[ 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

[(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.