Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

[Krieger]

Watched SNW/Spock Amok again, then paired with TOS/Shore Leave (because it’s Saturday and like many, many years ago on WPIX11, TOS was a regular listing the local network around dinner time)

one theme was around empathy, the other was all about experiences.

each are a product of their times…

and how those tunics ripped so easily in the 23rd century! Makes me *almost* want to distress one myself

 

[asalaw]

Yeah, I unsubscribed after that review. The man has no standards. I’m surprised now that Drinker gives him the time of day, let alone does panels with him.

 

[kalkamel]

Yeah, I unsubscribed after that review. The man has no standards. I’m surprised now that Drinker gives him the time of day, let alone does panels with him.

Even RMB found certain aspects of the episode likeable, and he's generally critical of it so far.

Me, I'm just enjoying the sights.

 

[asalaw]

Saying that 10% of the episode was nice is hardly a ringing endorsement. My main reason for canceling Chato was that he thought the Freaky Friday thing was “fun.” If you’re so taken in by incredibly lazy writing that you won’t call it out, I no longer trust your creative judgment.

 

[Picard102]

It's all good; as far as actual Trek, the older stuff should be safe. "Strange New Worlds" I really had hopes for, but now it's tuning into "SJW" and it's sad.

What parts are "SJW"?

 

[Cephus]

Yeah, I unsubscribed after that review. The man has no standards. I’m surprised now that Drinker gives him the time of day, let alone does panels with him.

He says what his criteria are right up front. You're free to disagree, but that sounds like a "you" problem.

 

[asalaw]

He says what his criteria are right up front. You're free to disagree, but that sounds like a "you" problem.

Aaaaand there it is. “I don’t like your opinion, therefore there’s something wrong with you.” Typical.

 

[Lightning]

Aaaaand there it is. “I don’t like your opinion, therefore there’s something wrong with you.” Typical.

Isn't that exactly what you just did to Chato?

 

[asalaw]

Isn't that exactly what you just did to Chato?

No. I said I no longer trust his judgment, because he happily accepted demonstrably lazy writing, and I’m no longer interested in his opinions. I didn’t imply he had some sort of personal problem just because he uncritically accepted a bad product. I said I no longer value his opinion, and I said why.

He holds himself out as being particularly qualified to opine on these things as a “former network executive.” Yet if I were his boss, I would at the very least have called him into my office to explain just why, with all the money I was paying him to exercise sound, professional creative judgment, he greenlit such an awful script. And if he did that consistently, I’d certainly invite him to go be a network executive on somebody else’s dime.

Here’s the Scottish Sot explaining similarly grounded criticisms of Obi Wan, Rings of Power, Halo, and House of Dragons, and just why fans of the original properties have a right to expect better work from those who are now entrusted with those franchises. Swap in “Star Trek” every time he says “Star Wars,” and you have my opinions about Strange New Hair, and my grounds for holding them, neatly encapsulated.

 

[firesprite]

It's all good; as far as actual Trek, the older stuff should be safe. "Strange New Worlds" I really had hopes for, but now it's tuning into "SJW" and it's sad.

As opposed to "old trek" which was totally NOT SJW? Have you... like actually WATCHED any of the original series?

TOS gave us "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination" and women and minorities in positions of power/responsibility who were competent and not comic relief, and used its platform to promote equality...

I don't think SJW means what you think it means.

 

[asalaw]

As opposed to "old trek" which was totally NOT SJW? Have you... like actually WATCHED any of the original series?

TOS gave us "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination" and women and minorities in positions of power/responsibility who were competent and not comic relief, and used its platform to promote equality...

I don't think SJW means what you think it means.

But TOS also gave us horribly written female characters like Marla McGivers, Mira Romaine, and Janice Lester. It did very well with the Romulan Commander, Number One, Areel Shaw, and Ann Mullhall, but let’s not pretend that it didn’t have its shameful moments. Number One was stricken from the show because of network objections to a woman in a command position, which brings me to my point—the Sixties, and the old-school liberalism that was arising back then, pale in comparison to the “social justice” or “woke” movements of today. Saying that TOS’s IDIC values are similar—or even comparable—to the social and political radicalism of today is nonsense. Even old-school liberals like Joe Rogan, Bill Mahr, and Tulsi Gabbard have sharply criticized today’s SJWs, and been viciously attacked for it. Yet I’m sure all of them would be very comfortable with TOS’s finer moments. By the same token, even a firm conservative would have no objection to Number One today.

Just one example of the gulf between then and now: in The Savage Curtain, Lincoln uses an antiquated word to describe Uhura. Then he catches himself and apologizes to her. But she says no apology is necessary, because “we’ve learned not to fear words.” Contrast that with today’s “cancel culture,” in which people lose their livelihoods for merely expressing unpopular opinions, or the radicals’ outright hysteria over the notion of diversity of opinion and free expression being allowed on social media, and you’ll see my point.

