|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 9, 2022 6:37:38 GMT 1
How did you watch Discovery? First three season were on Netflix. S4 wasnt. Picard and Lower Decks was on Prime. No word about SNW. Im kinda losing my fandom because they shit on Roddenberry's legacy by putting money over serving the whole world. SNW captures the essence of Roddenberry’s original. This is coming from someone who saw the original Star Trek series when it first aired and have been a fan for over 50 years. I literally felt like a kid again watching the premiere episode.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 9, 2022 6:45:18 GMT 1
I agree I don't think all current topics should be off limits. I'm sorry but I smell a rat from a mile away when it comes to these political agendas in tv shows. Love the old war is bad, peace is great message that I grew up with. other than that, I do not trust them. It's a major red flag for me and I still want no part of it. I hope you are doing good lately Lord Death man. I know I have not been posting as much lately about sci fi or marvel, but I'll get back into it. Why does everything have to be a political agenda? that’s the question myself along with millions of other people keep asking
|
|
|
Post by Grandmaster on Jul 9, 2022 7:05:01 GMT 1
First three season were on Netflix. S4 wasnt. Picard and Lower Decks was on Prime. No word about SNW. Im kinda losing my fandom because they shit on Roddenberry's legacy by putting money over serving the whole world. SNW captures the essence of Roddenberry’s original. This is coming from someone who saw the original Star Trek series when it first aired and have been a fan for over 50 years. I literally felt like a kid again watching the premiere episode. Yeah in this day and age its not ok you cant watch it and you have to wait for yet another streaming service to launch in your country while the offical franchise social media channel spoils the fuck out of it. So no, Star Trek can go fuck itsself. Im done.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 9, 2022 9:08:42 GMT 1
SNW captures the essence of Roddenberry’s original. This is coming from someone who saw the original Star Trek series when it first aired and have been a fan for over 50 years. I literally felt like a kid again watching the premiere episode. Yeah in this day and age its not ok you cant watch it and you have to wait for yet another streaming service to launch in your country while the offical franchise social media channel spoils the fuck out of it. So no, Star Trek can go fuck itsself. Im done. That’s sad you think Star Trek should go fuck itself. I’m not real sure why you’re blaming a really good sci-fi show that has a positive message that humans might survive a few more centuries on the foibles of a streaming services. Frankly, we need more “Star Trek” today and less unrepentant, nihilistic carnage seen in too, too many movies and TV shows. As I said, the show is worthwhile for any sci fi fans while, that’s the only advice I share. If it becomes available, I think you’ll enjoy it. That’s all. Sorry to have upset you about it.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 9, 2022 10:45:46 GMT 1
Why does everything have to be a political agenda? that’s the question myself along with millions of other people keep asking Perhaps your mistaking “an agenda” with a genuine liberal philosophy in the narrative they are writing and producing. The only reason liberal is a bad word or thing to be is because you say it is. I don’t think that at all, nor do I think conservative is a bad thing. It’s having only one religion, one party, one way to live one’s life to the exclusion of other points of view that is unhealthy for any society, but particularly in the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 9, 2022 14:00:26 GMT 1
that’s the question myself along with millions of other people keep asking Perhaps your mistaking “an agenda” with a genuine liberal philosophy in the narrative they are writing and producing. The only reason liberal is a bad word or thing to be is because you say it is. I don’t think that at all, nor do I think conservative is a bad thing. It’s having only one religion, one party, one way to live one’s life to the exclusion of other points of view that is unhealthy for any society, but particularly in the 21st century. this isn’t about what’s liberal or conservative or how I feel about liberalism. I just want people’s personal politics out of the tv shows
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 9, 2022 14:54:31 GMT 1
Perhaps your mistaking “an agenda” with a genuine liberal philosophy in the narrative they are writing and producing. The only reason liberal is a bad word or thing to be is because you say it is. I don’t think that at all, nor do I think conservative is a bad thing. It’s having only one religion, one party, one way to live one’s life to the exclusion of other points of view that is unhealthy for any society, but particularly in the 21st century. this isn’t about what’s liberal or conservative or how I feel about liberalism. I just want people’s personal politics out of the tv shows For any good writer, this is impossible to do. Writing requires honesty. Gene Roddenberry never hid his “agenda.” He sneaked in his commentary because the very conservative TV networks…where a husband and wife couldn’t be filmed innocently in bed together…would not let him otherwise. Believe me, the Kirk-Uhura Kiss was very controversial at the time. And a lot markets never aired that episode. It wasn’t uncommon to censor TV that featured unacceptable mores like race mixing, birth control, or homosexuality in conservative regions. (Actually in the 1960s and 1970s it seemed as a nation, we could handle Black People slowly entering the All White World of Television Land. But there were plenty of folks who, just like now, going ape over it. They were not comfortable seeing a different race in their homes.) I’m not saying these shifts are good or bad, only they occur naturally. Organized religion has long been a means to control the chaos, but the agenda of religion evolved(s) via culture, which is motley in most cases. In other words, there was no one in the beginning who thought religion was just means of social or political control. And finally, the reason it’s not an agenda is because there is no one behind the scenes operating it. An agenda implies a meeting. Liberalism like conservatism is a discursive, roiling cultural shifting that happens all the time. It’s simple physics called Entropy, a fundamental property of the universe. So, if there’s been a prevalent “agenda” in American entertainment during its history, it has been overwhelming conservative. The “liberal agenda” is more recent and any film company has the right to their “agenda,” be it Marvel or Clint Eastwood.
