Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

[dascoyne]

 

[asalaw]

Good Lord. He seems to think there’s no such thing as good, satisfying storytelling anymore (he seems to have missed The Offer and For All Mankind), so he might as well just roll over and show his belly.

I was very annoyed when The Naked Now aired as the second episode of TNG. “What, we’re just going to straight-up rip off the old show now? Is that what we’re going to get from this show?” I was thinking. I was 22 at the time. So I don’t want to hear that it’s OK to just throw skanky old clichés in a blender just because young people haven’t seen them yet. Lazy writing is lazy writing.

Having said that, the JJ Keitel betrayal/reversal wasn’t the part of the crapisode that I had problems with. Just literally the entire rest of it. And he enjoyed her performance? The man does have low standards, I’ll give him that.

At least he was right about the rest of it, but I’m still convinced his taste is in his… in a dark and remote location. When a blind squirrel finds a nut, you still don’t praise his eyesight.

 

[edge10]

Good Lord. He seems to think there’s no such thing as good, satisfying storytelling anymore (he seems to have missed The Offer and For All Mankind), so he might as well just roll over and show his belly.

I was very annoyed when The Naked Now aired as the second episode of TNG. “What, we’re just going to straight-up rip off the old show now? Is that what we’re going to get from this show?” I was thinking. I was 22 at the time. So I don’t want to hear that it’s OK to just throw skanky old clichés in a blender just because young people haven’t seen them yet. Lazy writing is lazy writing.

Having said that, the JJ Keitel betrayal/reversal wasn’t the part of the crapisode that I had problems with. Just literally the entire rest of it. And he enjoyed her performance? The man does have low standards, I’ll give him that.

At least he was right about the rest of it, but I’m still convinced his taste is in his… in a dark and remote location. When a blind squirrel finds a nut, you still don’t praise his eyesight.

He does claim the title of Former Network Executive, so his standards can't be too high.

 

[Gregatron]

Good Lord. He seems to think there’s no such thing as good, satisfying storytelling anymore (he seems to have missed The Offer and For All Mankind), so he might as well just roll over and show his belly.

I was very annoyed when The Naked Now aired as the second episode of TNG. “What, we’re just going to straight-up rip off the old show now? Is that what we’re going to get from this show?” I was thinking. I was 22 at the time. So I don’t want to hear that it’s OK to just throw skanky old clichés in a blender just because young people haven’t seen them yet. Lazy writing is lazy writing.

Having said that, the JJ Keitel betrayal/reversal wasn’t the part of the crapisode that I had problems with. Just literally the entire rest of it. And he enjoyed her performance? The man does have low standards, I’ll give him that.

At least he was right about the rest of it, but I’m still convinced his taste is in his… in a dark and remote location. When a blind squirrel finds a nut, you still don’t praise his eyesight.

I think we're more and more seeing the bias of lowered expectations at work, where things have gotten so bad that even mediocre products seem much better than they normally would. For example, people praising THE MANDALORIAN largely because it's not the dumpster fire that was the Disney Trilogy.

So, too, I suspect, with STRANGE NEW HAIR. Things have gotten so dire, thanks to STD and PICARD, that being poked in the eye with a blunt stick is preferable to being poked with a sharp one.

As I've noted in the past, the last few years have opened up a huge can of worms regarding the nature of criticism, the relationship between fans and the studios, etc. We need to fight for the sake of high and objective standards, instead of wallowing in mediocrity and giving bad shows and movies a pass because of identity politics and other insane nonsense.

Pay attention to how many reviews praise shows and films because "I liked it", or "it could be worse", or "at least it's better than XYZ". Lots of qualifiers instead of purely objective reviews of quality (or lack thereof).


Now, expectations are SO low that anything which doesn't completely denigrate and burn down beloved stories and characters is considered a win.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

I finally had to look this guy up to find out what his references to being a former network executive were all about.

It appears that from 1989 to 1991, he was head of television comedy at CBC Television (Canadian broadcasting).

