That's fair. For me the differences helps to keep this new badly written (as Cutter pointed out, for Star Trek) stuff out of the more "true to heart ST" canon of old.

Drayth wrote on Apr 7, 2021, 17:01:

Kxmode wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 19:37:

Drayth wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 11:26:
As far as timelines - the last time we saw the original timeline (Next Generation, Deep Space 9, etc.) was the last episode of Enterprise. The "prime" timeline that the Leonard Nimoy Spock came forward from in the first JJ Abrahms movie, and that the new shows take place in is not that same timeline as the shows and movies before it (as much as the creators want you to believe it is). This is due to a licensing issue stemming from when Viacom split with Paramount. The movies and shows are forced to make everything in their content a certain percentage different from the original shows because none of them have the original license. So, no.. the Picard in the in the Picard series is technically from a different universe (with the helping to save the Romulans etc.) than the Picard we all grew up with.

Discussed in more detail here.

More recently things are now back in a position where they can revive the original license and start using the original continuity, but Paramount is still stuck in the contracts with Bad Robot who has the alternate license for the time being. Star Trek is technically a multiverse even when ignoring the kelvin timeline.

CBS and Paramount officially ended the Kelvin timeline after Star Trek Beyond. They said none of the television series would take place in the Kelvin timeline. As a fan thing, if we fans want to refer to the material we love as "Prebrams" that's more appropriate than calling it Kelvin material. Officially, Discovery takes place before the Kelvin timeline happened. So when they jump 900 years into the future, that happened before the Kelvin timeline. It's prime timeline stuff. It's also terrible and not worth watching based on watching every episode of every season. I know I'm splitting hairs, but I just wanted to clear that up.

Allow me to split the split hairs...

The Kelvin timeline still exists though, even if they don't do any more material in it. The Prime timeline is a parallel universe from the Kelvin timeline which the Kelvin timeline split off from. My point is the original set of series is yet another parallel universe. Those events do not occur in either the prime or kelvin "universes". That's why there's continuity issues between Discovery + Picard and the older shows (though it all stems from the real world licensing issue). Ships don't look quite the same. Sets don't look quite the same, etc.

Infact based on an episode review I happened on, the one time they showed someone wearing an actual matching Star Fleet uniform last season they stated they were from some other universe (implying the original set of shows universe).

Check the video I originally linked. It explains it better than I can.

I watched the video, and his pitch is the new shows aren't canon prime timeline or original Star Trek pre-2005 because of legal issues between CBS and Paramount forcing changes. As a Star Trek fan, I'm not to let legal minutiae drive my view as to whether something is canon or not. If the series occurs in the prime timeline, and the showrunners have said it is the prime timeline, and most if not all of it stays in line with canon, then I'm not going to trip over the Enterprise being 25% bigger or the Klingons looking weird, or Spock has a sister.

Picard is still in its first season, and Discovery is in its third. As far as I've seen (and I've seen every episode of both), I have not witnessed any continuity errors between them.

The end of Discovery season two nicely addresses many questions I've had for why Discovery looked different from other Starfleet ships and why the Discovery crew wore uniforms never seen before. Whenever the Enterprise crew appeared, they wore TOS uniforms, just slightly updated with a modern look.

Putting everything aside, I dislike Discovery on the merits that its story and acting are terrible, not because of uniform or alleged continuity errors or legal licensing issues. Season three was a tedious slog. By the last episode, I was skipping whole sections. I have no desire to watch season 4.

From one fan to another, I do appreciate your point of view and respect you reasons, I just disagree with them.

Kxmode wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 19:37:

Drayth wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 11:26:
As far as timelines - the last time we saw the original timeline (Next Generation, Deep Space 9, etc.) was the last episode of Enterprise. The "prime" timeline that the Leonard Nimoy Spock came forward from in the first JJ Abrahms movie, and that the new shows take place in is not that same timeline as the shows and movies before it (as much as the creators want you to believe it is). This is due to a licensing issue stemming from when Viacom split with Paramount. The movies and shows are forced to make everything in their content a certain percentage different from the original shows because none of them have the original license. So, no.. the Picard in the in the Picard series is technically from a different universe (with the helping to save the Romulans etc.) than the Picard we all grew up with.

Discussed in more detail here.

More recently things are now back in a position where they can revive the original license and start using the original continuity, but Paramount is still stuck in the contracts with Bad Robot who has the alternate license for the time being. Star Trek is technically a multiverse even when ignoring the kelvin timeline.

