Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

Just looked up Coates. He’s a nobody, but he does have some woke credentials, so I bet he’s hot right now. Also just noticed JJ was on Westworld, which explains a few things. Jonathan Nolan is quite a good writer (at least when he’s working with his brother), but WW started going off the rails in season 2–and went so far off the deep end in season 3 that I’m just done with it. I get the strong impression that they’re just making it up as they go along (the way they did on Lost), and that’s no way to run a railroad if you’re doing a serial. JMS had a 5-year outline for Babylon 5, and it showed in the work, despite the damage Warner did to the arc by jerking him around between seasons. Hopefully his reboot on the CW will have an uninterrupted run so he can develop the arc correctly this time.

It should be noted that JMS was also a key player in the destruction of the Spider-Man comics after an initial false euphoria, not unlike Abrams on TREK/WARS. He also wrote the story which made me realize where the industry was going and made me quit.

He should have stuck with TV.
 
It should be noted that JMS was also a key player in the destruction of the Spider-Man comics after an initial false euphoria, not unlike Abrams on TREK/WARS. He also wrote the story which made me realize where the industry was going and made me quit.

He should have stuck with TV.
Can’t tell you how sorry I am to hear that. B5 was a well-written show overall, and JMS deserved better than to have Paramount put it into turnaround after they decided to make DS9 instead (and a lot of people have connected those dots before). Harlan Ellison and Larry DiTillio were also excellent writers (Ellison needs no introduction, obviously) and were contributors to the show. Both are gone now, leaving JMS as the only survivor of the original B5 triumvirate.

My only complaint about the series is that it could have been done entirely in three or four seasons, as there were a number of filler episodes that did nothing or nearly nothing to advance the arc story and subplots. But I guess it was easier to pitch a 5-season series that had a better shot at syndication than a 3-season one. Just a guess really, but a logical one.

On the plus side, the main arc plot and the G’Kar-Londo subplot were wonderful, and Andreas Katsulas’ performance was an absolute tour de force. I don’t think it’s farfetched to say that he and Peter Jurasik carried the series.
 


As TOS had established, Spock, at least (if not all Vulcans) kept things close to the chest. ENTERPRISE, of course, took that too far and made them condescending jerks.

McCoy, Spock’s personal physician, had no clue about Pon Farr until Spock went through it (…although Dr. M’Benga interned in a Vulcan ward, which could imply that he wasn’t aboard the Enterprise during “Amok Time”, and certainly not during Pike’s era).

Kirk and McCoy also had no clue about Sybok until decades after they’d met Spock (and even after McCoy had housed Spock’s katra).

Yet, in STRANGE NEW HAIR, NuSpock is more than happy to talk about his love life and his banished half-brother with Christine Chapel, a subordinate who was never a close friend even during TOS (which makes sense, given her unrequited love for him, meaning that he’d probably keep things as professional and polite with her as possible).

This characterization is all wrong, as we know. More and more evidence is mounting up to support that fact.
 


As TOS had established, Spock, at least (if not all Vulcans) kept things close to the chest. ENTERPRISE, of course, took that too far and made them condescending jerks.

McCoy, Spock’s personal physician, had no clue about Pon Farr until Spock went through it (…although Dr. M’Benga interned in a Vulcan ward, which could imply that he wasn’t aboard the Enterprise during “Amok Time”, and certainly not during Pike’s era).

Kirk and McCoy also had no clue about Sybok until decades after they’d met Spock (and even after McCoy had housed Spock’s katra).

Yet, in STRANGE NEW HAIR, NuSpock is more than happy to talk about his love life and his banished half-brother with Christine Chapel, a subordinate who was never a close friend even during TOS (which makes sense, given her unrequited love for him, meaning that he’d probably keep things as professional and polite with her as possible).

This characterization is all wrong, as we know. More and more evidence is mounting up to support that fact.
All true. But I’m not nearly as upset with the defenestration of the canon as I am with the things from TOS they’re keeping. Like the Turnabout Intruder body swap. Like Sybok from STV. They are establishing a pattern of mining the worst episodes and films for material. And they’re taking these gobs of putrescence and dropping them into tubs of fan-level poo they laughingly call scripts.

Here’s what’s coming up in Season One:

• They’ll revisit The Way to Eden, except Severin will still be alive (because timeline) and Spock will introduce him to Beatles music…

• They’ll reboot The Paradise Syndrome, and Spock will babysit Miramanee when she’s a toddler…

• They’ll crank up The Alternative Factor, except Lazarus will be a handicapable nonbinary Filipina, but with a PhD in multidimensional transphysics, because GIRL POWER!

