Suppose I cook you lobster ravioli as served at a Michelin-star restaurant. The filling is a perfect blend of lobster, salmon, egg white, basil, lemon zest, and seasoning. The poaching stock is expertly crafted from roasted lobster shell, carrots, celery, onions, tomato, and lemongrass, then deglazed with brandy, reduced, and strained till it’s perfect. Consider further that the pasta was made fresh by hand, and expertly stuffed, and served with lemon vinaigrette and tomato chutney, all prepared by an expert hand with fresh ingredients. It’s a perfect dish, one that has so many great things going on. It’s a balanced symphony of unique flavors interplaying perfectly.
Oh, except I used cheap, nasty, frozen lobster and it’s still raw. Oops. Are you still going to eat your ravioli anyway? No. It doesn’t matter how many great things are very much still actually happening, there’s no point in eating it now. It’s ruined. All of it.
Bad writing is the raw shellfish of media. It doesn’t matter how good everything else about the show is, because if it’s written badly, everything is ruined. It’s the one thing that can’t be forgiven and taints everything it touches at the source. Good intentions don’t make up for raw shellfish.
Well there goes 90% of the show, so no, you get the long version now.
We’re both standing in the middle of a soundstage (lit like a European discotheque), and you whisper-talk at me at a volume 0.01% louder than the score:
“I’d love to hear some of these examples of badwriting in the show! You can feel free to skip all of the overwrought metaphors.”
and I respond
“Well if I skip the ‘overwrought metaphors’, I seriously doubt I’ll have anything left to talk about!”
then you say something about how hard this is on you emotionally, I quietly affirm that I’m here for you, then you bitterly reject it, and then I pinch off a pithy-sounding bon mot that’s actually nonsense, and walk off, leaving you standing stock-still in the grip of Powerful Emotions. Then we repeat all of this six more times, taking breaks for vomit-inducing scenes where 15,000 suicidally depressed animators shove every single item in the effects library onto the screen.
But seriously, I know you’re just sea lioning. It’s not possible to ask that question in good faith. Imagine if I snottily asked you to give me an example of bad writing in 1994’s It’s Pat, you would tell me “uh, fucking everything, piss off” and you’d be right to.
I have to strongly disagree with your premise there. Star Trek and Starfleet do have a singular underlying theme throughout, as defined by Gene Roddenberry. Yes, each series is different, but there is a thread throughout that binds them, a code of morals that someone in the crew always brings everyone back to every episode, even if a character strays. Even the other species have their traits that generally stay consistent. This maybe started to diminish with DS9 and Voyager, after Roddenberry passed, however others don’t quite grab a hold of that thread well at all - specifically Enterprise and Discovery. The J J Abrams films also somewhat, although they follow TOS closely enough that it still fits.
It’s not the action/flashy scenes (which were never what made Star Trek great, and frankly HDR and bloom are all too often overdone these days, like if Michael Bay did lens flare), it’s the interactions between the characters. And overall it’s a feeling, something that’s really hard to put into words, but recognisable when it’s there.
As for ‘teeny sci-fi show’, why?
Again, the interactions between the characters. You’ll have to forgive me for not having it fresh in my memory, I haven’t seen Discovery for a while (dropped Sky TV and with that lost the only device logged into my mum’s Netflix) but generally to me it felt like most other CBS shows in the way characters interact, and how so many of them focus on hooking up with each other to the detriment of their duties. It’s cheap and lazy drama, in my eyes. SNW even still has a little of this around Spock, but in general it feels like CBS finally listened and relaxed on the reins a little bit, allowing it to be a “proper” Trek show.
You did bring up a bunch of things in your previous comment that make me want to go back and re-watch Discovery, though, so I’ll be doing that soon.
Lastly, if it’s a “good show overall” then why did you literally open with saying that Pike was “THE redeeming factor” of the show?
There is no hint of “teeny” behavior in the show or in the way they interact with each other.
I wasn’t saying the characters were behaving teeny, rather the show seems to be aimed more towards teenagers, along with most of CBS’ other lineup.
Everything you just said was opinion and you attempted to pass it off as fact.
I would think it’s abundantly obvious that it’s an opinion, nowhere did I claim it was fact, and nor did I gatekeep or say you didn’t understand anything. You’re getting far too aggressive here, I’m sorry if I touched a nerve, but I am entitled to my opinion on the shows just as much as you are. In my opinion, Enterprise and Discovery don’t feel like proper Trek. I’m sorry if I didn’t articulate that very well, but that doesn’t give you the right to berate me and belittle me over an opinion on a fictional franchise.
I actually had a great deal of respect for you going into this. I mentioned how I was going to re-watch Discovery in light of what you said, and I was hoping to get your opinion on some other shows, as you clearly have a different way of looking at things than me and I’m interested in that insight. All I did was criticise a show. In return, you criticised me, personally.
