Picard102
Sr Member
The intended message of the episode is that Vietnam was a terrible decision for America.
Star Trek: Strange New Worlds
- Thread starter Noeland
- Start date
And because it’s Sci Fi with some timeless concepts on chosen proxy wars we can find it’s relevant to many conflicts all they way up until the present. That and watch out for Mugatos! Damn things come out of nowhere.
Spoilers for Rings of Power follow...
The run up for the show, that was a point I heard myself (without seeking it out at all) at least a dozen times in various interviews. Then the show came out, and they took one of the wisest, cerebral characters, and turned her into a petulant, warrior who wasted her men needlessly. She also happened to be "right " about everything, but instead of convincing the "male" leaders she was correct - which would have been very much in the spirit of the originally written character, she disobeys and goes off alone to take on the biggest evil known because only she can do it. She messes it up, and perhaps this is the character arc to take her to the wise cerebral Galadriel we know later, but it was done poorly if that is the intent.
Jedi Dade
Like I said, then. Not in the show.
These are presented as character flaws to, as you say, leave room for character growth through the series. It is hardly an example of the show screaming its diversity from the rooftops.
How do things not in the show count as things in the show? I proposed that they weren't in the show itself, and you countered with evidence that supports the proposition.
Last edited:
Way to dismiss legitimate criticisms. No one that I've seen is saying they want a cookie-cutter copy of TOS. Nor any of the other series that followed. Just a desire for shows that live up to their forebears, that mostly currently don't.
There were no self-congratulatory interviews that I've seen from the 1960s where showrunners patted themselves on the back for putting a black woman or an Asian man on the bridge of the ship along with the white men. When they talked about it years later, they spoke of how they just did it and trusted it to speak for itself.
When TNG aired, there was more comment from the showrunners about having a Klingon in Starfleet than there was about any of the women in lead roles or a black man on the bridge (though there were cracks about letting a blind guy steer the ship). I won't mention the bungling of Wesley, due to the writers not really knowing what to do with him for way too long. Most of what I've seen the producers being hyper aware of was the bald English actor playing a French character.
Similarly, when DS9 came along, some in the press commented on Sisko's skin color, but no one involved in the show brought it up. Or his female exec.
Jeri Taylor wanted a woman to command the Voyager, and that was about all she said on the matter. No shouting it from the rooftops.
21st century Trek has made sure, more and more, that the public is aware of how bold and forward-thinking and inclusive and representative they are... while the actual execution of the shows misses the point of nearly everything established in the first thirty-five years of what Star Trek is. Who the characters should be. The sort of person who wants to join Starfleet -- let alone makes it in and through the Academy. I can't stand the design of the Cerritos, but I love Lower Decks, and Prodigy is pretty good, too. But all the live-action stuff from Enterprise on has just fallen further and further. The boasts of inclusivity and representation ring like hollow attempts to draw audiences when the quality of the shows has failed to do so. There are a lot of shows that I watch. Some out of genuine respect and admiration, some guilty-pleasure trash. If Discovery or Picard or SNW were released as their own things -- not passed off as Star Trek -- I would not watch them. Trying to see them as Star Trek makes me actively angry that those calling the shots so obviously have no idea what Star Trek is about or what Humanity is in that setting. Never mind all the bad continuity and ignored lore. Slapping deliberate inclusiveness on top of such schlock only makes it stand out awkwardly.
This is one of those things, though, where people have dug in in their respective opinions. I do not expect to sway anyone who likes Discovery, or Picard, or the Abramsverse films... or Strange New Worlds. Y'all are perfectly welcome to like them. But resorting to ad hominem attacks when valid criticism of their writing and production values is laid out, why they are marginal television, at best, and execrable Star Trek from any objective metric, just shows that there are no facts to rebut. Just emotion.
I have largely stayed out of this thread because I detest how Trek has been debased, but, in general, don't want to spoil the enjoyment of those who do like it, against all reason. But trying to delegitimize legitimate critique of the work and those making and promoting it is bad-faith arguing. How the crew and production company promote the property is valid metadata, especially when contrasted against past offerings in the same intellectual property. Them trumpeting how proud they are for making such-and-so character gay, for instance, lampshades it when audiences actually watch it, instead of just letting it be there. That's how real-world promotions affects context for what's on the actual screen. And that's not some profound insight, either. It's been recognized for years, and to deny that smacks of deliberate obtuseness.
bwayne64
Master Member
Exactly ! And this is because they weren't just virtue signaling , as they do today. They were being the change they wanted to see. The genuine just do it, they don't announce it and brag about it. I don't remember any hoopla about this stuff back then, but then we didn't have the interwebs. There's was a stink in a few backwards places when Kirk kisses Uhura. But I didn't hear about it until years later. I remember there being more angst when they killed Spock in ST2. Now all these shows are just cannon fodder in the culture war. Right now the nuts are winning, but this will change. People eventually get fed up with it, and vote with their wallets. Seems to take longer now, but it will happen. If not, thank God for DVDs and Blu Ray's,
; )
Picard102
Sr Member
You've said yourself that you would have prefered them to have gone back to the TOS aesthetic.
This thread is 80 pages of a vocal minority who complain about haircuts, minor continuity, and how to many women are in charge.
Best post of this thread. Spot-on.
Yep. "Show, don't tell".