Screw it. My copy of The Godfather Notebook is coming on Friday, and I’m reading a good novel, so maybe I’ll actually skip it this week.

I dunno, though, my morbid curiosity does tend to get the best of me…
 
All true. But I’m not nearly as upset with the defenestration of the canon as I am with the things from TOS they’re keeping. Like the Turnabout Intruder body swap. Like Sybok from STV. They are establishing a pattern of mining the worst episodes and films for material. And they’re taking these gobs of putrescence and dropping them into tubs of fan-level poo they laughingly call scripts.

Here’s what’s coming up in Season One:

• They’ll revisit The Way to Eden, except Severin will still be alive (because timeline) and Spock will introduce him to Beatles music…

• They’ll reboot The Paradise Syndrome, and Spock will babysit Miramanee when she’s a toddler…

• They’ll crank up The Alternative Factor, except Lazarus will be a handicapable nonbinary Filipina, but with a PhD in multidimensional transphysics, because GIRL POWER!

Screw it. My copy of The Godfather Notebook is coming on Friday, and I’m reading a good novel, so maybe I’ll actually skip it this week.

I dunno, though, my morbid curiosity does tend to get the best of me…

Yeah, I’m convinced that they’re going back to the failed and weak aspects of TOS in order to do them “right”. Sigh.
 
All true. But I’m not nearly as upset with the defenestration of the canon as I am with the things from TOS they’re keeping. Like the Turnabout Intruder body swap. Like Sybok from STV. They are establishing a pattern of mining the worst episodes and films for material. And they’re taking these gobs of putrescence and dropping them into tubs of fan-level poo they laughingly call scripts.

Here’s what’s coming up in Season One:

• They’ll revisit The Way to Eden, except Severin will still be alive (because timeline) and Spock will introduce him to Beatles music…

• They’ll reboot The Paradise Syndrome, and Spock will babysit Miramanee when she’s a toddler…

• They’ll crank up The Alternative Factor, except Lazarus will be a handicapable nonbinary Filipina, but with a PhD in multidimensional transphysics, because GIRL POWER!

Screw it. My copy of The Godfather Notebook is coming on Friday, and I’m reading a good novel, so maybe I’ll actually skip it this week.

I dunno, though, my morbid curiosity does tend to get the best of me…

Hey now…I deeply resent The Paradise Syndrome being lumped in with that list of TOS stinkers you’ve compiled there.

The fable of the Great God and Medicine Chief Kirok is one of the best mythical tales ever told.

 
Last edited:
All things considered, the third season of TOS, despite its many, many problems, is really a drop in the bucket compared to what we’re getting now. STD will surely go down in history as one of the worst science-fiction shows—if not worst TV shows in general—of all time. And SNW is just them huffing the last few nostalgia fumes before the engine runs dry.

As I said some time back, bad TOS is like bad pizza. Bad, yet still pizza. These modern shows are like pizza that’s already been digested by someone else and then regurgitated onto your plate.
 
All things considered, the third season of TOS, despite its many, many problems, is really a drop in the bucket compared to what we’re getting now. STD will surely go down in history as one of the worst science-fiction shows—if not worst TV shows in general—of all time. And SNW is just them huffing the last few nostalgia fumes before the engine runs dry.

As I said some time back, bad TOS is like bad pizza. Bad, yet still pizza. These modern shows are like pizza that’s already been digested by someone else and then regurgitated onto your plate.
Yep. As I’ve often said (possibly even in this thread but I’m not sure), STD is the perfect acronym for that show. Because it’s both painful to experience and embarrassing to talk about.

Oh, and I just remembered: in yet another entry in the woke=broke file, Lightyear flopped. Only about $50M in its 3-day opening weekend. Barely a third of Toy Story 4’s opening, IIRC.
 
All things considered, the third season of TOS, despite its many, many problems, is really a drop in the bucket compared to what we’re getting now. STD will surely go down in history as one of the worst science-fiction shows—if not worst TV shows in general—of all time. And SNW is just them huffing the last few nostalgia fumes before the engine runs dry.

As I said some time back, bad TOS is like bad pizza. Bad, yet still pizza. These modern shows are like pizza that’s already been digested by someone else and then regurgitated onto your plate.
I give the original a LOT of leeway because they were trying something new. There was some hits, and some misses, but they were literally going where no one had gone before. No budget, few thought they could make it work, and they had the guts to try.

If you get handed a flagship well known property with established lore, more should be expected. Much more.
 