 

[asalaw]

I think we're more and more seeing the bias of lowered expectations at work, where things have gotten so bad that even mediocre products seem much better than they normally would. For example, people praising THE MANDALORIAN largely because it's not the dumpster fire that was the Disney Trilogy.

So, too, I suspect, with STRANGE NEW HAIR. Things have gotten so dire, thanks to STD and PICARD, that being poked in the eye with a blunt stick is preferable to being poked with a sharp one.

Exactly. And I think Cato’s reviews are a perfect example of that. Notice how he goes out of his way to say he doesn’t come into the show with “baggage,” which is code for saying his expectations are very low. And then his review reflects that. It’s nice to see there are some things even he won’t give a pass on, but then we’re back to the blunt stick.

As I've noted in the past, the last few years have opened up a huge can of worms regarding the nature of criticism, the relationship between fans and the studios, etc. We need to fight for the sake of high and objective standards, instead of wallowing in mediocrity and giving bad shows and movies a pass because of identity politics and other insane nonsense.

There’s a great video I saw once that I’ve struggled to find again recently, with no luck—but it’s brilliant. It’s a video presentation by an art professor regarding the need for objective standards in art. He uses a particularly dramatic illustration to make his point, an exercise he does with his students early in his course.

He puts up a slide of a white canvas with multicolored paint spatters all over it, and asks his students to evaluate this painting by Jackson Pollock. He gives them a few minutes to say whatever they want about the work, and invariably they gush over Pollock’s use of color, drama, yadda yadda.

Then he shows them a wider view of the work they’ve been looking at and praising. It’s not, after all, a Pollock painting. It’s just a closeup of the paint spatters on his artist’s apron. Now that his students have egg on their faces and the dawning realization that they’ve been bamboozled, they’re primed to learn why it’s important to have standards.

It’s so you can tell the difference between a work of art and a con.

Edward Hopper was an artist. Norman Rockwell was an artist. Jackson Pollock was a con artist. If you can’t see the difference, then you’re just the sort of viewer who’s gonna love Strange New Hair, and I’m sure Cato would love to work with you.

To review:

ART.

ART.

SWINDLE.

 

[Gregatron]

I’m trying to keep up with things, like the term “woke” that I hear, now and again, referenced throughout threads on the RPF.

Is this in reference to very cool looking new pants being produced by Levis?

If so, I can’t wait to try on a pair and give the new “uni-fly” a whirl.

Somebody say Levi's? Cuz I'd rather buy them from Tommy, who is not woke, and is technically an artist. I'm also sure Tommy's STAR TREK would be a lot more fun than Kurtzman's.

 

[asalaw]

Somebody say Levi's? Cuz I'd rather buy them from Tommy, who is not woke, and is technically an artist. I'm also sure Tommy's STAR TREK would be a lot more fun than Kurtzman's.

Good Lord. That flashed me back to a Spike Lee Levi’s commercial I worked on back in the 80’s, on a rooftop somewhere in Miami Beach. I had him in an elevator at one point and buttonholed him about She’s Gotta Have It. He told me he shot it on a budget of $75K in 12 days. I was impressed. For years after that, I got Kwanzaa cards every year from 40 Acres and a Mule Productions. What a weird job that was.

 

[Ron]

View attachment 1588846

Oh, look, one half of the maturity duo (not Mr. keel) is at it again. You’d think he’d figure out that his childish and spiteful use of the laughing emoji has no effect on me, and doesn’t change the fact that these shows are terrible and unpopular. Oh, well. Points for consistency, at least.


Of course, this ties into what we’ve been talking about, as does the recent news regarding the official STAR WARS Twitter account implicitly approving of people bullying a fan who simply expressed a desire for STAR WARS to remain apolitical. To the point where they deleted their account. Hypocrisy in action, there, since the (highly questionable) narrative about “toxic fans” bullying people like Kelly Marie Tran off of social media has been pushed by the access media for years, now.

You see, no one here is bullying fans of NuTREK. No one here is calling them names or trying to ruin their fun. No one is preventing them from watching the shows or commenting on the shows or buying what little merchandise there is. We’re living rent-free in their heads, and their petty behavior says more about them than it does about those of us with dissenting opinions and logical arguments.