|
|
|
Post by AQUA CAT! on Jul 9, 2022 19:59:53 GMT 1
this isn’t about what’s liberal or conservative or how I feel about liberalism. I just want people’s personal politics out of the tv shows For any good writer, this is impossible to do. Writing requires honesty. Gene Roddenberry never hid his “agenda.” He sneaked in his commentary because the very conservative TV networks…where a husband and wife couldn’t be filmed innocently in bed together…would not let him otherwise. Believe me, the Kirk-Uhura Kiss was very controversial at the time. And a lot markets never aired that episode. It wasn’t uncommon to censor TV that featured unacceptable mores like race mixing, birth control, or homosexuality in conservative regions. (Actually in the 1960s and 1970s it seemed as a nation, we could handle Black People slowly entering the All White World of Television Land. But there were plenty of folks who, just like now, going ape over it. They were not comfortable seeing a different race in their homes.) I’m not saying these shifts are good or bad, only they occur naturally. Organized religion has long been a means to control the chaos, but the agenda of religion evolved(s) via culture, which is motley in most cases. In other words, there was no one in the beginning who thought religion was just means of social or political control. And finally, the reason it’s not an agenda is because there is no one behind the scenes operating it. An agenda implies a meeting. Liberalism like conservatism is a discursive, roiling cultural shifting that happens all the time. It’s simple physics called Entropy, a fundamental property of the universe. So, if there’s been a prevalent “agenda” in American entertainment during its history, it has been overwhelming conservative. The “liberal agenda” is more recent and any film company has the right to their “agenda,” be it Marvel or Clint Eastwood. Agreed. Even though I do sometimes think studios love blaming audiences for the risks they refuse to take, the Kirk/Uhura kiss angered a lot of people, and to them I say change the channel or get over it. There's several episodes too that were either banned for a while or still in Britain because they didn't meet with BBC decency standards. Politics is an offshoot of philosophy and every good Star Trek show asks as many questions as it gives answers. Having watched almost every episode I've ever seen over the past 3-4 years, I cannot think of a single episode of any of the shows that didn't touch in something political, philosophical or relevant. It's what science fictions is for. It's the whole point. As early as Balance of Terror in the original series, they were dealing with bigotry from the crew because the Romulans looked like the Vulcans.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 9, 2022 20:57:17 GMT 1
I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not talking about a general message that peace is good and war is bad and bigotry is wrong. I’m talking about specifically pushing messages and virtue signaling using blatant references to current day partisan politics. They are not sneaking around brainstorming some evil plot to push messages. That’s not how this works. It’s more that they have a message to push and find a way to shoehorn it in and think nothing of it. I’m not specifically talking Star Trek as I have not watched this series. This is a general observation about television today and also why I ditched the arrow verse
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 9, 2022 21:47:24 GMT 1
I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not talking about a general message that peace is good and war is bad and bigotry is wrong. I’m talking about specifically pushing messages and virtue signaling using blatant references to current day partisan politics. They are not sneaking around brainstorming some evil plot to push messages. That’s not how this works. It’s more that they have a message to push and find a way to shoehorn it in and think nothing of it. I’m not specifically talking Star Trek as I have not watched this series. This is a general observation about television today and also why I ditched the arrow verse What is “virtue signaling?” Give me a specific TV episode I can access; your rationale why it is virtue signaling per your definition; and I will deconstruct it. Because my theory is this “virtue signaling” is what we humans are engaged in most of the time. Because we all have messages to push and find ways to shoehorn it and we all don’t want to hear the other side.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 9, 2022 22:17:55 GMT 1