In fact, there’s an argument to be made that today’s SJW phenomenon is the polar opposite of the ideals of the IDIC, since “infinite diversity” necessarily includes diversity of opinion—and that’s the one thing that today’s “tolerant” SJWs have shown they will not tolerate. It necessarily includes a willingness to engage with wholly different cultures—yet today’s SJWs are incredibly hostile to the cultural values of fully half the country.

I don’t buy for a moment that even GR’s relatively bohemian worldview would have much of a home with today’s radicals.

 

[Cephus]

Aaaaand there it is. “I don’t like your opinion, therefore there’s something wrong with you.” Typical.

Wow, you've got some serious oppression problems, don't you? I don't give a damn what you watch. I said that he's very clear about what perspective he's approaching his reviews from. You're welcome to disagree, you're welcome not to watch, but the second anyone points out what you're doing, you're screaming and crying "but you just hate me!"

Grow up.

He's not doing what you want him to be doing. Again, that's a "you" problem, not a "him" problem.

 

[Gregatron]

No. I said I no longer trust his judgment, because he happily accepted demonstrably lazy writing, and I’m no longer interested in his opinions. I didn’t imply he had some sort of personal problem just because he uncritically accepted a bad product. I said I no longer value his opinion, and I said why.

He holds himself out as being particularly qualified to opine on these things as a “former network executive.” Yet if I were his boss, I would at the very least have called him into my office to explain just why, with all the money I was paying him to exercise sound, professional creative judgment, he greenlit such an awful script. And if he did that consistently, I’d certainly invite him to go be a network executive on somebody else’s dime.

Here’s the Scottish Sot explaining similarly grounded criticisms of Obi Wan, Rings of Power, Halo, and House of Dragons, and just why fans of the original properties have a right to expect better work from those who are now entrusted with those franchises. Swap in “Star Trek” every time he says “Star Wars,” and you have my opinions about Strange New Hair, and my grounds for holding them, neatly encapsulated.

While I certainly agree with your points, I will say that it can certainly be difficult to apply consistent objective standards to everything. We all have our particular tastes (or lack thereof), after all. I'm sure that we all have fiction that we know is objectively bad, but that we still enjoy, be it due to certain elements which appeal to us, or just in an ironic sense.

 

[Gregatron]

As opposed to "old trek" which was totally NOT SJW? Have you... like actually WATCHED any of the original series?

TOS gave us "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination" and women and minorities in positions of power/responsibility who were competent and not comic relief, and used its platform to promote equality...

I don't think SJW means what you think it means.

There is a radical difference between producing an intelligent science-fiction series that posits a peaceful, egalitarian future (without pushing partisan politics), and using an acquired franchise as a "platform" and a cudgel for bludgeoning its audience with --

To say nothing of marginalizing and/or denigrating certain groups in the name of "social justice", and telling your audience not to watch your show if you think, vote, or believe in ways unapproved by the collective.


STAR TREK told viewers TO think. NuTREK tells viewers WHAT to think. Until it became mired in stupidity and agenda, STAR TREK was a massive international and generational success. Now, it's arguably less than a joke. It's a non-starter, with no cultural impact and no appreciable fanbase or merchandise.


And I don't think "SJW" means what you think it means.

 

[asalaw]

Wow, you've got some serious oppression problems, don't you? I don't give a damn what you watch. I said that he's very clear about what perspective he's approaching his reviews from. You're welcome to disagree, you're welcome not to watch, but the second anyone points out what you're doing, you're screaming and crying "but you just hate me!"

Grow up.

He's not doing what you want him to be doing. Again, that's a "you" problem, not a "him" problem.

Aaaaand there you go again.

 

[asalaw]

While I certainly agree with your points, I will say that it can certainly be difficult to apply consistent objective standards to everything. We all have our particular tastes (or lack thereof), after all. I'm sure that we all have fiction that we know is objectively bad, but that we still enjoy, be it due to certain elements which appeal to us, or just in an ironic sense.

That’s true enough, and I certainly would never accuse TOS, for instance, of being consistent in quality. But I’m hardly obligated to continue to spend any time indulging the opinions of someone who holds himself out as an experienced creative pro on the one hand, while uncritically accepting clearly bad material on the other. Chato can have any opinion he wants, but that doesn’t obligate me to refrain from disagreeing, nor bar me from calling his creative judgment into question for legitimate reasons, or even to keep watching his videos.

 

[pengbuzz]

What parts are "SJW"?

Oh, the parts where it hits you in the head like a sledgehammer with the "message of the week" instead of letting you think about the situation presented. Seriously, if an audience has to be spoon fed their rationality and morality, then that's not Trek.

As opposed to "old trek" which was totally NOT SJW? Have you... like actually WATCHED any of the original series?

TOS gave us "Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination" and women and minorities in positions of power/responsibility who were competent and not comic relief, and used its platform to promote equality...

I don't think SJW means what you think it means.

So, simply because I disagree with you, you automatically pull out the "have you watched any of the original series" fallacy. In other words, you're setting yourself up as the authority on Trek, and woe unto anyone who violates your all-supreme grandiosity, hand-delivered to you by Gene Roddenberry's dead hand sticking out of his grave.

