"Star Trek: Discovery" Renewed for Season 3

[Darunion]

Have I mentioned how much the "modern" lighting bothers me on here before? For example, look at the difference in lighting between TNG and Generations or any of the other TNG movies. It gets especially dark for no apparent reason in Nemesis. They seem to be stuck filming through one of those tinted lens covers. Perhaps it has to do with targeting theatrical release vs television or the switch to digital production from film?

With the dominion war, dilithium and anti-matter resources have become more scarce. The light dimming is now standard procedure on all federation ships in order to conserve energy especially in combat.

 

[MrCaffeineX]

With the dominion war, dilithium and anti-matter resources have become more scarce. The light dimming is now standard procedure on all federation ships in order to conserve energy especially in combat.

That actually sounds more plausible than I would've expected and made me chuckle.

 

[Darunion]

That actually sounds more plausible than I would've expected and made me chuckle.

I try

You are more likely correct in the real reason. Could also be a cost cut for production, darker the scene the less detail is needed as it is obscured and your eyes get more distracted by the lights.

Or just mood setting.

 

[jimthebob]

no one cares who is in the lead role, we care about the storytelling and it just plain sucks in Discovery...

I care who the lead role is...Star Trek always had more of a "bigger picture" feel to it and while yes, certain episodes did focus on Picard or Sisko or Dax or Crusher or Data etc, the shows almost always shared the spotlight among different characters or certain story arcs. Burnham always seems to be the answer to everything and they even managed to shoehorn her into Spocks past which is something that didn't need messed with and bugs me. I always find myself wanting more of Lorca and Pike and Stamets and even Tilly (though in small doses ). I will say at least Saru got some decent character development in a few episodes but even Burnham was put into a relatively prominent role in some of that. On a side note, I personally don't care for Sonequa Martin-Green as an actress in general. Feels almost like she's playing the same character/acting the same between her Discovery Character and her character on The Walking Dead at times. But in either case, that's a personal preference and the story telling/writing is to blame for the rest.

 

[MrCaffeineX]

I try

You are more likely correct in the real reason. Could also be a cost cut for production, darker the scene the less detail is needed as it is obscured and your eyes get more distracted by the lights.

Or just mood setting.

It definitely does have the secondary effect of setting the mood, which I feel is consistently too dark for Star Trek.

I am trying to pretend in my brain that all modern Star Trek beginning with Enterprise, including the TNG films, the reboot films, and now Discovery are just alternate timeline possibilities. I actually liked the fact that they set up that premise in the 2009 film. It was the most Star Trek feeling bit in any of what I'm internalizing as Modern Trek.

 

[dgz]

I try

You are more likely correct in the real reason. Could also be a cost cut for production, darker the scene the less detail is needed as it is obscured and your eyes get more distracted by the lights.

Or just mood setting.

Ha, "mood setting". I know lots of people like the noir thing in movies but its sole reason for existing was to cut costs. Yes, Blade Runner is dark because they turning on the lights would have revealed how garbage everything is. That's why they are fighting high resolution and frame rates.

 

[Darunion]

It definitely does have the secondary effect of setting the mood, which I feel is consistently too dark for Star Trek.

I am trying to pretend in my brain that all modern Star Trek beginning with Enterprise, including the TNG films, the reboot films, and now Discovery are just alternate timeline possibilities. I actually liked the fact that they set up that premise in the 2009 film. It was the most Star Trek feeling bit in any of what I'm internalizing as Modern Trek.

Now that I am thinking about it, TNG and TOS were the only ones really well lit. DS9 had the lighting of a warehouse, VOY was only lit up in sick bay, all the movies the bridge was super dark (in fact the movies were so dark kirk needed reading glasses to help him read the screens).

I do think the timeline split was the right thing to do (however tacky it is) in order to keep making movies or shows. Otherwise you are just trying to shoehorn a story in between things making sure not to disrupt the story.

I feel discovery is really taking that concept and running too far with it IMO though. I enjoy the show but it feels more to me like a netflix scifi series more than it does 'star trek'.

jimbob200521 I hate burnam so much. She should have just been a Q since she can solve everything in the universe with her what? physics degree? Why would someone who is clearly not a good leader but good in the sciences and engineering, be put into an officer position and not engineering or R&D? And yea I really am not a fan of the actress either, she comes off too bland to me.