If anything, the persistent use of the laughing emoji (the one and only means of making contact with someone who long ago put them on “ignore”) speaks to their own insecurities and bullying tactics. You want “ toxic fans”, here you go. The remaining STAR TREK and STAR WARS fanbases, who desperately need their safe spaces/echo chambers, and for their views to be constantly validated, are clearly full of them. Sad.

Apparently, their twitter account is run by trigglypuff. What a joke these companies are now. It's absolutely shameful.

Intolerance in the name of "tolerance". Brilliant. Nothing says good business like antagonizing your fan base.

What that fan should've done was call his twitter account "China_official". He would've gotten a much warmer reception.

God help me if I ever give a dime to any Nu franchise.

Exactly. And I think Cato’s reviews are a perfect example of that. Notice how he goes out of his way to say he doesn’t come into the show with “baggage,” which is code for saying his expectations are very low. And then his review reflects that. It’s nice to see there are some things even he won’t give a pass on, but then we’re back to the blunt stick.

There’s a great video I saw once that I’ve struggled to find again recently, with no luck—but it’s brilliant. It’s a video presentation by an art professor regarding the need for objective standards in art. He uses a particularly dramatic illustration to make his point, an exercise he does with his students early in his course.

He puts up a slide of a white canvas with multicolored paint spatters all over it, and asks his students to evaluate this painting by Jackson Pollock. He gives them a few minutes to say whatever they want about the work, and invariably they gush over Pollock’s use of color, drama, yadda yadda.

Then he shows them a wider view of the work they’ve been looking at and praising. It’s not, after all, a Pollock painting. It’s just a closeup of the paint spatters on his artist’s apron. Now that his students have egg on their faces and the dawning realization that they’ve been bamboozled, they’re primed to learn why it’s important to have standards.

It’s so you can tell the difference between a work of art and a con.

Edward Hopper was an artist. Norman Rockwell was an artist. Jackson Pollock was a con artist. If you can’t see the difference, then you’re just the sort of viewer who’s gonna love Strange New Hair, and I’m sure Cato would love to work with you.

To review:

ART.
View attachment 1588993

ART.

View attachment 1588995

SWINDLE.

View attachment 1588996

Amen. I remember hearing the story about that professor a few years back. Probably the most important lesson those students would learn. Pollock was a fraud but I have more contempt for the art snobs that gave him legitimacy.

I absolutely reject the notion that artistry is totally subjective. There is objective good and bad in everything. You're free to like whatever you want of course but to truly appreciate the good, you have to be able to acknowledge the bad.

 

[asalaw]

Amen. I remember hearing the story about that professor a few years back. Probably the most important lesson those students would learn. Pollock was a fraud but I have more contempt for the art snobs that gave him legitimacy.

I absolutely reject the notion that artistry is totally subjective. There is objective good and bad in everything. You're free to like whatever you want of course but to truly appreciate the good, you have to be able to acknowledge the bad.

Man after my own heart…

Or as they would say on Breaking Bad, “Church!”

(And if anyone’s curious, yes, Breaking Bad was sublimely written—best-drawn character corruption arc since Michael Corleone.)

 

[NakedMoleRat]

The last third of that episode became almost embarrassing to watch! When the villain, whatever her name was, flipped from her pretense to being a bad gal, she became overly childish. And then Captain pikes horrible pirate impersonation, it was very cringe worthy indeed.

 

[asalaw]

The last third of that episode became almost embarrassing to watch! When the villain, whatever her name was, flipped from her pretense to being a bad gal, she became overly childish. And then Captain pikes horrible pirate impersonation, it was very cringe worthy indeed.

I literally buried my head in my hands and hid my face during the Pike pirate thing. I really hope Mount’s making a mint on this, because he’s going to be unemployable when it’s over.

 

[Gregatron]

CHURCH!!