I give the original a LOT of leeway because they were trying something new. There was some hits, and some misses, but they were literally going where no one had gone before. No budget, few thought they could make it work, and they had the guts to try.

If you get handed a flagship well known property with established lore, more should be expected. Much more.
I completely agree. With all that money, a fully staffed writer’s room with the cachet to attract the cream of the talent crop, and a studio publicity machine at their disposal, we have a right to expect and demand much better product than they’re churning out.

More The Offer, less Strange New Hair. K? Thx.
 
I give the original a LOT of leeway because they were trying something new. There was some hits, and some misses, but they were literally going where no one had gone before. No budget, few thought they could make it work, and they had the guts to try.

If you get handed a flagship well known property with established lore, more should be expected. Much more.

Precisely. They made so much out of so little, even in the third season, when the budget was slashed, the time slot was changed, and the writing was on the wall. I can easily overlook early continuity errors (because they were figuring things out as they went) and production compromises due to budget and technological limitations. It is abundantly clear that they were working incredibly hard to make that show, and that they respected the work they were doing as well as their audience. They actually knew what they were doing, and they were ahead of the curve in many, many ways. So much of modern nerd culture as we know it comes from STAR TREK and the cult audience which sprang up around it and made it a legend.

As I’ve told newbies many times over the years, the reason that TOS is still talked about—and is quite possibly the most talked-about and obsessed-over show in the history of television—is because of the stories and the characters. Everything else is gravy, and if all you see are “cardboard sets” and “rubber monsters”, you’re not paying attention.

Today, we have massive budgets and fancy effects concealing awful, lazy writing, and naked contempt for the audience.
 
Yep. As I’ve often said (possibly even in this thread but I’m not sure), STD is the perfect acronym for that show. Because it’s both painful to experience and embarrassing to talk about.

Oh, and I just remembered: in yet another entry in the woke=broke file, Lightyear flopped. Only about $50M in its 3-day opening weekend. Barely a third of Toy Story 4’s opening, IIRC.

The pendulum is swinging. We’re gonna lose most of the core franchises, but we will win the war. Like I said, perhaps the greatest lessons that these franchises will teach us are how and why they died, and how to avoid it in the future.
 
The pendulum is swinging. We’re gonna lose most of the core franchises, but we will win the war. Like I said, perhaps the greatest lessons that these franchises will teach us are how and why they died, and how to avoid it in the future.
Yeah, but that said: those lessons need to be learned by the next generations, lest they forget and we begin this cycle all over again.

Maybe someday the franchises can be revisited after being asleep for so long, and the taint of what those whose desire to enjoy the power of adults and the carefree whims of children has died with that sad and ill-begotten generation.
 
Yeah, but that said: those lessons need to be learned by the next generations, lest they forget and we begin this cycle all over again.

Maybe someday the franchises can be revisited after being asleep for so long, and the taint of what those whose desire to enjoy the power of adults and the carefree whims of children has died with that sad and ill-begotten generation.
This too shall pass—the question is, what will be left when it does? It’s a question that implicates far more than our favorite franchise.

Is the tide turning? Maybe so, but not quickly.

So for instance, will we get better product out of HBO and Warner Bros. now that the merger is complete? If the glacial pace and incremental scale of change at CNN is any indicator, maybe not in our lifetime.

Meanwhile, we should continue to celebrate the good and call out the bad and most of all, vote with our wallets.

Meanwhile, Disney’s troubles are mounting. Their stock is in free fall, their movies and streaming shows are flopping, and Mickey Mouse is about to pass into the public domain. They will not get another extension out of Congress. We’ll see what effect that has on the value of their brand portfolio…
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but that said: those lessons need to be learned by the next generations, lest they forget and we begin this cycle all over again.

Maybe someday the franchises can be revisited after being asleep for so long, and the taint of what those whose desire to enjoy the power of adults and the carefree whims of children has died with that sad and ill-begotten generation.

I dunno. I think they’re gonna go the way of Flash Gordon and the Lone Ranger: Cult franchises with a devoted fanbase that get a reboot attempt every few decades.

In addition to “STAR TREK is for old people!”, I’ve also heard young people describe the original STAR WARS (one of the most beloved and influential films of all time) as “boring” and “goofy”. Superman is also often described as “old” and “boring”.

In order to keep these things going, the classic, proper versions need to be reaffirmed for each generation with a fresh coat of paint, but NOT by tearing down and then rebuilding the foundation. The proper Superman hasn’t been seen in quite some time, instead being replaced by dark versions with Glowy Red Eyes of Rage and “It’s hard to be me” angst. To say nothing of all the dark, subversive riffs on the character (THE BOYS, BRIGHTBURN, etc.). And none of these have taken with the past few decades’ worth of kids, at least not in a way which goes beyond the short-term.