And, while it's certainly true that what's on the screen is what actually counts, the interviews and ancillaries most definitely speak to intent. Nothing exists in a vacuum, especially in today's era of hyper-connectivity.
Instead of letting the work speak (badly) for itself, they scream from the rooftops, pat themselves on the back at every turn, and are openly hostile toward the audience. Or half of it, at least.
This is not rocket-science. If I get a great meal at a restaurant, but overhear the staff insulting me, I won't be going back. And if I order a steak and get tofu, instead, I won't be going back.
Vote with your wallets.
Last edited:
Obviously they don't count as things "IN" the show - but they count as the part of the shows presentation and the overall experience of it. Advertisements, behind the scenes, cast interviews, directors interviews all tell the audience what the intentions of the show are, what they were trying to do when they made it. You can ignore it if you wish, that's up to you of course.
As for what IS in the show there are a TON of serious deviations from the Tolkien lore. Events that take place 1000's of years apart in his lore are condensed into months, some characters promoted importance others pushed into the background. The background information from all the BTS stuff provide context for why the creative folks did those things... and in the case of the Rings of Power it seems that many of those decisions were not really in service to the story.
Peace,
Jedi Dade
I complain about the major continuity breaches, personally, though a pile of small bad-continuity elements do tend to add up for me. Uniforms, insigniæ, period-inappropriate haircuts (see how they did it with DS9's "Trials and Tribble-ations" -- it can be done, and look good)... Seeing the TOS Enterprise bridge in TNG's "Relics" did not look like it didn't fit. I'm not necessarily saying they need to slavishly recreate every vintage bezel and bulb, but there is a definite look to the period, that evolved over time. I myself am making a "The Cage" uniform, but better tailored. When a little care is taken... well, it actually looks more like it leads to the TWOK uniform than what we got in the rest of TOS -- double-breasted jacket and everything.
I would have loved if Disco had given us an Enterprise that was closer to the original design, the original filming miniature that is still gorgeous to this day. I would have loved if they had started with that bridge set and updated materials and displays and such to capture the feel of that set, without necessarily recreating it. The viewscreen is not a window.
I would love it if they had deliberately and thoughtfully updated the æsthetic of that original period for Disco and SNW. But still, not copying, but honoring it and maintaining continuity. Despite you moving the goalposts, I was talking about the way the characters are conceived and executed, the way the plots are delivered. I see a lot of good ideas in this show that are then killed by characters who have no place in Starfleet, let alone serving on a Starship. And way, way too many instances of Idiot Plot™. The older shows were not blameless in that last regard, but I yelled at the TV a lot less.
I do not have any problem with women in command -- or any other equivalence to men. I do not have any problem with any ethnicity or orientation being included. Attention should only be drawn to any of it, though, where it's relevant to the plot. The women-in-command thing, though, really just belongs back in the '50s. Even in the '60s, no one working on "The Cage" or at Desilu (a studio run by a woman) thought there was anything bizarre about Number One being a woman. It was only a couple suits at NBC who thought it "too unrealistic". These views, I feel, have no place in the discussion. It's as distracting from what's germane, in its way, as overly-enthusiastic inclusion. And not what any of my criticisms or objections are about. Same as over in Star Wars discussions.
What I get tired of is the "If you don't love Disco/Picard/SNW, then you're a backwards 60's era bigot!!" mentality coming out of certain ones if you don't walk mindlessly in lockstep with them. If "woke" is supposed to be awakened to social issues that have been ignored for too long, then isn't the automatic ad hominem attack per disagreement a long-standing one that should have died centuries ago?
On another issue: I'm tired of seeing a concept protected so religiously, that nothing examining it nor any criticism is allowed. I know that in material construction, if an item or a particular material cannot stand under its' own weight or against the forces that are inherent to its' function, then the material/ is deemed useless and replaced. In that same vein: if something becomes so sacrosanct that it cannot bear/ is actively protected from any sort of criticism, then that thing is unable to stand on its' own merits.
So why should that be not only protected, but forced vehemently and obnoxiously upon others with the force of a sledgehammer?
In the end, all it's going to do is ensure that when it finally does die, it ends up being remembered as unfavorably as most of the other poorer epochs in history...
...right next to leisure suits and bell bottoms from the 70's.
On another issue: I'm tired of seeing a concept protected so religiously, that nothing examining it nor any criticism is allowed. I know that in material construction, if an item or a particular material cannot stand under its' own weight or against the forces that are inherent to its' function, then the material/ is deemed useless and replaced. In that same vein: if something becomes so sacrosanct that it cannot bear/ is actively protected from any sort of criticism, then that thing is unable to stand on its' own merits.
So why should that be not only protected, but forced vehemently and obnoxiously upon others with the force of a sledgehammer?
In the end, all it's going to do is ensure that when it finally does die, it ends up being remembered as unfavorably as most of the other poorer epochs in history...
...right next to leisure suits and bell bottoms from the 70's.
Last edited:
Picard102
Sr Member
No one has said if you don't like it you are a bigot. But the reasons coming out of certain ones why it's an affront to them are certainly not making a case otherwise. I don't like Picard or Disco BTW no one has called me a bigot for not liking them yet. Of course my issues don't have anything to do with who's being cast or that Star Trek is, and always has been, political.
Cephus
Master Member
That's why those people get put on ignore permanently. They've proven that they're just immature children and I have no time for that. They can't intellectually defend their position so they just whine and cry and act like idiots.
And end up with their replies unread.