Lorca is my favorite in the show but I really enjoy Jason Isaacs. I really liked the dark feel he brought to the show.

 

[Derangel]

Ha, "mood setting". I know lots of people like the noir thing in movies but its sole reason for existing was to cut costs. Yes, Blade Runner is dark because they turning on the lights would have revealed how garbage everything is. That's why they are fighting high resolution and frame rates.

Blade Runner would never work with brighter lighting. The noir look sets the tone for the entire story. And, no, it wouldn't have revealed how "garbage" everything is as much of the effects work was state of the art at the time. No one is fighting high resolution. What are you talking about?

 

[Darunion]

Ha, "mood setting". I know lots of people like the noir thing in movies but its sole reason for existing was to cut costs. Yes, Blade Runner is dark because they turning on the lights would have revealed how garbage everything is. That's why they are fighting high resolution and frame rates.

I always get bothered watching people in shows or movies talking in almost complete darkness. No one does that, at least not for conversations that are not bedroom related haha.

 

[dgz]

Blade Runner would never work with brighter lighting. The noir look sets the tone for the entire story. And, no, it wouldn't have revealed how "garbage" everything is as much of the effects work was state of the art at the time. No one is fighting high resolution. What are you talking about?

I get that you liked the movie (you probably guessed I didn't) and that's fine. But I clearly remember the Scott sharing what I said: they did it to cut cost and manage something that was quite difficult at the time. They were just being pragmatic.

As for "no one is fighting high resolution": https://www.cepro.com/audio-video/hollywood-director-barry-sonnenfeld-bashes-hdr-8k/

We've been stuck at 24 fps and low resolution forever and the reasons aren't technical.

 

[Meeho]

Is that confirmed?

Because I look at the TNG/DS9/VOY universe as Canon. Yes, Discovery took some liberties with the Klingons, but we do know that in Canon there were Klingon wars, and that the spore drive thing messed with time, so I'm not convinced we are in the Abrams universe.

Same with Picard. All of the strange occurrences in Picard happen after TNG/DS9/VOY, so who'w to say they aren't Canon?

Yes, it's under the Bad Robot's 25% different license set in the Prime universe. Only TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY and even ENT are ST canon.

Unpopular opinion:
I was never able to get into the original TNG. I've tried a few times, but the low budget look, the 60's camp and the bad acting just proved to be too much for me.

Original TOS, you mean?

 

[Meeho]

Have I mentioned how much the "modern" lighting bothers me on here before? For example, look at the difference in lighting between TNG and Generations or any of the other TNG movies. It gets especially dark for no apparent reason in Nemesis. They seem to be stuck filming through one of those tinted lens covers. Perhaps it has to do with targeting theatrical release vs television or the switch to digital production from film?

It's because they were going for a more gritty and action packed theme...you know, all that Star Trek isn't supposed to be.

 

[Susquehannock]

Watching STD (apt acronym) last night I thought to myself. Screw you Warner Bros/CBS. You took a brand with over 50 year's legacy and shit all over it by making a Star Wars and Marvel stylistic series because you had a hard on for Disney's success with those two franchises and thought Trek fans would flock blindly toward the brand like moths to a flame as SW fans do. Trekers are more sophisticated than that. At least I like to think I am. Will continue to watch for the pretty colors I guess.

And when you look at that original Star Trek cast: George Takei (actor who plays Hikaru Sulu) is Gay. If Sulu would also have been written as gay, we might be well beyond the adjustment period we are in, now.

In my opinion that would have definitely been too much too soon. TOS already had the Spock character that offended and frightened many because he appeared too satanic, the Russian ensign Chekov in the midst of the cold war, and Uhura of course, who needs no explanation. Trek was before the Stonewall riots where news footage of violent clashes with police helped garner national sympathy for their plight. And please correct me if wrong on this ... the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality a mental disorder until 1973. Oh how far we have come.

 

[nilepez]

I liked all the TNG movies except for Nemesis. And Nemesis could've been good too, if they didn't leave all the fanservice on the editing room floor.

You're much kinder than I. I consider Generations an abomination. Insurrection was so-so and Nemesis was essentially Wrath Of Khan.

