Discussion Headscratchers / StarTrekDiscovery

I think this is a reasonable question to ask, but I object to the rather insulting way that you have asked it. This could have been phrased in a much more neutral way without the swearing and condescension. To answer your question: Yes. And you will find this attitude among ANY fanbase that has a lot of people who care deeply for it or have a lot of time invested in it. Go over to the Harry Potter, Star Wars or Doctor Who page and ask the exact same question. It may not be an attitude you agree with, but like it or not, it isn't going anywhere. But beyond that, people don't like feeling that they are being insulted by the creators of any work. Broad strokes and pragmatic adaption is an excuse that only gets you so far before it is challenged by people who think that you are taking liberties. I won't list them, but there are plenty of Youtube videos detailing them for you. I would recommend Midnight's Edge to get you started.

Well, that's just it — I'm a fan of those works as well, and despite the rather controversial things each of them has done lately, in my experience none of them has ever faced such a monumental level of vitriol being directed at them on a daily basis.

It can certainly be argued that Harry Potter, Star Wars, Doctor Who and other fictional series have simply done a more tactful job at approaching and handling significant changes. The writers and producers on DSC sure seem to have been more "our way or the highway" about things, but regardless of their PR approach, there's no way a 2010s-era TV series would ever survive today being produced the way that TOS did back in the 1960s. Our culture and our standards have evolved too far for that.

I grew up watching TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. Every new installment of Trek has made changes, and even if I don't necessarily agree with all of them or think they've all been good ideas, at the end of the day, enjoyment is what's important and what needs to come before obsessing over minutiae.

So ships and uniforms look different on Discovery. Characterizations aren't entirely the same as what they used to be in past series. Things are Darker and Edgier and Spock has an adopted sister we've never heard about before. And yet, for all these surface-level changes, deeper down, the writers seem to have plenty of respect for the history and the universe-building that already exists in Star Trek — but oh no, heaven forbid that storylines are serialized instead of episodic and things look different. Skewed priorities much?

If anybody needs a live-action demonstration of The Law of Fan Jackassery, I know where to send them ...

I'd also point out that the very nature of a prequel invites this sort of discussion.

And frankly, CBS is doing itself no favors with its distribution platform. They're virtually guaranteeing that most of the people who are likely to watch the new series are already Star Trek fans, instead of newcomers to the franchise. Trek fans are already notorious sticklers for canon, so if they're going to tell a story that takes place prior the Original Series, it's sort of incumbent on them to explain why the series appears to be taking place in an entirely separate continuity.

I'm absolutely giving the new series a chance, and I encourage others to do the same. But so far, the radical changes in the designs of a lot of the staple elements of the franchise remain unexplained. Don't mistake fans discussing those changes for vitriol. There may be some level of They Changed It, Now It Sucks!, but most people—myself included—are just trying to figure out how this new series fits into the overall Trek universe.

I think a part of it has to do with fandom expectations. A lot of Trek fans (myself included) were disappointed with the J.J. Abrams movies for being Darker and Edgier, and putting more emphasis on space opera and action than on science fiction ideas. But they were set in an Alternate Continuity, so fans couls still feel the prime continuity established in the TV series was safe from the "Abrams touch". When it was announced that Discovery takes place in the prime universe rather than the alternate universe of the new movies, a lot of fans presumed this would mean Discovery is more in line with the previous TV series, exploring sci-fi concepts, utopianism, diplomacy, etc. But then it turns out this show is pretty much the same as the Abrams movies: Darker and Edgier, dumber, angstier, more focused on action and warfare. It's pretty much an Alternate Continuity show all but in name, so it's kinda understandable disappointed fans would nitpick on the numerous discrepancies between this show and all the preceding ones.

So just because the writers aren't Pandering to the Base, that's why so many "traditional" fans are so big on trashing the show to hell and back? The series from TOS through to Voyager where everybody was The Paragon just don't line up with societal understandings and expectations today, so a retread would just get panned as It's the Same, So It Sucks.

A good number of the writers, producers and actors have explained how the show is about the struggle to be tolerant, accepting and inclusive in the first place and how that doesn't come without hard work and sacrifices. Within the Trek universe, there had to be a "long road getting from there to here" that obviously had its ups and downs for what became the Federation we all know from past series. We can't just see the high points; life has low points too.

For my part, I blame our society's focus on instant gratification. People want things to be perfect right now and damn the process and the hard work of getting there. For some reason, a lot of people seem to regard this lack of things being perfect right off the bat as a Berserk Button and a Rant Inducing Slight. But the narrative structure of the series certainly seems to be intentional — Discovery is very obviously playing the "long game" of gradually turning the characters, Starfleet and the Federation into the kind of protagonists we can root for like we used to. If enjoying the high points means we need to start from a low point in Trek history, then so be it.

Instant gratification has nothing to do with it. I have been watching Game of Thrones and the Walking Dead build up to its conclusion for half a decade now, viewers are more than capable of waiting for something to gather steam.

And as for Star Trek not matching up with understandings and expectations today, I say, prove it. The fact that there are people like me and others who loathe all of the things that you are celebrating about this show proves that this is not universally the case by a country mile.

So why are such a large number of people so incapable of treating Discovery like any other show out there? Or like any other franchise that must evolve over time or die out of fatigue?

If TOS or even TNG were airing for the first time today, they would get laughed at and ignored out of existence. As good as we know they were, both series were products of their times. DS9 tried to defy the mold, but got hit with backdraft similar to Discovery until it kind-of moderated itself. Voyager and Enterprise tried to be too similar to older Trek, and audiences promptly reacted with It's the Same, Now It Sucks! until Enterprise tried to break out of the formula in the final two seasons, but by then it was too late.

Are "traditional" fans so hell-bent on nostalgic pandering that they just can't live with a new series trying new ways of telling a story? Or does Star Trek just have the ultimate epitome of an Unpleasable Fanbase?

So even if something is awful, you should continue watching it on the off chance that it'll get better? Nah. Why should I treat this series unlike any other series I have ever watched? I liked those other Trek shows from season 1, so I kept watching. I liked Walking Dead from season 1, so I kept watching. I haven't liked season 1 of this series so far, so chances are that I will not keep watching. My time is finite, I have 80 years if I am lucky, and oh so many films and TV shows to watch in that time. I'm not wasting it on something that sucks. And as for what the traditional fanbase wants, I could explain it to you, but it will just rehash what I and others have already said here and elsewhere. My POV has not changed.

Well sure, it hasn't changed, mainly because you're not interested in changing your opinion in the first place. To you, the first few episodes are terrible, and that's apparently enough to condemn Discovery for all time. Imagine how many people missed out on plenty of high-quality television in TNG, DS9 or even Enterprise, simply because they thought the first couple seasons of each were boring or cheesy and turned away to other things. (And that's back when they even made seasons with 26 episodes each, not 15.)

You seem to be treating your personal opinion that the series "sucks" as being some kind of incontrovertible fact that represents all "traditional fans", whatever that means at this point. Some like and enjoy the series to varying degrees. Some are generally neutral or withholding opinion until they see more of it. Some obviously dislike or hate it, but split opinions doesn't mean that the show is absolute trash.

From a rather meta standpoint, if you're not interested in going outside your comfort zone, if you're not willing to be open-minded and live with, accept and even embrace differences and new ideas, then maybe Star Trek isn't the fictional franchise for you.

Okay, knock it off. You're turning a disagreement about a television show into a personal attack. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't like it. That has no bearing on your personal opinion on the show, so stop treating it like an attack. You like the show, he doesn't; leave it at that.