I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not talking about a general message that peace is good and war is bad and bigotry is wrong. I’m talking about specifically pushing messages and virtue signaling using blatant references to current day partisan politics. They are not sneaking around brainstorming some evil plot to push messages. That’s not how this works. It’s more that they have a message to push and find a way to shoehorn it in and think nothing of it. I’m not specifically talking Star Trek as I have not watched this series. This is a general observation about television today and also why I ditched the arrow verse What is “virtue signaling?” Give me a specific TV episode I can access; your rationale why it is virtue signaling per your definition; and I will deconstruct it. Because my theory is this “virtue signaling” is what we humans are engaged in most of the time. Because we all have messages to push and find ways to shoehorn it and we all don’t want to hear the other side. it could be anything from racial issues, gay and trans stuff, gun control or a variety of topics. This is not impossible to refrain from doing as you suggest as nearly every show up until the last few years didn’t think of it as their righteous duty and responsibility to do so. Sure you can come up with examples like all in the family or some interracial kiss on Star Trek or a variety of shows but what we are seeing now is not that or anything remotely like that
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 9, 2022 23:29:24 GMT 1
What is “virtue signaling?” Give me a specific TV episode I can access; your rationale why it is virtue signaling per your definition; and I will deconstruct it. Because my theory is this “virtue signaling” is what we humans are engaged in most of the time. Because we all have messages to push and find ways to shoehorn it and we all don’t want to hear the other side. it could be anything from racial issues, gay and trans stuff, gun control or a variety of topics. This is not impossible to refrain from doing as you suggest as nearly every show up until the last few years didn’t think of it as their righteous duty and responsibility to do so. Sure you can come up with examples like all in the family or some interracial kiss on Star Trek or a variety of shows but what we are seeing now is not that or anything remotely like that But the fact is we are all engaged in debating…or rather non-debating…these issues in real life 24/7. And it is not just today, but throughout human history and these motifs show up in our culture which includes popular culture. To be honest, I do not watch much dramatic television unless it’s top quality like HBO and other production companies make, with the exception of science fiction. As I said, give me a concrete example and let me analyze it. I love doing that. And I get you are uncomfortable with the above topics, but the absence of mentioning them or worse is also “virtue signaling.” Gay men and women have always existed in our culture, but where it was once always portrayed negatively, now it can be portrayed positively, if at all, but it is now generally accepted in our society gay people are no different in that they are born, live, fall in love, and die, just like everybody else. This is seen in the final acceptance by most Americans, certainly not all, of gay marriage. I can repeat this paragraph with “fat people” or “black people” instead of “gay.” God bless Gene Roddenberry and his giant brass balls virtue signaling. I’m sure seeing gay life not treated as an aberration, especially after the AIDS epidemic, is something you’re not used to and possibly learned as a kid to think in negative terms about. Don’t think I haven’t been shocked a time or two at what some TV has dared to say. But I try to learn why I’m so resistant considering to my core ethos of equalitarianism. Hey, I’m a liberal. I will say the diversity casting most production use now from commercials to Hollywood blockbusters can be abused. Anne Boleyn was not was black, come on now. As for gun control virtue signaling, I’m not going there on this board other than how about the “virtue signaling” in John Wick movies and most of the violent entertainment that more than necessary dominates presently? Come on, now. Never kid a kidder.