Stamets is an internet celebrity, bro. He was right to stomp on your personhood, you had the temerity to disagree with his august opinions of his favorite network TV shows. Shame on you.
deleted by creator
SNeW Pike is literally THE redeeming factor of Discovery.
deleted by creator
Suppose I cook you lobster ravioli as served at a Michelin-star restaurant. The filling is a perfect blend of lobster, salmon, egg white, basil, lemon zest, and seasoning. The poaching stock is expertly crafted from roasted lobster shell, carrots, celery, onions, tomato, and lemongrass, then deglazed with brandy, reduced, and strained till it’s perfect. Consider further that the pasta was made fresh by hand, and expertly stuffed, and served with lemon vinaigrette and tomato chutney, all prepared by an expert hand with fresh ingredients. It’s a perfect dish, one that has so many great things going on. It’s a balanced symphony of unique flavors interplaying perfectly.
Oh, except I used cheap, nasty, frozen lobster and it’s still raw. Oops. Are you still going to eat your ravioli anyway? No. It doesn’t matter how many great things are very much still actually happening, there’s no point in eating it now. It’s ruined. All of it.
Bad writing is the raw shellfish of media. It doesn’t matter how good everything else about the show is, because if it’s written badly, everything is ruined. It’s the one thing that can’t be forgiven and taints everything it touches at the source. Good intentions don’t make up for raw shellfish.
Could you give some examples of bad writing in the show? Feel free to skip the overwrought metaphor.
Well there goes 90% of the show, so no, you get the long version now.
We’re both standing in the middle of a soundstage (lit like a European discotheque), and you whisper-talk at me at a volume 0.01% louder than the score:
“I’d love to hear some of these examples of bad writing in the show! You can feel free to skip all of the overwrought metaphors.”
and I respond
“Well if I skip the ‘overwrought metaphors’, I seriously doubt I’ll have anything left to talk about!” then you say something about how hard this is on you emotionally, I quietly affirm that I’m here for you, then you bitterly reject it, and then I pinch off a pithy-sounding bon mot that’s actually nonsense, and walk off, leaving you standing stock-still in the grip of Powerful Emotions. Then we repeat all of this six more times, taking breaks for vomit-inducing scenes where 15,000 suicidally depressed animators shove every single item in the effects library onto the screen.
But seriously, I know you’re just sea lioning. It’s not possible to ask that question in good faith. Imagine if I snottily asked you to give me an example of bad writing in 1994’s It’s Pat, you would tell me “uh, fucking everything, piss off” and you’d be right to.
So that’s a “no?”
I believe I made it quite clear that I get to do the pithy bot mot that’s actually nonsense, stay in your lane.
The term is “bon mot.” Don’t worry though, this in no way affects my impression of your ability to judge what is or is not good writing.
It’s a good show overall, but in too many ways it doesn’t feel like Starfleet. I see it as more of a modern teeny sci-fi show with a Star Trek theme.
deleted by creator
I have to strongly disagree with your premise there. Star Trek and Starfleet do have a singular underlying theme throughout, as defined by Gene Roddenberry. Yes, each series is different, but there is a thread throughout that binds them, a code of morals that someone in the crew always brings everyone back to every episode, even if a character strays. Even the other species have their traits that generally stay consistent. This maybe started to diminish with DS9 and Voyager, after Roddenberry passed, however others don’t quite grab a hold of that thread well at all - specifically Enterprise and Discovery. The J J Abrams films also somewhat, although they follow TOS closely enough that it still fits.
It’s not the action/flashy scenes (which were never what made Star Trek great, and frankly HDR and bloom are all too often overdone these days, like if Michael Bay did lens flare), it’s the interactions between the characters. And overall it’s a feeling, something that’s really hard to put into words, but recognisable when it’s there.
Again, the interactions between the characters. You’ll have to forgive me for not having it fresh in my memory, I haven’t seen Discovery for a while (dropped Sky TV and with that lost the only device logged into my mum’s Netflix) but generally to me it felt like most other CBS shows in the way characters interact, and how so many of them focus on hooking up with each other to the detriment of their duties. It’s cheap and lazy drama, in my eyes. SNW even still has a little of this around Spock, but in general it feels like CBS finally listened and relaxed on the reins a little bit, allowing it to be a “proper” Trek show.
You did bring up a bunch of things in your previous comment that make me want to go back and re-watch Discovery, though, so I’ll be doing that soon.
Because I was speaking in hyperbole.
deleted by creator
I wasn’t saying the characters were behaving teeny, rather the show seems to be aimed more towards teenagers, along with most of CBS’ other lineup.
I would think it’s abundantly obvious that it’s an opinion, nowhere did I claim it was fact, and nor did I gatekeep or say you didn’t understand anything. You’re getting far too aggressive here, I’m sorry if I touched a nerve, but I am entitled to my opinion on the shows just as much as you are. In my opinion, Enterprise and Discovery don’t feel like proper Trek. I’m sorry if I didn’t articulate that very well, but that doesn’t give you the right to berate me and belittle me over an opinion on a fictional franchise.
I actually had a great deal of respect for you going into this. I mentioned how I was going to re-watch Discovery in light of what you said, and I was hoping to get your opinion on some other shows, as you clearly have a different way of looking at things than me and I’m interested in that insight. All I did was criticise a show. In return, you criticised me, personally.
Stamets is an internet celebrity, bro. He was right to stomp on your personhood, you had the temerity to disagree with his august opinions of his favorite network TV shows. Shame on you.