General / Off-Topic Star Trek Day .... what a show!
- Thread starter lysan
- Start date
Kurtzman's Star Trek is really bad. I think he managed to out do J.J. Abrams in turning the franchise into a hollow and superficial parody of prior Trek. Discovery makes Voyager and Enterprise look good and Picard makes me think I could be a be a professional screenwriter.
They must be financially successful enough, as both have been renewed, but profitability and quality are often entirely unrelated.
They must be financially successful enough, as both have been renewed, but profitability and quality are often entirely unrelated.
I find it odd that a franchise that is famed for being inclusive, progressive, and using sci-fi as a mirror for contemporary society since 1966 is now being criticised for “wokeness”
Just another casualty in the "culture war". There's a transgender and a non-binary major character in series 3 apparently, that'll probably rustle some jimmies.
Because the "wokeness" isn't woke. Where's the hope for the future? They make every character abrasive so there will be overblown conflict and drama. Everything's dark and brooding. The morality stuff just seems so phony in both shows. Patronizing and condescending. I don't like watching an hour of TV where I just feel insulted the whole time.I find it odd that a franchise that is famed for being inclusive, progressive, and using sci-fi as a mirror for contemporary society since 1966 is now being criticised for “wokeness”
I find it odd that a franchise that is famed for being inclusive, progressive, and using sci-fi as a mirror for contemporary society since 1966 is now being criticised for “wokeness”
I'm all for progressivism, inclusivity, and social commentary, but Kurtzman doesn't seem to be able to feature any of this without devolving into tokenism. Past Treks, even given the limitations of their times, were far better at pushing boundaries while still having characters that weren't just caricatures.
The intent is sound, but the execution doesn't do it justice and feels like it's simultaneously retconing away much of what made Star Trek.
Many of the criticisms are fallacious or disingenuous, but it really feels like the producers just had a checklist of issues to shoehorn in or tack on any way they could, rather than spending the time to present them organically, with actual characters, in the setting we knew, with any meaningful context. You can make something worse by ignoring, misrepresenting, or whitewashing issues, but you can't make something entertaining just by mechanically iterating countercultural cliches while neglecting character development and storytelling.
Its doing so well they cant even get international buyers for the new shows.
Disney SW was a mess, Kurtzmans ST has gone from bad to worse.
I stopped watching STD half way through S2, wont be watching S3 even if it was picked up, diddnt watch Picard as the reviews were so bad even though I have Amazon prime, Lower decks just looks bad again the reviews for me tell me what I need to know, and its only on a streaming service I cant get and its not worth the download.
Well at the least the Boys is back, and just watched Raised by Wolfs, bit slow to start but looks promiseing.
Oh and did you see the poster for this fudge cluster, mickey wannebe left of Picard, and then Piké was even bigger than the main man Kirk, and they even forgot Archer... Nah ST is dead SW is on life surport as baby Yoda can only carry it so far.
Disney SW was a mess, Kurtzmans ST has gone from bad to worse.
I stopped watching STD half way through S2, wont be watching S3 even if it was picked up, diddnt watch Picard as the reviews were so bad even though I have Amazon prime, Lower decks just looks bad again the reviews for me tell me what I need to know, and its only on a streaming service I cant get and its not worth the download.
Well at the least the Boys is back, and just watched Raised by Wolfs, bit slow to start but looks promiseing.
Oh and did you see the poster for this fudge cluster, mickey wannebe left of Picard, and then Piké was even bigger than the main man Kirk, and they even forgot Archer... Nah ST is dead SW is on life surport as baby Yoda can only carry it so far.
Yep, the issue isn't tokenism. The writing is just plain bad. I didn't perceive any in Picard, it was just a meh show.
Dr Martin Luther King Jr successfully persuaded Nichelle Nichols who played Uhura in the original series not to resign after the first season :
“Don’t you understand what this man has achieved? For the first time on television, we will be seen as we should be seen, every day, as intelligent, quality, beautiful, people who can sing, dance… who can go into space. Who can be lawyers, who can be teachers, who can be professors – who are in this day, and yet you don’t see it on television, until now… Gene Roddenberry has opened a door for the world to see us. If you leave, that door can be closed… your role is not a black role. And it’s not a female role. He can fill it with anyone including an alien.”
That door's still open now.
“Don’t you understand what this man has achieved? For the first time on television, we will be seen as we should be seen, every day, as intelligent, quality, beautiful, people who can sing, dance… who can go into space. Who can be lawyers, who can be teachers, who can be professors – who are in this day, and yet you don’t see it on television, until now… Gene Roddenberry has opened a door for the world to see us. If you leave, that door can be closed… your role is not a black role. And it’s not a female role. He can fill it with anyone including an alien.”
That door's still open now.
![[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/234/234580.jpg?1612617334){kind=avatar}
I can never get my head around this.
A group of people feel that by the use of characters or words, something is not inclusive or exclusive. They state their position. They are then ridiculed for being woke, snowflakes, weak, whatever. They are told it's only fiction, grow up, get tough.
Then the thing changes to include the characters or words.
The ones doing the ridiculing are now upset that the thing has changed. Why? It's only fiction. Grow up and get tough doesn't apply to them for some reason.
I also don't understand the mindset around loss when equality or respect is introduced. When a section of society is recognised, or terms to describe that section are either introduced (for respect) or now frowned upon (for lack of respect), I know what the section of society it applies to have gained but what has the rest of society lost? Nothing as far as I can see.