Spider-Man is another good example. Marvel’s most beloved character and corporate mascot, and a genre-redefining character. Now, however, decades of terrible comics and retcons have torn him down, and Iron Man has arguably become the corporate mascot, thanks to the huge success of the movies. Meanwhile, the “more diverse” Miles Morales has slowly been positioned as a replacement for Peter Parker, and there are also a bunch of of other derivative characters with spider-powers running around in various media. There’s even a Disney Junior cartoon with a team of Spider-Friends (Parker, Morales, Spider-Gwen) running around…as well as a gender-swapped Doctor Octopus with half-shaved, SJW hair.

The whole thing with Spider-Man (and most of Marvel’s classic characters) is that he’s one-of-a-kind. As opposed to DC having multiple versions of the same characters, the classic Marvel characters tended to be unique. One Spider- Man, one Hulk, one Captain America. That concept has been completely trashed, now, with multiple competing versions of the same character running around, and the idea that “anyone can wear the mask and be Spider-Man”, which is simply not true, and completely denigrates and waters down Peter Parker and everything that made him a great character.


If you lose a generation or two, then the chain is broken. If you reinvent the wheel and make everything divisive, with competing, radically different versions of the same property/characters (as with STAR TREK), then the fandom (and the culture, for that matter) is no longer united by common ground and common values. The STAR WARS prequels, controversial as they are, still made tons of money, still created a new generation of fans, and still inspired those fans to look back to the old films and embrace them. Lucas took pains to interlock the two trilogies so that they told one big story (albeit one filled with retcons galore).

The Disney Trilogy, on the other hand, is a terrible, woke remake of the original trilogy, does not work in any way as a proper sequel to the story Lucas told, and deliberately tore down the characters, plot points, and themes of the six Lucas films. It literally said “kill the past”. The inherent problem is that the Disney Trilogy does not stand on its own as a compelling and satisfying story which can survive without the original films’ legacy backing it up. It killed the past, but it also can’t justify its own existence enough to still keep people interested for decades to come. The bridges have all been burned.

Same with STAR TREK. These new shows do the same thing by tearing down the past (as with PICARD) or actively rewriting the past (STD/SNW). And the rewriting is in no way an improvement, which means that people won’t care, going forward. A few years of short-term notoriety at the cost of the future. The fanbase is shrinking instead of growing, because the inferior replacement for what people loved for decades cannot sustain the franchise in the long-term. The old fans get mad and leave, and the new fans don’t care enough to stick around for the long-term, and also don’t find the old stuff appealing, because “it’s not made for them”.
 
This too shall pass—the question is, what will be left when it does? It’s a question that implicates far more than our favorite franchise.

Is the tide turning? Maybe so, but not quickly.

So for instance, will we get better product out of HBO and Warner Bros. now that the merger is complete? If the glacial pace and incremental scale of change at CNN is any indicator, maybe not in our lifetime.

Meanwhile, we should continue to celebrate the good and call out the bad and most of all, vote with our wallets.

Meanwhile, Disney’s troubles are mounting. Their stock is in free fall, their movies and streaming shows are flopping, and Mickey Mouse is about to pass into the public domain. They will not get another extension out of Congress. We’ll see what effect that has on the value of their brand portfolio…
Indeed it does; the franchises are but one sign of the attempted re-writing of the social contract (and more). And to the end of voting with my wallet: I will not buy nor support these series' that embrace the SJW view (in spite of certain entities' insistence that Star Trek was "woke from the beginning").

I dunno. I think they’re gonna go the way of Flash Gordon and the Lone Ranger: Cult franchises with a devoted fanbase that get a reboot attempt every few decades.
Perhaps not the worst of fates, in comparison to what today holds.

In addition to “STAR TREK is for old people!”, I’ve also heard young people describe the original STAR WARS (one of the most beloved and influential films of all time) as “boring” and “goofy”. Superman is also often described as “old” and “boring”.

In order to keep these things going, the classic, proper versions need to be reaffirmed for each generation with a fresh coat of paint, but NOT by tearing down and then rebuilding the foundation. The proper Superman hasn’t been seen in quite some time, instead being replaced by dark versions with Glowy Red Eyes of Rage and “It’s hard to be me” angst. To say nothing of all the dark, subversive riffs on the character (THE BOYS, BRIGHTBURN, etc.). And none of these have taken with the past few decades’ worth of kids, at least not in a way which goes beyond the short-term.
The last "proper Superman" I ever saw was made in 1978. He emanated hope without having to explain that the "s" was "a symbol of hope" to Lois. It's called acting, and Chris Reeve was very good at it.

