Paul Andrew
Master Member
The word "objective" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here.
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds
- Thread starter Noeland
- Start date
The word "objective" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting here.
I suspect that people--increasingly infantilized people who are likely on their phones while watching these shows--are won over by expensive effects, action, and "adult" content (language, violence, etc.). Also, they don't have an example of a positive to compare things to in order to understand the nature of a negative. As Robert Meyer Burnett has noted, science-fiction is a LITERARY genre, and many people nowadays don't have that foundation of classic books, nor classic shows like THE TWILIGHT ZONE and, yes, STAR TREK. Out of the five or ten people who actually watch and enjoy these NuTREK shows, I'd guess that a good number of them either haven't seen old TREK (and dismiss it solely on the basis of its age), or are hardcore fans with the addict mentality, who will consume anything with the name stamped on it.
We live in a society where, increasingly, everything must be criticized and torn down and laughed at. Anything old is automatically labeled "bad" or "cheesy". Building up the new at the expense of the old, and, in the case of both TREK and WARS, literally remaking or retelling the old stories in order to replace them. There's no longer a need for CBS/Paramount to invest in the sort of well-constructed, character-driven morality plays of classic STAR TREK when expensive CGI, swearing, lesbians, and nihilism are apparently enough.
In this new era of reboots, remakes, and counterfeit sequels made by soulless corporations, the burden of proof for quality now (nonsensically) lies with the source material, rather than the Johnny-come-latelys. New products get the benefit of the doubt, while classics are pre-labeled "cheesy".
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK had its famous cliffhanger ending, but that film still stood on its own as a complete and satisfying narrative. THE FORCE AWAKENS, on the other hand (a derivative and terrible movie, especially in retrospect) was largely defended at the time of its release on the basis of "potential", and not necessarily for having a satisfying story on its own. Even I fell in with this mentality for awhile: "I'm not so sure about this, but there's a lot of potential for the next film". And hacks like Rian Johnson defend their terrible films by saying that critics and fans hated EMPIRE when it was released, but it was later acknowledged as a classic", which is factually untrue. But THE LAST JEDI will not be re-evaluated in 20 years as a masterpiece. If anything, it belongs in the $5 DVD bin at WalMart, and would surely be there, but for the power of The Mouse.
These derivative and objectively bad modern products built on the work of others get a pass, for some reason.
It's all about Abrams' Misery Box BS, now. Consume product, get excited for next product. Don't think, don't question. Just enjoy the slick exterior that's hiding an empty interior. Running and crying and fast action is successful drama. Structure, pacing, continuity, and character development don't matter.
Cephus
Master Member
All of what you said is absolutely true and worse, the people who grew up in this age of ideological garbage, they'll even defend it because they don't know any better. It really starts looking like a cult the more that you look at it.
AnubisGuard
Master Member
Based on my time on Trek message boards and subreddits, it's this.
It IS a cult. Tearing everything down and dividing people in the guise of NOT dividing people.
STAR TREK used to be made for everyone, regardless of gender, etc., and told people to think and to find value in our differences. Now, it's made only for those who support The Message, tells people WHAT to think.
People say, "It's just a TV show", but it has the power to negatively shape impressionable minds, just as STAR TREK once did in a positive way.
To paraphrase VIDEODROME, it has a philosophy, and that is what makes it dangerous.
In a fb group I'm in, someone was criticizing someone for criticizing, saying something like "I have liked every single thing Star Trek has ever made. Does that make me indiscriminate or easily pleased? No!"
Actually, it would be the perfect example of exactly that.
Thousands of hours of programming, man! Impossible to like all of it and call oneself exacting.
Last edited:
Cephus
Master Member
And if you ask them why they like it, they never have an answer. "I just do!" It's a sure sign of someone clinging to something uncritically, that they have never even asked themselves what makes it good.
Gimpdiggity
Master Member
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Series Premiere Review - IGN
Premiere Review: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds makes first contact as perhaps the best new Trek in years.
I was just reading IGN’s review.
I enjoyed the first 2.5 seasons of Discovery, but it started really becoming a chore in the back half of season 3, and was basically unwatchable for me in season 4. One of my main complaints was the constant need for a season long story regarding one threat to the galaxy.
It sounds like Strange New Worlds is at least attempting to fix that issue. I’ll give this a shot for sure.
kalkamel
Master Member
Yay diversity!
comicbook.com
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Adds Another Enterprise Captain to Cast
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds will tell the story of Capt. Christopher Pike, who commanded the [...]
it was nice to see the cast, they all took time to chat with everyone there and allow for selfies before and after the screening - and I didnt expect Babs as I was trying to navigate my way out of the crowd afterwards turn to me directly and thank me for being there in my TOS sciences costume (i am always trying to hide in the background in any photo, and as friends in a different costume group said, good luck trying to not be seen in an 'resistance orange' jumpsuit). again, a great cast in my opinion.Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Series Premiere Review - IGN
Premiere Review: Star Trek: Strange New Worlds makes first contact as perhaps the best new Trek in years.www.ign.com
I was just reading IGN’s review.
