Star Trek: Lower Decks

[Cyke]

No one watches Star Trek for humour. I could already tell how bad this will be considering how awful the attempts at humour in Discovery are.

Tribbles from the 1960s and 1990s both disagree with you. As do the whales from the 1980s.

[Flash Gordon]

Oh god. Alex Kurtzman doesn't care about Star Trek, it really is hard to imagine that he's at the helm of everything.

[WebLurker]

Oh god. Alex Kurtzman doesn't care about Star Trek, it really is hard to imagine that he's at the helm of everything.

The guy was a self-proclaimed Trekkie long before first becoming involved with the franchise with the '09 movie (and all the Easter eggs and knowledge he gave back then would "prove" it -- although no one has to prove being a fan of anything). He's kept coming back with stuff, so it seems unlikely that he doesn't care about the franchise.

I think we need to stop listening to "Midnight's Edge" and "Ex Astris Scientia" and accept that not making a show that's slavish to every little piece of franchise continuity, dares to reimagine things, be different, and isn't the show we wanted means that the Powers That Be hate or don't like Star Trek or don't understand what they're doing, etc.

[BeastieRunner]

That was awful.

And now I really wish they never said no to Seth. At least his would be watchable.

[Anthony W]

That was awful.

And now I really wish they never said no to Seth. At least his would be watchable.

What's really funny is Seth would have come at a far cheaper price.

[Flash Gordon]

The guy was a self-proclaimed Trekkie long before first becoming involved with the franchise with the '09 movie (and all the Easter eggs and knowledge he gave back then would "prove" it -- although no one has to prove being a fan of anything). He's kept coming back with stuff, so it seems unlikely that he doesn't care about the franchise.

I think we need to stop listening to "Midnight's Edge" and "Ex Astris Scientia" and accept that not making a show that's slavish to every little piece of franchise continuity, dares to reimagine things, be different, and isn't the show we wanted means that the Powers That Be hate or don't like Star Trek or don't understand what they're doing, etc.

Never heard of either of those things, and nothing to do with the '09 flick proves any kind of reverence for the material. Which is what matters, reverence for the material and the specific world that Gene Roddenberry created.

[Jokerz79]

The guy was a self-proclaimed Trekkie long before first becoming involved with the franchise with the '09 movie (and all the Easter eggs and knowledge he gave back then would "prove" it -- although no one has to prove being a fan of anything). He's kept coming back with stuff, so it seems unlikely that he doesn't care about the franchise.

I think we need to stop listening to "Midnight's Edge" and "Ex Astris Scientia" and accept that not making a show that's slavish to every little piece of franchise continuity, dares to reimagine things, be different, and isn't the show we wanted means that the Powers That Be hate or don't like Star Trek or don't understand what they're doing, etc.

What about making really bad dumb shows though? Which Discovery and Picard are.

[WebLurker]

Never heard of either of those things, and nothing to do with the '09 flick proves any kind of reverence for the material. Which is what matters, reverence for the material and the specific world that Gene Roddenberry created.

"Midnight's Edge" is a YouTube channel that talks about entertainment, with a lot of videos on the new Star Trek installments. "Ex Astris Scientia" is a long-running Star Trek fan site with reviews and essays on the franchise. Both are extremely toxic in their hatred for the new material (mostly to do with the artistic license in the new stuff).

I don't like the first two Abrams movies very much (subjectively due to how the franchise was reimagined, more objectively in regards to the structure of the films) and I do think that Kurtzmen and Roberto Orci did play a role in that (honestly haven't been very impressed with any of the movies they've been involved with that I've seen, although I will say that I think the '09 Trek movie is their best in terms of craftsmanship).

However, just because we disagree on what the movie should have been doesn't mean that Kurtzman and Orci aren't genuine fans. Take the movie itself; there are incredibly deep cut references to the larger franchise in those first two movies (ENT, TAS, TNG, DS9 for sure have some pretty obscure nods). Kurtzman has namedropped stuff like Prime Directive and Spock's World. Heck, Kirk's backstory was inspired by The Last Roundup and they cited the TNG episodes "Parallels" to explain how they thought the move fit with the larger franchise.

Wether you think they were good choices for working on the franchise or not, they clearly are Trekkies and have every reason to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.

What about making really bad dumb shows though? Which Discovery and Picard are.

Gonna be totally honest; most the negative stuff I've seen is along the lines of "they changed this from the old show; they're such bad people for doing that"; the usual fanboy nonsense I try to ignore (yes, I wish that DSC looked exactly like TOS, but that was never going to happen). Make of that what you will.

[Anthony W]

"Midnight's Edge" is a YouTube channel that talks about entertainment, with a lot of videos on the new Star Trek installments. "Ex Astris Scientia" is a long-running Star Trek fan site with reviews and essays on the franchise. Both are extremely toxic in their hatred for the new material (mostly to do with the artistic license in the new stuff).

Is it actually toxic? Because fandom media has run the word "toxic" into the ground.

[Cyke]

Is it actually toxic? Because fandom media has run the word "toxic" into the ground.

I haven't seen anything about Midnight's Edge, but I'd say that about Ex Astris Scientia. They're brilliant about technical details and schematics, but they feel like it must override and dictate everything else that would be creative about Star Trek, and they've been doing that since well before Kurtzman (I think the late 90s, actually).