Spider-Man is another good example. Marvel’s most beloved character and corporate mascot, and a genre-redefining character. Now, however, decades of terrible comics and retcons have torn him down, and Iron Man has arguably become the corporate mascot, thanks to the huge success of the movies. Meanwhile, the “more diverse” Miles Morales has slowly been positioned as a replacement for Peter Parker, and there are also a bunch of of other derivative characters with spider-powers running around in various media. There’s even a Disney Junior cartoon with a team of Spider-Friends (Parker, Morales, Spider-Gwen) running around…as well as a gender-swapped Doctor Octopus with half-shaved, SJW hair.

The whole thing with Spider-Man (and most of Marvel’s classic characters) is that he’s one-of-a-kind. As opposed to DC having multiple versions of the same characters, the classic Marvel characters tended to be unique. One Spider- Man, one Hulk, one Captain America. That concept has been completely trashed, now, with multiple competing versions of the same character running around, and the idea that “anyone can wear the mask and be Spider-Man”, which is simply not true, and completely denigrates and waters down Peter Parker and everything that made him a great character.
It's a royal shame what they've done to Spidey; they've pretty much whored out the Spider-man identity to whichever character they feel will shock folks into reading their next "new comic".

If you lose a generation or two, then the chain is broken. If you reinvent the wheel and make everything divisive, with competing, radically different versions of the same property/characters (as with STAR TREK), then the fandom (and the culture, for that matter) is no longer united by common ground and common values. The STAR WARS prequels, controversial as they are, still made tons of money, still created a new generation of fans, and still inspired those fans to look back to the old films and embrace them. Lucas took pains to interlock the two trilogies so that they told one big story (albeit one filled with retcons galore).

Yeah: as much as I may not have likes the Prequels all that much, at least pointed to the original Trilogy, and can stand on their own if needbe. The Stinkquel Trilogy eviscerated the Original Trilogy and made the sacrifices and heroics in it utterly futile.

The Disney Trilogy, on the other hand, is a terrible, woke remake of the original trilogy, does not work in any way as a proper sequel to the story Lucas told, and deliberately tore down the characters, plot points, and themes of the six Lucas films. It literally said “kill the past”. The inherent problem is that the Disney Trilogy does not stand on its own as a compelling and satisfying story which can survive without the original films’ legacy backing it up. It killed the past, but it also can’t justify its own existence enough to still keep people interested for decades to come. The bridges have all been burned.
More like it blew a hole in the bottom of the boat, then made sure to do the same to the lifeboat they were standing in for good measure.

Same with STAR TREK. These new shows do the same thing by tearing down the past (as with PICARD) or actively rewriting the past (STD/SNW). And the rewriting is in no way an improvement, which means that people won’t care, going forward. A few years of short-term notoriety at the cost of the future. The fanbase is shrinking instead of growing, because the inferior replacement for what people loved for decades cannot sustain the franchise in the long-term. The old fans get mad and leave, and the new fans don’t care enough to stick around for the long-term, and also don’t find the old stuff appealing, because “it’s not made for them”.
Not to mention the current version of Jean-Luc is an utter betrayal of the TNG version.
 
The last "proper Superman" I ever saw was made in 1978. He emanated hope without having to explain that the "s" was "a symbol of hope" to Lois. It's called acting, and Chris Reeve was very good at it.

SUPERMAN (1978) is an excellent example of how to do it right. Richard Donner knew that the character is a part of Americana, and should never be a campy parody or a dark deconstruction. The early scripts and plans by the Salkinds and the Newmans verged into parody. And, guess what? After Donner was fired, SUPERMAN II and SUPERMAN III fell right into that style of wacky humor they were pushing for before Donner came in and insisted that the material be treated seriously and with reverence.

So, Donner just directly adapted Superman into live-action, right out of the comics, complete with all of his earnestness and morals and virtues. The clever part of the film is that the world around him was the contemporary, cynical world of the 1970s. The villains were the ones mostly responsible for the cynicism and campy humor seen throughout the film, whereas Superman remained the pure and honest crusader for justice that Siegel and Shuster created.

Chris Reeve's acting skill and charm can't be underestimated, either. He was able to take lines like, "I'm here to fight for truth, justice, and the American way" and make you believe that he believed it. Reeve's Superman emanates pure decency, honesty, and goodness, without a trace of irony or cynicism.



STAR TREK is also a part of Americana, and we can see how differently it's been treated.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top