CBS and Paramount officially ended the Kelvin timeline after Star Trek Beyond. They said none of the television series would take place in the Kelvin timeline. As a fan thing, if we fans want to refer to the material we love as "Prebrams" that's more appropriate than calling it Kelvin material. Officially, Discovery takes place before the Kelvin timeline happened. So when they jump 900 years into the future, that happened before the Kelvin timeline. It's prime timeline stuff. It's also terrible and not worth watching based on watching every episode of every season. I know I'm splitting hairs, but I just wanted to clear that up.

Allow me to split the split hairs...

The Kelvin timeline still exists though, even if they don't do any more material in it. The Prime timeline is a parallel universe from the Kelvin timeline which the Kelvin timeline split off from. My point is the original set of series is yet another parallel universe. Those events do not occur in either the prime or kelvin "universes". That's why there's continuity issues between Discovery + Picard and the older shows (though it all stems from the real world licensing issue). Ships don't look quite the same. Sets don't look quite the same, etc.

Infact based on an episode review I happened on, the one time they showed someone wearing an actual matching Star Fleet uniform last season they stated they were from some other universe (implying the original set of shows universe).

Check the video I originally linked. It explains it better than I can.

Picard has many genuinely good moments that make the show eons ahead of Discovery. A scene like this reminds me of how much better the actors are.

jdreyer wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 17:49:
So I tried watching Discovery. I got as far as (spoilers) the fascist multiverse, wherein I lost interest. I think that's still in S1? Or is that in S2 already? Honestly, I just don't find the character of Michael Burnham compelling. Which is a shame, because there are some real bright spots in Lorca, Tilly, and especially Saru. And I didn't really like the portrayal of the Klingons either. Their overly deliberate dialog irked me. And, yes, the storylines are not really Star Trek as we know it, which I have mixed feelings about. I don't mind them trying something different, but as someone pointed out, the series focuses on what's wrong with humanity, not what's right like every other ST show.

That's season one, and it's supposed to be the Mirror Universe that first appeared in TOS. However, unlike the TOS and DS9 versions (and to a lesser extent Enterprise version) that tempers the Terran Empire's cruelty, the writers unleash them in Discovery. I preferred the "Prebrams" mirror universe when a hint of what the Terran Empire did was enough. I didn't need to see their torture and cruelty, nor did I. I skipped most of that trash.

Drayth wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 11:26:
As far as timelines - the last time we saw the original timeline (Next Generation, Deep Space 9, etc.) was the last episode of Enterprise. The "prime" timeline that the Leonard Nimoy Spock came forward from in the first JJ Abrahms movie, and that the new shows take place in is not that same timeline as the shows and movies before it (as much as the creators want you to believe it is). This is due to a licensing issue stemming from when Viacom split with Paramount. The movies and shows are forced to make everything in their content a certain percentage different from the original shows because none of them have the original license. So, no.. the Picard in the in the Picard series is technically from a different universe (with the helping to save the Romulans etc.) than the Picard we all grew up with.

Discussed in more detail here.

More recently things are now back in a position where they can revive the original license and start using the original continuity, but Paramount is still stuck in the contracts with Bad Robot who has the alternate license for the time being. Star Trek is technically a multiverse even when ignoring the kelvin timeline.

CBS and Paramount officially ended the Kelvin timeline after Star Trek Beyond. They said none of the television series would take place in the Kelvin timeline. As a fan thing, if we fans want to refer to the material we love as "Prebrams" that's more appropriate than calling it Kelvin material. Officially, Discovery takes place before the Kelvin timeline happened. So when they jump 900 years into the future, that happened before the Kelvin timeline. It's prime timeline stuff. It's also terrible and not worth watching based on watching every episode of every season. I know I'm splitting hairs, but I just wanted to clear that up.

jdreyer wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 17:49:
So I tried watching Discovery. I got as far as (spoilers) the fascist multiverse, wherein I lost interest.

It's pretty much become the default. nsfw

So I tried watching Discovery. I got as far as (spoilers) the fascist multiverse, wherein I lost interest. I think that's still in S1? Or is that in S2 already? Honestly, I just don't find the character of Michael Burnham compelling. Which is a shame, because there are some real bright spots in Lorca, Tilly, and especially Saru. And I didn't really like the portrayal of the Klingons either. Their overly deliberate dialog irked me. And, yes, the storylines are not really Star Trek as we know it, which I have mixed feelings about. I don't mind them trying something different, but as someone pointed out, the series focuses on what's wrong with humanity, not what's right like every other ST show.