I haven’t yet gotten around to BCS, I’m embarrassed to say (though I did see El Camino and enjoyed it very much). I WILL get to BCS, it’s only a matter of time. Right now I’m digging on For All Mankind, which initially turned me off due to its premise (just as Breaking Bad did at first), but which has turned out to be excellent drama and adventure. Likewise, I thought The Expanse was wonderful, full of superbly drawn characters and unexpected turns—not to mention one of the most loathsome villains I’ve ever seen. Manipulative, narcissistic, ruthless, yet incredibly clever, admired by his followers, and grudgingly respected by his enemies. Made Khan look like an addled choirboy.

There’s great, even brilliant stuff still out there. It’s just not called Star Trek anymore.

Tellingly, Gilligan, Peter Gould, and various other members of the BB/BCS cast and crew are old-school TREK fans. There are references throughout, like Saul mentioning the Enterprise having a self-destruct, Badger’s episode pitch (involving a pie-eating contest aboard the Enterprise), and Hector Salamanca only being able to say “yes” or “no” with his bell— a direct homage to the crippled Captain Pike.

Anyway, I was worried about BCS, at first. Would it end up being on of those failed, one-season spin-offs? After the first season was good, I was able to relax, and buckled in tight for the subsequent seasons. There is now a legitimate debate as to whether it’s actually better than BREAKING BAD. BSC’s bag of tricks is even more subtle, and it’s an even slower burn, but they’re really honed their craft over the past 15 years, and it shows. They absolutely made the right call to freshen things up be ending BREAKING BAD at the height of its popularity, and shifting gears to an earlier time period and focusing on different characters.

Personally, I see no need to debate whether one or the other is better. As the final pieces of BCS are now finally clicking into place (…only a few more weeks until the final episodes!), I now see them as two halves of one BIG story. Both shows are designed to work perfectly as separate entities (and there are hardcore fans of each show who have never seen the other), but both shows together paint the full picture, and it’s amazing storytelling. Top-tier.

…and, in the back of my mind, I’m almost glad that GAME OF THRONES crashed and burned so hard (and has disappeared entirely from the cultural conversation), because BB/BCS deserves more consideration for the top spot when we’re talking about all-time great shows.


Again, compare all of this to the crippled kid at the back of the bus, as Kurtzman can’t manage to string together a coherent TV universe with FIVE shows.

 

[asalaw]

Tellingly, Gilligan, Peter Gould, and various other members of the BB/BCS cast and crew are old-school TREK fans. There are references throughout, like Saul mentioning the Enterprise having a self-destruct, Badger’s episode pitch (involving a pie-eating contest aboard the Enterprise), and Hector Salamanca only being able to say “yes” or “no” with his bell— a direct homage to the crippled Captain Pike.

HOLY CRAP, I NEVER CAUGHT THAT!!!! That’s very impressive. It’s always heartening when old-school Trekkies make good.

Again, compare all of this to the crippled kid at the back of the bus, as Kurtzman can’t manage to string together a coherent TV universe with FIVE shows.

Completely hapless. At least they took the third JJ Trek film out of his and Orci’s hands and gave it to Pegg (for whatever reason—I’m not looking that gift horse in the mouth). And Beyond still wasn’t that great. Better than Into Dumbness, but I’ve written better shopping lists than Into Dumbness. To be fair to Pegg, though, he was under extreme time pressure to poop that thing out (I think I heard he only had six weeks), and he probably could have done better with three or four months. I’d like to think that Pegg picked up more from his time with Edgar Wright than just acting tips.

Drinker has a very good video on Beyond, and how it compares (poorly) to Wrath of Khan, which shows Kirk in the same world-weary place. But in WOK, Kirk is 50 and flying a desk, coming to terms with the realization that his best days are behind him, while in Beyond he’s at the height of his powers and commanding a starship. So that same middle-aged ennui doesn’t fit him at all. It’s like a toddler trying on daddy’s Army hat. It’s cute, but not exactly believable.

PS—Just told my wife about the Salamanca thing I missed—she caught it right away before I even finished the story, and I missed it in episode after episode…

 

[Gregatron]

Drinker has a very good video on Beyond, and how it compares (poorly) to Wrath of Khan, which shows Kirk in the same world-weary place. But in WOK, Kirk is 50 and flying a desk, coming to terms with the realization that his best days are behind him, while in Beyond he’s at the height of his powers and commanding a starship. So that same middle-aged ennui doesn’t fit him at all. It’s like a toddler trying on daddy’s Army hat. It’s cute, but not exactly believable.