I've watched every TOS episode from The Cage (with Jeff Hunter as the Original Capt. Pike) to Turnabout Intruder (which was missing Nichelle Nichols as Uhura, due to a gig singing). All six movies plus Generations, as well as DS9's "Trials and Tribblations" and ST: Enterprise's In a Mirror Darkly.

All of that said: Trek is supposed to make you think, not tell you what to think. And SNW does exactly the latter, despite your protestations to the contrary. "Social Justice Warriors" want to make people think just as they do and do as they do instead of inspiring people to think about the current situation. That's not Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations; instead it's Infinite Enslavement of Mental Faculties.

For both you folks: I think Gregatron's post needs to be quoted, as it contains much truth:

There is a radical difference between producing an intelligent science-fiction series that posits a peaceful, egalitarian future (without pushing partisan politics), and using an acquired franchise as a "platform" and a cudgel for bludgeoning its audience with --

To say nothing of marginalizing and/or denigrating certain groups in the name of "social justice", and telling your audience not to watch your show if you think, vote, or believe in ways unapproved by the collective.


STAR TREK told viewers TO think. NuTREK tells viewers WHAT to think. Until it became mired in stupidity and agenda, STAR TREK was a massive international and generational success. Now, it's arguably less than a joke. It's a non-starter, with no cultural impact and no appreciable fanbase or merchandise.


And I don't think "SJW" means what you think it means.

As does Asalaw's:

But TOS also gave us horribly written female characters like Marla McGivers, Mira Romaine, and Janice Lester. It did very well with the Romulan Commander, Number One, Areel Shaw, and Ann Mullhall, but let’s not pretend that it didn’t have its shameful moments. Number One was stricken from the show because of network objections to a woman in a command position, which brings me to my point—the Sixties, and the old-school liberalism that was arising back then, pale in comparison to the “social justice” or “woke” movements of today. Saying that TOS’s IDIC values are similar—or even comparable—to the social and political radicalism of today is nonsense. Even old-school liberals like Joe Rogan, Bill Mahr, and Tulsi Gabbard have sharply criticized today’s SJWs, and been viciously attacked for it. Yet I’m sure all of them would be very comfortable with TOS’s finer moments. By the same token, even a firm conservative would have no objection to Number One today.

Just one example of the gulf between then and now: in The Savage Curtain, Lincoln uses an antiquated word to describe Uhura. Then he catches himself and apologizes to her. But she says no apology is necessary, because “we’ve learned not to fear words.” Contrast that with today’s “cancel culture,” in which people lose their livelihoods for merely expressing unpopular opinions, or the radicals’ outright hysteria over the notion of diversity of opinion and free expression being allowed on social media, and you’ll see my point.

In fact, there’s an argument to be made that today’s SJW phenomenon is the polar opposite of the ideals of the IDIC, since “infinite diversity” necessarily includes diversity of opinion—and that’s the one thing that today’s “tolerant” SJWs have shown they will not tolerate. It necessarily includes a willingness to engage with wholly different cultures—yet today’s SJWs are incredibly hostile to the cultural values of fully half the country.

I don’t buy for a moment that even GR’s relatively bohemian worldview would have much of a home with today’s radicals.

To the point: there's nothing Social (vicious instead), Just (denigrating others to promote the "chosen victim of the moment" rather than ensuring people who weren't alive during the original crimes aren't punished for what another generation did or did not do) or Warrior (more like screaming children having a temper tantrum and descending upon people en masse to bully them into submission via terror and intimidation) about SJW's. That's not me trying to be a self-proclaimed expert on SWJ's; that's just plain observation.

 

[Lightning]

Number One was stricken from the show because of network objections to a woman in a command position

Just for the record, as far as I'm aware, that's not true. Roddenberry made it up to make himself look better. The real issue was casting his mistress in a lead role. For reasons of both acting quality, and the production difficulties that their breaking up would cause. He got away with Chapel because she could be removed from the show easily. He could have recast #1 but chose not to.

 

[pengbuzz]

And what happened to M'Benga that would cause him to be demoted from the CMO position, and to lose his accent?

And beard and mustache?

Just for the record, as far as I'm aware, that's not true. Roddenberry made it up to make himself look better. The real issue was casting his mistress in a lead role. For reasons of both acting quality, and the production difficulties that their breaking up would cause. He got away with Chapel because she could be removed from the show easily. He could have recast #1 but chose not to.

On that note: since Number One and CHapel were played by Majel Barrett, doesn't that mean that when the two characters are talking to one another, it's technically one person talking to herself?

 

[Picard102]

Oh, the parts where it hits you in the head like a sledgehammer with the "message of the week" instead of letting you think about the situation presented. Seriously, if an audience has to be spoon fed their rationality and morality, then that's not Trek.

Which part was this in this week's episode? The part about having empathy, or the part about being able to see things from another point of view?
What part of empathy or acknowledging different viewpoints is SJW?