 

[nilepez]

As someone mentioned above, I do have an issue with today's vernacular being used hundreds of years in the future where these stories take place. Theres just no way someone would be talking using bro/dude/cool/far out/awesome etc. I have see that in discovery (but there are greater problems, like the klingons not looking/talking/acting like klingons). I have seen that in the mandalorian (where the two stormtroopers are casually talking and one says oh my god), and now I have seen it in picard... it just takes me out of the futuristic world they are trying to create.

Why? They've had a Klingon essentially doing a Shakespeare soliloquy, which is way less believable than people saying cool, dude or bro. And FYI, people have been saying Cool, Dude and Bro for at least 40 or 50 years. That slang may or may not survive another 100 or 200 years. I doubt anyone thought Shakespeare would be quoted 400 years later, much less 600 - 800 years later.

 

[nilepez]

I remember enjoying Generations too, but I mostly agree. Generations wasn't a great film, but it had a lot of fan favorite bits in it that made it worth watching. (Data's "Oh Shit" for instance)
That, and I do like Malcolm McDowell.
But yeah, the premise of the captains being stuck together in some sort of blissful perrgatory was kind of ridiculous.
Overall, not a great movie, but enough in there to be enjoyable.

I like McDowell, but I just remember hating the movie. I wanna say the ending was especially off putting, but I haven't watched it in at least 20 years.

As far as I am concerned Star Trek was best starting somewhere in Season 3-4 TNG and going through maybe Season 6. And then again great in most of DS9.

I think this is accurate and I believe most would agree it didn't find it's footing until season 3. It didn't help that they had a writers strike during S2 (which had a truly awful clip show that I apparently missed when it originally aired)

The funny part is that I hated DS9 when it first aired. it bored me to tears. I then rewatched it a few years ago(after I ran out of TNG HD remasters to watch) and was astonished by how good it was.

I think the first season (and to a lesser degree s2) weren't up to snuff and I know there was a lot of complaints about it being on a space station. I personally saw no difference between the action coming to them vs them flying to the action, but no doubt s3-s7 were the best Trek ever was.

Voyager had many ludicrously bad episodes, and I can't think of even a single great episode. Still I liked that it was in the same Universe and approximate time period as TNG and DS9 so I watched it just because I had run out of other Trek to watch.

As I recall, most of my favorite Voyager stories were on the holodeck. The show itself seemed like Gilligan's Island in space.

Enterprise was interesting. I enjoyed it (after I got over how much I hated the theme song) but still, it's not in the TNG/DS9/VOY universe/time period so it was of less interest to me.

The writing was generally bad. Sadly by the time they finally found their footing in the last season and it was cancelled.

 

[Meeho]

Enterprise was all over the place but had its moments. Cogenitor is true Star Trek and one of my all time favorites. Overall I liked the show and would love to have seen where it would go.

 

[Derangel]

I get that you liked the movie (you probably guessed I didn't) and that's fine. But I clearly remember the Scott sharing what I said: they did it to cut cost and manage something that was quite difficult at the time. They were just being pragmatic.

As for "no one is fighting high resolution": https://www.cepro.com/audio-video/hollywood-director-barry-sonnenfeld-bashes-hdr-8k/

We've been stuck at 24 fps and low resolution forever and the reasons aren't technical.

If Scott said it, then alright. I haven't seen too many interviews with him about Blade Runner. Though, it does set the over-all tone for the movie and I really don't think it would work with bright lighting.

You do realize movies have been filmed in "high resolution" for, literally decades, right? The tech to fully display the detail captured by film cameras did not exist until relatively recently. And it was even more recently that digital cameras were capable of matching even 35mm film.

 

[dgz]

If Scott said it, then alright. I haven't seen too many interviews with him about Blade Runner. Though, it does set the over-all tone for the movie and I really don't think it would work with bright lighting.

You do realize movies have been filmed in "high resolution" for, literally decades, right? The tech to fully display the detail captured by film cameras did not exist until relatively recently. And it was even more recently that digital cameras were capable of matching even 35mm film.

Yes, we've had high resolution cameras for a while. Can you tell me how come there we're still watching the same blurry mess?

 

[jimthebob]

jimbob200521 I hate burnam so much. She should have just been a Q since she can solve everything in the universe with her what? physics degree? Why would someone who is clearly not a good leader but good in the sciences and engineering, be put into an officer position and not engineering or R&D? And yea I really am not a fan of the actress either, she comes off too bland to me.

