[ SECRET POST #4118 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4118 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________






















06. [SPOILERS for Avengers Infinity War]



__________________________________________________



07. [SPOILERS for Star Trek Discovery]



__________________________________________________



08. [SPOILERS for Soul Sacrifice]



__________________________________________________



09. [WARNING for possible discussion of torture and stuff]



__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for non-con, possible underage]



__________________________________________________



11. [WARNING for rape/sexual assault]

[Shetland]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #589.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

07. [SPOILERS for Star Trek Discovery]
http://i67.tinypic.com/257qb6f.png

[(Anonymous)]

If the show is bad, it's probably bad because it's a bad show, rather than being bad because it's Not Star Trek or because it's "for the Instagram generation". That is bad analysis. I'm tired of this. It's bad analysis in general and it also misreads a lot of existing Trek. Star Trek actually is highly flexible and can be and do a lot of different things - Wrath of Khan is very different from The Trouble With Tribbles, which is very different from In The Pale Moonlight, which is very different from The Measure Of A Man, which is very different from How Much For Just The Planet. But you could justly call any of those things Star Trek.

And the same is true of the reboot films, by the way. Only one of them is bad, and it's because it's a bad movie, not because it betrays the eternal flame of Star Trek. At least not any more than Nemesis does.

[philstar22]

I agree with this comment so much. Star Trek is flexible, and also Star Trek is very much designed to comment on the current times of whenever the particular show/episode/movie is made.

[(Anonymous)]

I love this analysis.

[(Anonymous)]

I loved the first reboot film for the most part and I remember the internet liking it, too... but somehow the second film managed to make people hate the first one... and ignore the third one?

[(Anonymous)]

I mean... STID was really, really bad.

[(Anonymous)]

Also, there is plenty of truly dire Trek from any of the shows. I say this as a huge Trek fan.

[tabaqui]

Star Trek *is* flexible, but this show is just freaking bad. Bad, bad, bad.
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!

We start off with two awesome female characters i'm prepared to really enjoy and get to know. And then - bam! One is dead, and is replaced with boring, *boring*, cookie-cutter white guy with a hardon for war.

And then we get the utterly boring Klingons who look like i don't know what - is this yet *another* Trek universe? Because...wth.

And the story just goes on and on and on in the most ridiculous and over the top and boring way, and we get our 'barely touch ever' gay couple one of which - oops! - dies. Shocker.

I really *wanted* to like this show. I loved the look, i loved the characters initially, I loved the fact that their PE shirts said 'Disco'. But it just got stupid and cliche so fast.
*sigh*

I don't mind that others like it, or love it. Rhapsodize about it! Point out cool things to me! But I watched all of season one and I won't be watching more.

[tree_and_leaf]

I want to frame this comment and hang it on my wall.

[silverr]

Happily, both Netflix and Hulu have Deep Space Nine.

[greghousesgf]

Netflix and Hulu have Original Star Trek, Next Gen and Voyager too!

[(Anonymous)]

Love the icon! I hate what happened to her. I unfairly hated Erzi because of it, but I'm over that.

Deep Space 9 did Trek dark, morally questionable, and occasionally gritty without completely insulting the Trek lore or Trekkies like STD does. They could have built an entire series around Section 31 if they wanted to make a dark show. I don't know why they didn't.

[(Anonymous)]

People will never understand that people have different taste and different opinion. You sound like a self-entitled "STOP LIKING WHAT I DISLIKE" kid who think their taste profile is the only one that's important and everybody else is inferior for liking something else. Narcissistic and self-entitled behaviour at its best.

And no, I'm not a butthurt fan. I haven't watched the show, but jesus, this secret is totally facepalm-worthy and everything wrong with fandom these days.

[(Anonymous)]

Did you watch the full series? It gives ton of credence to hope. And the Micheal/Ash romance is given a healthy "it's over" ending after they actually talk about their issues in the open which, imo, was incredibly refreshing.

Personally, I love it. It isn't episodic or bright, but I'm fine with that.

[(Anonymous)]

The show was sooo good and I honestly don't understand all the hate I see around. I can only assume that people were a little to set in in their pre-conceived ideas about what the show should be and didn't give it a chance.

But for myself it was easily the best tv viewing experience I had last year. I was hanging out week to week, and once it was finished I went immediately back and rewatched the whole thing again. It all hangs together really well. great character development, season long thematic arcs, a corker of a plot too!

