starfleet?!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 42 points 1 day ago (10 children)

I just couldn't get into Discovery or Picard because they felt... weird? Not that it wasn't like Star Trek in the stories or that it was "woke," but it just didn't have the same vibe as what I grew up with. Lower Decks has the vibe, but not the tone or anything else. I need to check out Strange New Worlds. It looks like it might be what I'm really missing.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Both Picard and Discovery were season long plots without episodic filler episodes to shake things up which made it painfully obvious that their overarching plotlines were terrible. Add some poorly done melodramatic scenes about how the leads are the most important people ever without showing why (and in a lot of cases showing the opposite) and we have two series that were just a slog to watch up to the point that I stopped.

Both sounded good on paper. Both had great casts. Both seemed to suffer from terrible writing and direction.

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 13 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The final season of PIC was fun, and the second one had some good moments, mostly with Q. But that first season was still being written as they were filming and the second season had part of its budget appropriated for the third season and it shows in both.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 23 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

I just watched Season 2 of Picard and all I could think the whole time was "TNG crew would have wrapped this up in 1 or 2 episodes..."

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 21 points 22 hours ago

Yup, in order to make Discovery and Picard work, the writers had to give everyone the idiot ball.

Trek is at its best when it's competence porn.

As a note, to be in star fleet requires 4 years at the start fleet academy. You need to be somewhat good at your job and somewhat disciplined to even be considered for a slot on a ship.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] USSMojave@startrek.website 11 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Yes, watch Strange New Worlds! It really does get at the vibe and tone of TNG and the other 90s Trek shows. It's a breath of fresh air

[–] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 7 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Second watching SNW! Really fantastic show.

I disagree that it recaptures the vibe and tone of TNG/'90s Trek. I'd say it's much more like TOS with weird (in a good way) plots and swashbuckling adventure. '90s Trek felt much more grounded and more taking-itself-seriously than TOS or SNW.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 13 points 22 hours ago (23 children)

was there even one gay character in TNG?

[–] 1SimpleTailor@startrek.website 29 points 19 hours ago

Riker is clearly pan

load more comments (22 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›