Mr. Tact wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 14:23:

RedEye9 wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 10:25:
Unlike musicians* who can sell their back catalogue, actors have to work. It's all they've got.

*Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Stevie Nicks and Neil Young have sold all or portions of song catalogs in recent deals.

I absolutely agree they have the right to sell their catalogues, if they want to. However, I have to say unless they were hurting for money, why would they? All four of those artists should have plenty of money already. Then again, they wouldn't be the first to ever spend themselves into poverty. *shrug* Whatever. My point on Stewart was he stuck me as someone who once he was settled for money would seek out his acting passions which I am, perhaps incorrectly, assuming don't include pop culture entertainment.

Covered in todays OotB https://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&boardid=1&threadid=220862&id=1308874
Why does someone have to have squandered away their wealth to want to get more wealth from there art.
Maybe they just want to cash in while the cashing in is good.
It's not like they can pack stadiums during a pandemic.

As for picard
They're probably not making stuff that he wants to act in and pop culture entertainment movies pays zillions.
It's a freaking job.

RedEye9 wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 10:25:
Unlike musicians* who can sell their back catalogue, actors have to work. It's all they've got.

*Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Stevie Nicks and Neil Young have sold all or portions of song catalogs in recent deals.

I absolutely agree they have the right to sell their catalogues, if they want to. However, I have to say unless they were hurting for money, why would they? All four of those artists should have plenty of money already. Then again, they wouldn't be the first to ever spend themselves into poverty. *shrug* Whatever. My point on Stewart was he stuck me as someone who once he was settled for money would seek out his acting passions which I am, perhaps incorrectly, assuming don't include pop culture entertainment.

Discovery isn't bad sci-fi it just isn't Star Trek.

VaranDragon wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 10:29:
ST: Picard is hardly perfect but at least doesn't make any of the huge errors that Discovery did. It's not exactly the Star Trek we remember of old, but at least it doesn't yell "abandon all hope" from the bell-tops, and shows us a glimmer of what made Star Trek the beloved show that it was. It's flawed in a way that none of the old shows were flawed but it's not bad.

Any of the huge errors like what? Being anti everything that made Trek Trek?

Like going from action scenes serve to advance the plot only when it is necessary to the reverse where the plot is only there as filler to set up the next action scenes? Check

Like going from an intellectual work engaging your brain and rational compassion to an emotional work giving you an emotional roller coaster ride filled with irrational negative emotions instead? Check

Like going from violence as an absolute last resort to violence everywhere as much as possible? Check

Like going from a humanity that has "made it" and is mature to a humanity as worse or even worst than today's? Check

Like going from an uplifting show that gave you hope for the future of humanity and its potential to a depressing one that rubs your face in all the shit of humanity instead? Check

Like going from episodic to serialized instead? Check

Like going from a calm style of direction and filming that emphasized talking heads to one that emphasizes the opposite? Check

Stopping here, I once did an exhaustive list and could go on and on and on. But you get the idea.

***************

Nu/Anti Trek formula in a nutshell:

Take what the soul of Trek was, DO THE EXACT OPPOSITE, keep the same branding and tropes.

***************

Watch Poocard again, it does the exact same thing as the STD infection, it's pure Anti-Trek, all the way.

As far as timelines - the last time we saw the original timeline (Next Generation, Deep Space 9, etc.) was the last episode of Enterprise. The "prime" timeline that the Leonard Nimoy Spock came forward from in the first JJ Abrahms movie, and that the new shows take place in is not that same timeline as the shows and movies before it (as much as the creators want you to believe it is). This is due to a licensing issue stemming from when Viacom split with Paramount. The movies and shows are forced to make everything in their content a certain percentage different from the original shows because none of them have the original license. So, no.. the Picard in the in the Picard series is technically from a different universe (with the helping to save the Romulans etc.) than the Picard we all grew up with.

Discussed in more detail here.

More recently things are now back in a position where they can revive the original license and start using the original continuity, but Paramount is still stuck in the contracts with Bad Robot who has the alternate license for the time being. Star Trek is technically a multiverse even when ignoring the kelvin timeline.

ST: Picard is hardly perfect but at least doesn't make any of the huge errors that Discovery did. It's not exactly the Star Trek we remember of old, but at least it doesn't yell "abandon all hope" from the bell-tops, and shows us a glimmer of what made Star Trek the beloved show that it was. It's flawed in a way that none of the old shows were flawed but it's not bad.