Lorca is my favorite in the show but I really enjoy Jason Isaacs. I really liked the dark feel he brought to the show.

Agreed and agreed again; she's a bland actress. I get they probably thought that would work well since she was a human raised by Vulcan's but it doesn't, not in the least. I've actually caught myself rolling my eyes at her character some of the delivery.

And yes, Lorca was good story thread I didn't see coming when he turned out to be from another universe/timeline/whatever. The actors can really make it enjoyable even with a poorly written character or story line (which his was not, I'm just trying to make a point), that's why I like Pike so much in this; I really like Anson Mount as an actor. I first came across him in the show Hell on Wheels (which is worth a watch, btw. It's also got Colm Meany in it after the first couple seasons) and when they announced he was going to be giving Captain Pike a go, I was actually excited.

 

[sirmonkey1985]

Agreed and agreed again; she's a bland actress. I get they probably thought that would work well since she was a human raised by Vulcan's but it doesn't, not in the least. I've actually caught myself rolling my eyes at her character some of the delivery.

And yes, Lorca was good story thread I didn't see coming when he turned out to be from another universe/timeline/whatever. The actors can really make it enjoyable even with a poorly written character or story line (which his was not, I'm just trying to make a point), that's why I like Pike so much in this; I really like Anson Mount as an actor. I first came across him in the show Hell on Wheels (which is worth a watch, btw. It's also got Colm Meany in it after the first couple seasons) and when they announced he was going to be giving Captain Pike a go, I was actually excited.

wait Anson played Pike? shiii i might actually have to watch season 2 now even though i can't stand Burnham as a character.. he was great in Hell on Wheels.

 

[Dayaks]

wait Anson played Pike? shiii i might actually have to watch season 2 now even though i can't stand Burnham as a character.. he was great in Hell on Wheels.

S2 was way better than S1. And only one or two super cringy episodes lol.

 

[Darunion]

Agreed and agreed again; she's a bland actress. I get they probably thought that would work well since she was a human raised by Vulcan's but it doesn't, not in the least. I've actually caught myself rolling my eyes at her character some of the delivery.

And yes, Lorca was good story thread I didn't see coming when he turned out to be from another universe/timeline/whatever. The actors can really make it enjoyable even with a poorly written character or story line (which his was not, I'm just trying to make a point), that's why I like Pike so much in this; I really like Anson Mount as an actor. I first came across him in the show Hell on Wheels (which is worth a watch, btw. It's also got Colm Meany in it after the first couple seasons) and when they announced he was going to be giving Captain Pike a go, I was actually excited.

The next season if they ditched burnam and it was all about pike and the crews adventures I would be happy with that. That should be its own show IMO. Star trek but everything leading up to the TOS.

 

[jimthebob]

wait Anson played Pike? shiii i might actually have to watch season 2 now even though i can't stand Burnham as a character.. he was great in Hell on Wheels.

Yessir, you read that right: Anson played Pike and knocked it out of the park, IMHO. Took the original Pike and added a bit of humor and character to it and made it believable! There have been rumors about Pike and his adventures getting its own show but as of now, those are just rumors. I think it'd be awesome to explore some of the Enterprise's and Pike's adventures before Kirk took over command.

S2 was way better than S1. And only one or two super cringy episodes lol.

You got that right, I think the Spore Drive and Tardagrade thing was a bit...weird at best.

Spoiler: I'm told I had spoilers in here :D

I'm not sure about the main story line of the current season with the space traveling suit that is (surprise surprise and also spoiler spoiler) future Burnahm. So ridiculous. So...SO ridiculous. But then again, I like the Enterprise's role in it all, I like Pike, I even kinda like young Spock, I like Number 1, and whatever the bad robot enemy thing was called, Control I think. Just again...Damn Burnahm mucking it up. They could have done the season without ever finding out who was in that suit giving off the signals, left it a mystery, and it would have been 10x better.

The next season if they ditched burnam and it was all about pike and the crews adventures I would be happy with that. That should be its own show IMO. Star trek but everything leading up to the TOS.

See my above comment; there have been rumors about a series based on Pike and the Enterprise's escapades but nothing has been made official. But yeah, that would be great to see the gaps leading up to TOS filled in for sure!

 

[Merc1138]

Yes, we've had high resolution cameras for a while. Can you tell me how come there we're still watching the same blurry mess?