If you think an episode is fun or thoughtful or deep, but it doesn't adhere to their standards, then the episode is meaningless, no matter who's working on it (like, say, Drexler, Eaves, the Okudas, etc). I don't expect to agree with everyone on everything and I'm not going to dictate what one should like/dislike, but their vision of what Trek should be is really minute, and I feel even liberties taken by Roddenberry if he were alive today (and the guy was far from consistent) would still be verboten. And to me, no room for expression is in itself toxic because then that's limit of thought and freedom -- especially when it comes to a shared and mass appeal franchise like Trek. For them it feels like it's either "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" or "I'm the arbiter of what's good and you will all obey me."

(I feel the same about stardestroyer.net in regards to Star Wars fans that just want to enjoy the material).

On the other hand, I've always enjoyed ditl.org. They also dislike the new material and often cite EAS's figures for their own work (with proper acknowledgement, of course) but there's at least a little bit more leeway and humor about how they go about things. It's a shame that it hasn't been updated as regularly as before, though (and it really shows).

Nothing beats Junkball Media/Triangulum Studios on YouTube though, for my money.

[Anthony W]

Hmmm...I have never heard of these sites. Thanks for bringing them up.

[Immortal Weapon]

"Midnight's Edge" is a YouTube channel that talks about entertainment, with a lot of videos on the new Star Trek installments. "Ex Astris Scientia" is a long-running Star Trek fan site with reviews and essays on the franchise. Both are extremely toxic in their hatred for the new material (mostly to do with the artistic license in the new stuff).

There's nothing toxic about Midnight Edge. Being apprehensive about the creative direction of a franchise they are fans of is not toxic at all. It isn't helped that a lot of these direction ended up being crap once we get the final product.

[WebLurker]

I haven't seen anything about Midnight's Edge, but I'd say that about Ex Astris Scientia. They're brilliant about technical details and schematics, but they feel like it must override and dictate everything else that would be creative about Star Trek, and they've been doing that since well before Kurtzman (I think the late 90s, actually).

Just skip them; nothing of value.

If you think an episode is fun or thoughtful or deep, but it doesn't adhere to their standards, then the episode is meaningless, no matter who's working on it (like, say, Drexler, Eaves, the Okudas, etc). I don't expect to agree with everyone on everything and I'm not going to dictate what one should like/dislike, but their vision of what Trek should be is really minute, and I feel even liberties taken by Roddenberry if he were alive today (and the guy was far from consistent) would still be verboten. And to me, no room for expression is in itself toxic because then that's limit of thought and freedom -- especially when it comes to a shared and mass appeal franchise like Trek. For them it feels like it's either "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" or "I'm the arbiter of what's good and you will all obey me."

Yeah, I see that. It kinda happened in real time, too; he was bugged by both ENT and the JJ Abrams movies for not conforming to what we wanted, but was much more civil about it (and kept editorializing to a minimum), while his DSC stuff has a lot of anger and entitlement attached to it; there's a whole FAQ about DSC that's mostly him yelling at straw men he created of people who are critical of how he's handling his material about the new stuff. Seems like the success of the site went to his head a bit.

(I feel the same about stardestroyer.net in regards to Star Wars fans that just want to enjoy the material).

Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time. Remember that site from years ago (pretty out of date now). Some interesting stuff scattered in there, but the guy really disliked Trekkies to the point of irrationality. I actually found that I much prefer Ex Astris Scientia. Stardestroyer.net's whole "brain bugs" article was pretty petulant and the whole site just paints the picture of this incredibly angry man who's always right and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong. Whatever I think of where Ex Astris Scientia has gone in recent years, he seems much saner in comparison. Stardestroyer seemed to be writing with a specific agenda and went out of his way to make is opponents look bad.

On the other hand, I've always enjoyed ditl.org. They also dislike the new material and often cite EAS's figures for their own work (with proper acknowledgement, of course) but there's at least a little bit more leeway and humor about how they go about things. It's a shame that it hasn't been updated as regularly as before, though (and it really shows).

Didn't like the organization of that site as well, but they had some good stuff (funny how Stardestroyer devoted a piece of his site just to attacking this guy). I think the site's author passed away, hence why the site has kinda run down. While the family's loss is more important, I will agree that the website going into dormancy is a loss for the fandom.

Nothing beats Junkball Media/Triangulum Studios on YouTube though, for my money.

Not familiar with Junkball, but Triangulum is a rare gem; positivity but honesty. As a Star Trek and Star Wars fan, it's hard to find stuff online that's not hostile to things the users aren't fond of, flame wars, toxicity, and the like.

There's nothing toxic about Midnight Edge. Being apprehensive about the creative direction of a franchise they are fans of is not toxic at all. It isn't helped that a lot of these direction ended up being crap once we get the final product.

Not liking a new direction is one thing. Passing off rumors and blind speculation as fact because they don't like the show and would be happy if it was canceled is something else. They're also ideologically aligned with harassment groups like the Fandom Menace and They Who Must Not Be Named, so I will concede that I'm not predisposed to like them in the first place.

[Immortal Weapon]

Not liking a new direction is one thing. Passing off rumors and blind speculation as fact because they don't like the show and would be happy if it was canceled is something else. They're also ideologically aligned with harassment groups like the Fandom Menace and They Who Must Not Be Named, so I will concede that I'm not predisposed to like them in the first place.

Have you watched a Midnight Edge video? They don't pass off speculation as fact. They are always mindful of the fact that what they bring up in their channel are rumors that cannot be independently verified. They put up a content warning and everything.

[Farealmer]

Have you watched a Midnight Edge video? They don't pass off speculation as fact. They are always mindful of the fact that what they bring up in their channel are rumors that cannot be independently verified. They put up a content warning and everything.

In my experience people who pass off rumors, especially ones about things they don't like, are doing so in bad faith and to poison the well.