If people are stupid for wanting something to include.....idk...transgender people...are stupid for being upset that transgender people aren't included in something, then why aren't people stupid for be upset when they are? What is lost by a transgender person being included in something? I'm using transgender as an example but historically it could be anything, black, female, disabled.
I just don't get it.
A group of people feel that by the use of characters or words, something is not inclusive or exclusive. They state their position. They are then ridiculed for being woke, snowflakes, weak, whatever. They are told it's only fiction, grow up, get tough.
Then the thing changes to include the characters or words.
The ones doing the ridiculing are now upset that the thing has changed. Why? It's only fiction. Grow up and get tough doesn't apply to them for some reason.
I also don't understand the mindset around loss when equality or respect is introduced. When a section of society is recognised, or terms to describe that section are either introduced (for respect) or now frowned upon (for lack of respect), I know what the section of society it applies to have gained but what has the rest of society lost? Nothing as far as I can see.
If people are stupid for wanting something to include.....idk...transgender people...are stupid for being upset that transgender people aren't included in something, then why aren't people stupid for be upset when they are? What is lost by a transgender person being included in something? I'm using transgender as an example but historically it could be anything, black, female, disabled.
I just don't get it.
Theres a few things to it. I think generally speaking though its because of how its handled, as the characters generally have few negative traits or flaws attached to them (for example, compare modern mulan to the original animated version).
That and the automatic assumption that if you dont like them/the writing or point out the holes in the story that the company producing it are spinning, you're this weeks 'ist' of the day as its easier to win an argument if you paint the other side as the villain.
Finally, the entertainment media that is controlled (either directly or indirectly) by the studios is more than happy to push the 'white privellege fanboy men hate this because reasons' thing to cover over the actual problems these people are highlighting.
Theres a lot more to it I think, but its a long hard conversation to have.
I love The Boys!
To my shame I don't know enough about Mulan to make a judgement on it, I have never seen a version or read a version of it.
I do know that Winston Churchill was many things, I believe he was the perfect man to lead Britain through the war, however, he was also a racist, an alcoholic (he was given special dispensation to be able to drink alcohol in the USA during prohibition for 'medical reasons) but these sides of him are never portrayed in any work done about him. So I guess that is a common problem, if I understand the point you're trying to make.
I understand the point that if someone has legitimate criticisms of plot or writing, then they should be allowed to say so.
My post was more about the stage before that though. Take the idea that a black man might play the part of James Bond. No script has been written, no film made. People already get upset by the idea. I don't know why, I mean I don't have a lot of avenues to investigate when you take the surface arguments against the idea out.
Bond has always been white and it's a fictional character, why are you (generic you) so upset about it?
Well, you're right, Bond has always been white but as you (generic you) state, it's fictional, so what is the problem?
If I understand the point you're trying to make correctly, what you're saying is that people ask for more inclusion in....say...a TV show, to either include gay people, black people or something, so the studios do this and the product they release is sub-standard in some people's opinion, maybe the dialogue is rubbish, the plot thin, then the studios defend it by saying 'You just don't like it because of white privilege'.
Again, if they do do that, then that is obviously wrong but I'm way more interested in the part before the product is made.
NEWS: Long running TV show to feature a new Black Gay character.
Before a scene is filmed, people already object, it is those people I cannot understand.
According to that analogy santa can also be a dog or bird or whatever, it's just silly, why not make a new character and let that have it's own life, fictional or not. If it ain't broken don't touch it!
I'm certain that Santa has been portrayed in many films/tv shows as a variety of animals. Probably Disney or some such.
I don't remember all these fuss when The Muppets took on the works of Charles ens, the original books were all human, then you had frogs and bears. Where was the outrage then?
Unbelievable, it censors out the name of one of the greatest writers in the English language.
They hired the CQC Devs?Or should I say dumpster fireno one care, the king is dead long live zombie wokeness
The tl/dr is that old Mulan starts from a position of weakness and inexperience, overcomes this and becomes a hero.
New Mulan automatically starts out like this, and when she stops 'conforming' (read: wearing armour on the battlefield) she suddenly goes all crouching tiger hidden dragon. This is what a lot of people I know have a problem with. The 'diversity hire for market share' character (for want of a better phrase) is usually one who is amazing, fully formed and without flaws. Case in point, being the ire directed at Daisy Ridley's Rey by star wars fanboys who 'hate powerful women' (if we're to be believe the motive attributed to them) who are all enamoured with Gina Carano's Cara Dune in the Mandalorian.
As a side bar, the worst bit about this is that a lot of the studios dont believe the snake oil they're trying to sell you when it affects market share. The cutting by Disney of 'the gay kiss' from Rise of Sky Walker and 'marvels first gay character' from Endgame which they over hyped to hell in the run up to their release in regional releases where it would adversly hurt ticket sales.
You might want to watch The Crown then. Lithgow captures this quite well.
Theres two 'reasonable camps' to this I can see.
The first are purists, who dont like seeing the original material being subverted too much. That threshold varies (using your example, I would be strongly opposed to a Female Bond).
Secondly, youve got people whove seen the lazy paint by numbers way mainstream movie making has been done in recent years:
1. Reboot or continue established franchise.
2. Put PoC/minorities/women into lead roles.
3. Round peg-square hole a social justice message into a story.
4. Make small safe profit and garner easy media attention.
But why do we need to replace a character with something else? what is the idea behind it? why not just make a new story about person X doing stuff person X is doing and let it grow, why is it so important to replace well established characters with something that has nothing to do with the original?
Unless you want to change.....nah, that a conspiracy theory !