Because you should see an optometrist? Film quality varies, but hollywood tends not to skimp on it, and was generally far superior to normal broadcast television. If you're referring to the 24fps, well that's because people like 24fps apparently, even though most couldn't be bothered to care if they weren't told about it. The other issue is that most people at home are watching 24 or 30fps content with interpolated shit crammed in between frames, and can't tell the difference either. Personally I find those modes on TVs to look like an ugly smeared mess, while actual 60fps content displayed at 60fps looks just fine.

Really it boils down to lazy consumers using the cheapest sub-standard shit, and a bunch of old farts in industry and the home market who don't want anything better.

 

[Dayaks]

Yessir, you read that right: Anson played Pike and knocked it out of the park, IMHO. Took the original Pike and added a bit of humor and character to it and made it believable! There have been rumors about Pike and his adventures getting its own show but as of now, those are just rumors. I think it'd be awesome to explore some of the Enterprise's and Pike's adventures before Kirk took over command.



You got that right, I think the Spore Drive and Tardagrade thing was a bit...weird at best. I'm not sure about the main story line of the current season with the space traveling suit that is (surprise surprise and also spoiler spoiler) future Burnahm. So ridiculous. So...SO ridiculous. But then again, I like the Enterprise's role in it all, I like Pike, I even kinda like young Spock, I like Number 1, and whatever the bad robot enemy thing was called, Control I think. Just again...Damn Burnahm mucking it up. They could have done the season without ever finding out who was in that suit giving off the signals, left it a mystery, and it would have been 10x better.



See my above comment; there have been rumors about a series based on Pike and the Enterprise's escapades but nothing has been made official. But yeah, that would be great to see the gaps leading up to TOS filled in for sure!

Might want to put half that under a spoiler tag lol.

 

[Meeho]

See my above comment; there have been rumors about a series based on Pike and the Enterprise's escapades but nothing has been made official. But yeah, that would be great to see the gaps leading up to TOS filled in for sure!

They can't fill the gaps leading to TOS since they broke that canon multiple times and exist in a separate universe.

And since both STD and STP flopped hard, I don't see a chance for another show, not under the Bad Robot license.

 

[Derangel]

They can't fill the gaps leading to TOS since they broke that canon multiple times and exist in a separate universe.

And since both STD and STP flopped hard, I don't see a chance for another show, not under the Bad Robot license.

How do you presume that Picard “flopped” when it’s only aired a single episode that has been, for the most part, well received by the general audience?

 

[jimthebob]

Might want to put half that under a spoiler tag lol.

Done and done I'm not proud to admit it but I had never used the spoiler tag here before so I had to go back a page and check the coding for it in another's post

 

[BlueLineSwinger]

I can't get too mad at JJ Abrams though, because Breaking Bad is one of the best television series of all time. He should just stay in his lane, which is gritty epic crime dramas. He seems to fail at SciFi.

Pretty sure Abrams had absolutely nothing to do with Breaking Bad. That was created/run by Vince Gilligan.

 

[dgz]

Because you should see an optometrist? Film quality varies, but hollywood tends not to skimp on it, and was generally far superior to normal broadcast television. If you're referring to the 24fps, well that's because people like 24fps apparently, even though most couldn't be bothered to care if they weren't told about it. The other issue is that most people at home are watching 24 or 30fps content with interpolated shit crammed in between frames, and can't tell the difference either. Personally I find those modes on TVs to look like an ugly smeared mess, while actual 60fps content displayed at 60fps looks just fine.

Really it boils down to lazy consumers using the cheapest sub-standard shit, and a bunch of old farts in industry and the home market who don't want anything better.

You're telling me I need to see a doctor because I find the picture quality not as good as it should be? I want higher resolution at the theater, way higher. And higher fps too.

What's the current best IMAX projector resolution? Could you please check that for me? I honestly don't know. 60 fps would be quite an improvement at the movies. I always in the front rows and it takes some getting used to because frame rate is so low. I'd pay 3 times the normal price to see Alita at twice the resolution and frame rate. That would be amazing. So where is it?

 

[jimthebob]

They can't fill the gaps leading to TOS since they broke that canon multiple times and exist in a separate universe.

And since both STD and STP flopped hard, I don't see a chance for another show, not under the Bad Robot license.

