It mirrored the contemporary idea of the "End of History", where all the existational crises were done with, the federation (was basically moving into a time of refinement rather than having to worry that the experiment might still utterly and completely fail. TNG was basically one long, slow lesson of why that was a flawed notion. You don't build a cruise liner, fill it with families, and then intentionally send it into the kind of peril that regularly befitted the Enterprise D. In retrospect, it was completely ridiculous.
VE3MAL
joined 1 year ago
Star Trek discussion /usually/ tends toward anything new being bad, and always has. SNW and lower decks are exceptions because they do so much fan service and return to a more classic Trek format. Discovery was groundbreaking in a way that I'm sure Roddenberry would have enjoyed, but groundbreaking also implies jarring change and throwing away things that work for experiments that sometimes don't.
This is a really good take. I have enjoyed the serialized shows -but they are a juggernaut of emotion and intensity to watch. You tend to watch them once, and it's a fairly wild ride, but then it's done. I suspect that I will be re-watching episodes of SNW and lower decks for years to come, as I have for TOS and TNG. That's how Trek wormed it's way into my brain in the first place.
God the Klingon thing was silly. Do we need an explanation as to why the TOS ship had plastic, 1960s themed furniture? Do we need an explanation for improved camera resolution over the years? Why did we need a silly explanation for the improvement in makeup artistry so many decades later? And the explanation doesn't even work. Genetics don't work like that. It's taking themselves too seriously. Either ignore it, or hang a lantern on it with an inside joke once, and be done with it.