Mr. Tact wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 10:18:

Prez wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 08:25:
I realize the "new Trek" is meant for a new generation, but I seriously HATE Discovery. Almost as much as I hate Picard. Jesus Star Trek is a far cry from what it used to be.

I haven't seen Picard either, but I have far less interest in it, so far. Frankly, I am surprised Stewart wasn't "done" with Star Trek. I'd have thought between ST and X-Men he'd had his fill of filming pop culture entertainment. *shrug* Maybe he is one of those, "It is my job, why would I turn down a paycheck?" kind of guys?

Unlike musicians* who can sell their back catalogue, actors have to work.
It's all they've got.

*Paul Simon, Bob Dylan, Stevie Nicks and Neil Young have sold all or portions of song catalogs in recent deals.

Prez wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 08:25:
I realize the "new Trek" is meant for a new generation, but I seriously HATE Discovery. Almost as much as I hate Picard. Jesus Star Trek is a far cry from what it used to be.

I haven't seen Picard either, but I have far less interest in it, so far. Frankly, I am surprised Stewart wasn't "done" with Star Trek. I'd have thought between ST and X-Men he'd had his fill of filming pop culture entertainment. *shrug* Maybe he is one of those, "It is my job, why would I turn down a paycheck?" kind of guys?

VaranDragon wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 04:26:
The only thing worse than Discovery, are rabid Discovery apologists. Now I'm not saying that any of you guys fall into that category, but people who blindly defend this show are akin to religious fanatics who are able to believe two contradictory things at the same time.

Yeah, certainly not me. I have yet to see it so I can neither praise or criticize it. But I've heard enough about it I'm willing to give it a chance. In a similar vein, ST:E was fairly heavily criticized. And while certainly some of the criticisms were valid, overall I was quite pleased with ST:E and was disappointed it didn't last the "standard" seven years. *shrug* As I have said here often, different strokes for different folks.

G.oZ wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 08:53:

VaranDragon wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 04:26:
The only thing worse than Discovery, are rabid Discovery apologists. Now I'm not saying that any of you guys fall into that category, but people who blindly defend this show are akin to religious fanatics who are able to believe two contradictory things at the same time.

People can like what they like. No need to shame them for it.

That said, I gave up in season 2, then after S3 started, watched through S2 to get to S3 and then gave up on that.

Discovery should really be named: Michael Burnham: A Star Trek Retcon story
"In an increasingly fractured Federation, discover the heroic tales of Michael Burnham on USS Discovery. Super-intelligent adoptive human sister of Spock, watch as she repeatedly disobeys orders and the chain of command, single handedly saves the crew over and over, can solve numerous problems requiring diverse specialties, and become the central figure shaping the entire future of the galaxy."
Also: watch as Tilly gets promoted to 1st officer despite being a young junior crew member, under-qualified and, based on her previous actions and emotional make-up, entirely unsuited to the role.

Her name isn't Michael Burnham. It's Mary Sue.

Posted this on January 28, 2021 after having finished the third season (and likely my last). "Star Trek Discovery's third season was an unmitigated disaster. Both the story and dialog was not only atrocious, but an absolute insult to Star Trek's lore made worse by the Gene Roddenberry quote they slap on the screen at the end of the season finale as if that somehow makes it all better. The irony is the quote talks about talking, dialog, and communication, while the season spent most of its time slapping and punching and blowing things up. So yeah, I'm done with it."

VaranDragon wrote on Apr 6, 2021, 04:26:
The only thing worse than Discovery, are rabid Discovery apologists. Now I'm not saying that any of you guys fall into that category, but people who blindly defend this show are akin to religious fanatics who are able to believe two contradictory things at the same time.

People can like what they like. No need to shame them for it.

That said, I gave up in season 2, then after S3 started, watched through S2 to get to S3 and then gave up on that.

Discovery should really be named: Michael Burnham: A Star Trek Retcon story
"In an increasingly fractured Federation, discover the heroic tales of Michael Burnham on USS Discovery. Super-intelligent adoptive human sister of Spock, watch as she repeatedly disobeys orders and the chain of command, single handedly saves the crew over and over, can solve numerous problems requiring diverse specialties, and become the central figure shaping the entire future of the galaxy."
Also: watch as Tilly gets promoted to 1st officer despite being a young junior crew member, under-qualified and, based on her previous actions and emotional make-up, entirely unsuited to the role.

I realize the "new Trek" is meant for a new generation, but I seriously HATE Discovery. Almost as much as I hate Picard. Jesus Star Trek is a far cry from what it used to be.