I didn't know that it had been confirmed that STD was in a separate universe, I actually thought it was the opposite and confirmed cannon...

How do you presume that Picard “flopped” when it’s only aired a single episode that has been, for the most part, well received by the general audience?

It was well received by those I know that have watched it while I've seen some youtubers rip into. This is why we can't have nice things! Everybody picks things apart instead of liking what's likable. So far, one episode in, I like Picard! It's not perfect, there's things I would change, but I'm enjoying it for what it is.

 

[Merc1138]

You're telling me I need to see a doctor because I find the picture quality not as good as it should be? I want higher resolution at the theater, way higher. And higher fps too.

What's the current best IMAX projector resolution? Could you please check that for me? I honestly don't know. 60 fps would be quite an improvement at the movies. I always in the front rows and it takes some getting used to because frame rate is so low. I'd pay 3 times the normal price to see Alita at twice the resolution and frame rate. That would be amazing. So where is it?

Oh boy... as I already said, film does not have a resolution. Film has a grain, higher quality film will have a smaller grain. There is no direct comparison to resolution for film grain at all, as film grain is a series of crystals spread across the film stock. That's why with a film projector you see film grain, and not the grid of pixels. Now digital imax exists, and I think it's 2 or 3 2k projectors, which isn't a good resolution and as a result... you can see it when looking at the image projected onto a screen.

As far as you needing to see an optometrist, yes if you haven't noticed improvements in picture quality over the past few decades, you need to see an optometrist since we are not looking at the "same" blurry mess.

 

[dgz]

Oh boy... as I already said, film does not have a resolution. Film has a grain, higher quality film will have a smaller grain. There is no direct comparison to resolution for film grain at all, as film grain is a series of crystals spread across the film stock. That's why with a film projector you see film grain, and not the grid of pixels. Now digital imax exists, and I think it's 2 or 3 2k projectors, which isn't a good resolution and as a result... you can see it when looking at the image projected onto a screen.

As far as you needing to see an optometrist, yes if you haven't noticed improvements in picture quality over the past few decades, you need to see an optometrist since we are not looking at the "same" blurry mess.

I was not aware theaters are projecting raw cam footage. Learn something new every day. Thank you

 

[Merc1138]

I was not aware theaters are projecting raw cam footage. Learn something new every day. Thank you

I didn't say anything about raw cam footage. Do you really not understand how analog film works?

BTW, newer theaters generally use digital, and a lot of others have switched over to digital projection(it's a hell of a lot easier to distribute and of course handle), and it's generally pretty damn terrible since you can pretty much see the grid pattern like a screen door.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Pretty sure Abrams had absolutely nothing to do with Breaking Bad. That was created/run by Vince Gilligan.

You are entirely right. I somehow got Vince Gilligan and JJ Abrams mixed up in my head. I retract my statement.

 

[Merc1138]

You are entirely right. I somehow got Vince Gilligan and JJ Abrams mixed up in my head. I retract my statement.

But how? I never watched much of breaking bad, but I never saw any lens flares in it.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

But how? I never watched much of breaking bad, but I never saw any lens flares in it.

I just don't pay much attention to celebrities. I get them confused all the time.

 

[Meeho]

But how? I never watched much of breaking bad, but I never saw any lens flares in it.

Both overstayed their welcome?

 

[Meeho]

How do you presume that Picard “flopped” when it’s only aired a single episode that has been, for the most part, well received by the general audience?

Because of production and financing issues, the people behind it, the world it's set in, the first episode and pretty much everything about it. It will have a hard time getting green lit for second season and I'm highly doubtful it will make it past that with any form of success.

The only semblance of a good reception is because of the name's false tie-in. Once that illusion passes, it will be a hard nosedive.

I didn't know that it had been confirmed that STD was in a separate universe, I actually thought it was the opposite and confirmed cannon...

Nope. Alternate Star Trek license. They may claim it's canon because of financial interest, but it is both legally and canonically different.

It was well received by those I know that have watched it while I've seen some youtubers rip into. This is why we can't have nice things! Everybody picks things apart instead of liking what's likable. So far, one episode in, I like Picard! It's not perfect, there's things I would change, but I'm enjoying it for what it is.

We can't have nice things because they make shitty things. It's not some grand anti-nice-things conspiracy.

One may argue that STP is a good show (it isn't) but in no way is it a Star Trek show in anything but name.