I enjoyed the first 2.5 seasons of Discovery, but it started really becoming a chore in the back half of season 3, and was basically unwatchable for me in season 4. One of my main complaints was the constant need for a season long story regarding one threat to the galaxy.
It sounds like Strange New Worlds is at least attempting to fix that issue. I’ll give this a shot for sure.
Lightning
Master Member
Yay diversity!
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds Adds Another Enterprise Captain to Cast
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds will tell the story of Capt. Christopher Pike, who commanded the [...]
TAS is only loosely canon. It "happened" but maybe not precisely the way we saw it due to limitations of the medium. (They seem to be approaching TOS the same way these days). Appropriately enough, the art director of TAS was colorblind, so if anyone is going to have "colorblind" casting April is a fitting choice.
Robert April has been depicted across all media (except live-action, where he's never appeared) as Caucasian and/or British for decades. And, of course, he was a Commodore, not an Admiral. Just because he never appeared in live-action doesn't mean that's a loophole to ignore decades of generally-accepted lore. And the canonicity of TAS is still up for debate. There's no reason they couldn't just invent a new character in a position of authority and then employ colorblind casting.
Of course, the real reason for this is so they can pat themselves on the back and say that the very first Captain of the Enterprise was "diverse", just as Doctor Who was retconned into a diverse little girl, rather than being William Hartnell, the first actor to play the role.
Also, that comment about Hal Sutherland's colorblindness being some kind of justification for "colorblind" casting is SO inane that I'm now ignoring you just on principle.
Last edited:
...yeah, there's little point in continuing in this thread. It's become an exercise in ranting and frustration, at this point. KurtzmanTREK continues to willfully vandalize the lore and divide people along ideopolitical lines, and it's a very sad thing. If I keep going here, it's going to be the death of a thousand cuts. The best way to go is to not give these things any attention. Call them out, yes, but strategically.
To those who continue to fight to good fight and stand up for quality writing and everything that TREK used to stand for, good luck.
Me, I'm gonna buy a bottle of sparkling cider and patiently await they day when this dark era comes to an end. It'll be too late, of course. STAR TREK is a lost cause, especially now that they're going to overwrite TOS, which should be sacrosanct. It would once have been unthinkable to recast and reboot that show. After all, people were mad enough that TNG was even being made at all, back in the day.
Good luck, people.
To those who continue to fight to good fight and stand up for quality writing and everything that TREK used to stand for, good luck.
Me, I'm gonna buy a bottle of sparkling cider and patiently await they day when this dark era comes to an end. It'll be too late, of course. STAR TREK is a lost cause, especially now that they're going to overwrite TOS, which should be sacrosanct. It would once have been unthinkable to recast and reboot that show. After all, people were mad enough that TNG was even being made at all, back in the day.
Good luck, people.
kalkamel
Master Member
"And having now seen the first half of the first season (a second is already in production) I can say that Strange New Worlds will be a frustrating watch for fans. Frustrating because there are the bones of a really fun, interesting Star Trek series buried deep inside Strange New Worlds. Sadly, it’s trapped in the usual mix of faux-melodrama, clanging dialogue and dodgy plotting with the usual lapses in logic. Many writers are blind to their own flaws, which is why it’s so amusing that this is what Kurtzman and co. feel is a radical departure from their own work."
www.engadget.com
'Star Trek: Strange New Worlds' has promise, and the usual frustrations
It's promising, but that promise is buried underneath a layer of the usual nu-Trek problems.
www.engadget.com
"And having now seen the first half of the first season (a second is already in production) I can say that Strange New Worlds will be a frustrating watch for fans. Frustrating because there are the bones of a really fun, interesting Star Trek series buried deep inside Strange New Worlds. Sadly, it’s trapped in the usual mix of faux-melodrama, clanging dialogue and dodgy plotting with the usual lapses in logic. Many writers are blind to their own flaws, which is why it’s so amusing that this is what Kurtzman and co. feel is a radical departure from their own work."
'Star Trek: Strange New Worlds' has promise, and the usual frustrations
It's promising, but that promise is buried underneath a layer of the usual nu-Trek problems.
Sigh…a descendant of Khan’s serving on the Enterprise is a feat of laziness and stupidity to be truly proud of.
And, set a course for ”trauma”:
“Then there’s Celia Rose Gooding as Cadet Uhura, whose semi-canonical backstory is now firmly enshrined as a Dead Parent / Troubled Childhood narrative…
…Rounding out the cast is Christina Chong as security chief La’an Noonien-Singh, a descendant of Khaaaaan! himself, Trek’s in-series Hitler analog. From what we learn of her so far, she also gets saddled with a Troubled Childhood / Dead Parent narrative, as well as a case of the nasties.”
Last edited:
I thought Chapel didn't come onboard until McCoy did -- i.e., after Kirk took command. She joined Starfleet to try to find a trace of her fiancé, who had vanished.
kalkamel
Master Member
Surely you don't expect these NuTrek writers to know those little details, do you?