This is something we see again and again in Abrams/Kurtzman TREK, with characters, moments, and ideas being repurposed while being completely deprived of their proper context. Another example would be the “death” of Kirk in INTO DUMBNESS, and NuSpock screaming “Khan!”. The death of Spock in TWOK had weight because it had decades of friendship and adventures behind it, just as the audience had all those years to get to know and love the character. Flipping the script and killing NuKirk…then bringing him back to life just a few minutes later…has none of that impact, because they were only two films into the alternate timeline, and NuKirk hadn’t been working with his crew for years, much less decades.

Same with the much-derided, “My name is…Khan.”, which should mean nothing to NuKirk. That moment depends solely upon the audience’s pre-established familiarity with the real Khan from the real TREK universe.


They steal things and then mash them together, somehow expecting them to carry the same weight that they originally did in the hands of better writers who actually did the work to make those moments matter.

It’s just awful writing.

 

[asalaw]

Another example would be the “death” of Kirk in INTO DUMBNESS, and NuSpock screaming “Khan!”. The death of Spock in TWOK had weight because it had decades of friendship and adventures behind it, just as the audience had all those years to get to know and love the character. Flipping the script and killing NuKirk…then bringing him back to life just a few minutes later…has none of that impact, because they were only two films into the alternate timeline, and NuKirk hadn’t been working with his crew for years, much less decades.

Ugh. I know. And in WOK, the characters were so well developed and familiar that DeForest Kelley KNEW not to say “He’s dead already” as scripted, but instead swapped lines with James Doohan. If shot as scripted, there wouldn’t have been a dry seat in the house.

But the knuckledraggers writing Trek now… ugh.

 

[Cephus]

He does claim the title of Former Network Executive, so his standards can't be too high.

He's also making it from the perspective of a network executive trying to keep his job. It's one thing to not agree with the perspective but quite another to pretend he hasn't made his position crystal clear.

Apparently, their twitter account is run by trigglypuff. What a joke these companies are now. It's absolutely shameful.

Intolerance in the name of "tolerance". Brilliant. Nothing says good business like antagonizing your fan base.

What that fan should've done was call his twitter account "China_official". He would've gotten a much warmer reception.

God help me if I ever give a dime to any Nu franchise.

The problem is, they don't want the existing fan base. They actively hate us. They want to appeal to people who don't give a damn about Trek because they're open to the absurd political virtue signaling that nu-Trek wants to push. This isn't about making good shows, if it was, they wouldn't just be ripping off TOS every single episode. They'd try to do something interesting and original.

I doubt we'll ever see them try.

 

[Darth Lars]

Since the beginning with The Original Series, Star Trek has always brought up philosophical and social issues. That's expected of every Star Trek series after it IMHO.
But I think that this episode was a little too heavy-handed, in a way that broke the fourth wall for me. Call that "virtue-signalling" if you will - I call it bad writing and directing.
A message can often get across better if it is presented in a subtle way, when treated as the normal state of things instead of being told directly to your face ... twice.

.. and the pirate joke at the end. Just no. A real person who had been in that situation would not.

 

[Gregatron]

Ugh. I know. And in WOK, the characters were so well developed and familiar that DeForest Kelley KNEW not to say “He’s dead already” as scripted, but instead swapped lines with James Doohan. If shot as scripted, there wouldn’t have been a dry seat in the house.

But the knuckledraggers writing Trek now… ugh.

I was under the impression that Kelley was concerned the line might get unintentional laughs if he was the one who said it.

 

[asalaw]

I was under the impression that Kelley was concerned the line might get unintentional laughs if he was the one who said it.

Yes—that’s what that expression means. It’s a play on the old cliché “there won’t be a dry eye in the house,” which means a scene or a show is a sure-fire tear-jerker. Instead, you’re saying the audience will piss themselves laughing. Sorry, I thought everyone knew that expression. My bad.