I dunno, it just baffles me and makes me a little sad cos it would be so nice to share some more fandom glee around this show.

[(Anonymous)]

I liked it, but I wish it had been episodic and bright.

Why on Earth did they name it something that could be abbreviated STD?

[(Anonymous)]

Like STID wasn't bad enough.

Anyway, Enterprise was pretty bad. In that, they retcon a bunch of already established Star Trek canon.

I watched the pilot, but didn't care for it, especially what they did with Klingons - apparently every new generation needs a Klingon redesign or something.

Re: Why on Earth did they name it something that could be abbreviated STD?

[4thofeleven]

It's extra weird because they then had classic-style Vulcans and Andorans and Orions and Trill. Like, what, the Klingon design needed to be updated for a modern audience, but humans painted green, that's fine, that still holds up perfectly?

[fishnchips]

I have no horse in this race of "is it Star Trek or not" because I never watched a single episode of Star Trek in my life before this.
But where I think it started out as a fairly shiny, kind of interesting Sci-fi show, it quickly dove deep into very eyeroll-worthy grimdark territory with kind of ridiculous characters. And then happened the "kill your gays" trope, the whole "this guy was raped, and tortured and oh, he's also actually partly that Klingon dude now" (whut?) and the weird universe shift And in the end, they topped it off with an intensely anticlimactic finale, lots of very wonky and contradictory moralizing and such a high dose of pathos it would have been enough for three shows.

[tree_and_leaf]

It's possibly worth noting that the 'weird universe shift' is pre-existing and very popular Star Trek canon, so while I can see why you thought it came of left-field, that bit was definitely Trek being Trek.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with with you, OP. I miss the real Star Trek so much. I couldn't even get past the first 4 or 5 episodes of this shit.

[(Anonymous)]

Me and my sci-fi-fan friends are all far too old to be part of the "instagram generation", and we liked it. But sure: ace analyses.

(it's Sherlock-like... lulz)

[(Anonymous)]

Trek was never good television, never had great writing. No offense, but you're a moron if you think otherwise.

TOS was good with deep meanings but lousy campy storytelling. Same with TNG, except for a lack of meaning. DS9 gave promise and truthfully I never saw much of it, but what did was typical camp Trek. VGR saw even less of, and I will admit even the others looked like Shakespeare next to it. ENT is okay. It attempts to bring Trek into a more realistic realm, and update it (not just some 1960's cardboard alien orgy).

If people are enjoying the new one, let them be. Their taste is as shitty as yours, it's not like you have any moral position to speak from.

[(Anonymous)]

TOS was good with deep meanings but lousy campy storytelling. Same with TNG, except for a lack of meaning. DS9 gave promise and truthfully I never saw much of it, but what did was typical camp Trek. VGR saw even less of, and I will admit even the others looked like Shakespeare next to it. ENT is okay. It attempts to bring Trek into a more realistic realm, and update it (not just some 1960's cardboard alien orgy).

You're confusing one set of aesthetic norms, styles, and approaches with quality. This is an error.

I mean, yes, you're certainly correct in pointing out that classic Trek mostly doesn't try to be naturalistic (this is less true of DS9 but it's still one part of a larger whole on DS9), and it's not at all cinematic in the way that we tend to expect contemporary TV to be. That is true. But it's not that classic Trek tried to be naturalistic, and just completely fucked up at it. Classic Trek was trying to do something different. And you should at least engage with the things that it was actually trying to do - if you're going to dismiss it, at least dismiss it for being what it was, not for failing at being something that it never wanted to be.

Classic Trek is largely attempting to make teleplays - formally more influenced by theater and radio than by cinema - that engaged with the imaginative play of ideas and science fictional conceits. And judged by those standards, by the standards of teleplays, and judged by the standards of how it presented and engaged with ideas, I would say that much of Star Trek is successful at doing that - certainly it comes closer than it does to being a successful naturalistic cinematic show. The quality is still uneven and sometimes actively bad, but sometimes quite good. The special effects are never great and it is stagy and formal, but that's the nature of that particular beast.

Now, if you don't think that's a good thing, fine, OK, you don't have to. But that is what Star Trek is doing, and understanding that as merely a failed attempt at being a totally different thing is incorrect.

[(Anonymous)]

"No offense, but you're a moron" lol