|
|
Gene Roddenberry’s Spirit
Guest
|
Post by Gene Roddenberry’s Spirit on Jul 9, 2022 23:38:07 GMT 1
I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not talking about a general message that peace is good and war is bad and bigotry is wrong. I’m talking about specifically pushing messages and virtue signaling using blatant references to current day partisan politics. They are not sneaking around brainstorming some evil plot to push messages. That’s not how this works. It’s more that they have a message to push and find a way to shoehorn it in and think nothing of it. I’m not specifically talking Star Trek as I have not watched this series. This is a general observation about television today and also why I ditched the arrow verse My child, I must interject here to remind you of a time when the message that “war is bad. peace is good” was a very VERY liberal one. To say such a thing in the 1950s and 60s was not widely accepted as mainstream. It was very far left indeed. Live long and prosper, my friend. Roodenbury out.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 9, 2022 23:40:40 GMT 1
I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not talking about a general message that peace is good and war is bad and bigotry is wrong. I’m talking about specifically pushing messages and virtue signaling using blatant references to current day partisan politics. They are not sneaking around brainstorming some evil plot to push messages. That’s not how this works. It’s more that they have a message to push and find a way to shoehorn it in and think nothing of it. I’m not specifically talking Star Trek as I have not watched this series. This is a general observation about television today and also why I ditched the arrow verse My child, I must interject here to remind you of a time when the message that “war is bad. peace is good” was a very VERY liberal one. To say such a thing in the 1950s and 60s was not widely accepted as mainstream. It was very far left indeed. Live long and prosper, my friend. Roodenbury out. My king! 🥹
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 9, 2022 23:51:35 GMT 1
Okay, Jayman. I’ll jump ahead of you. Korg the the Kronan belongs to a species of rock beings, who reproduce with other rock beings, as Korg (spoiler) describes how they go inside a volcano with a partner or partners and build offspring out of the molten lava. (This must have been too racy to show in the movie.) In the epilogue, (spoiler) Korg tells us he has found a boyfriend. Is this virtue signaling? Because if it is, 1) Korg is not a human, 2) the whole thing absurd to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 10, 2022 13:47:35 GMT 1
it could be anything from racial issues, gay and trans stuff, gun control or a variety of topics. This is not impossible to refrain from doing as you suggest as nearly every show up until the last few years didn’t think of it as their righteous duty and responsibility to do so. Sure you can come up with examples like all in the family or some interracial kiss on Star Trek or a variety of shows but what we are seeing now is not that or anything remotely like that But the fact is we are all engaged in debating…or rather non-debating…these issues in real life 24/7. And it is not just today, but throughout human history and these motifs show up in our culture which includes popular culture. To be honest, I do not watch much dramatic television unless it’s top quality like HBO and other production companies make, with the exception of science fiction. As I said, give me a concrete example and let me analyze it. I love doing that. And I get you are uncomfortable with the above topics, but the absence of mentioning them or worse is also “virtue signaling.” Gay men and women have always existed in our culture, but where it was once always portrayed negatively, now it can be portrayed positively, if at all, but it is now generally accepted in our society gay people are no different in that they are born, live, fall in love, and die, just like everybody else. This is seen in the final acceptance by most Americans, certainly not all, of gay marriage. I can repeat this paragraph with “fat people” or “black people” instead of “gay.” God bless Gene Roddenberry and his giant brass balls virtue signaling. I’m sure seeing gay life not treated as an aberration, especially after the AIDS epidemic, is something you’re not used to and possibly learned as a kid to think in negative terms about. Don’t think I haven’t been shocked a time or two at what some TV has dared to say. But I try to learn why I’m so resistant considering to my core ethos of equalitarianism. Hey, I’m a liberal. I will say the diversity casting most production use now from commercials to Hollywood blockbusters can be abused. Anne Boleyn was not was black, come on now. As for gun control virtue signaling, I’m not going there on this board other than how about the “virtue signaling” in John Wick movies and most of the violent entertainment that more than necessary dominates presently? Come on, now. Never kid a kidder. somewhere along the line you seem to have interpreted my posts as being “uncomfortable” with topics and with gay people or that I’m some sort of homophobe. I’m not sure what I said that indicated that. I am seeing politics inserted in every aspect of entertainment these days in a way that did not happen remotely in the same level as the previous 40+ years of my life watching television and you just don’t seem to see any difference at all. I don’t want to get into a debate about the definition of the term virtue signal. My overall point was that politics is inserted into entertainment in the last couple of years like it hasn’t been in my lifetime. You just don’t see it and I do. And that’s fine
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 10, 2022 13:51:38 GMT 1
I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not talking about a general message that peace is good and war is bad and bigotry is wrong. I’m talking about specifically pushing messages and virtue signaling using blatant references to current day partisan politics. They are not sneaking around brainstorming some evil plot to push messages. That’s not how this works. It’s more that they have a message to push and find a way to shoehorn it in and think nothing of it. I’m not specifically talking Star Trek as I have not watched this series. This is a general observation about television today and also why I ditched the arrow verse My child, I must interject here to remind you of a time when the message that “war is bad. peace is good” was a very VERY liberal one. To say such a thing in the 1950s and 60s was not widely accepted as mainstream. It was very far left indeed. Live long and prosper, my friend. Roodenbury out. that’s fine but it was never my point to debate about what is liberal and what is conservative. It was an overall point about politics inserted into entertainment at a much different level than ever before
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 10, 2022 15:27:44 GMT 1
But the fact is we are all engaged in debating…or rather non-debating…these issues in real life 24/7. And it is not just today, but throughout human history and these motifs show up in our culture which includes popular culture. To be honest, I do not watch much dramatic television unless it’s top quality like HBO and other production companies make, with the exception of science fiction. As I said, give me a concrete example and let me analyze it. I love doing that. And I get you are uncomfortable with the above topics, but the absence of mentioning them or worse is also “virtue signaling.” Gay men and women have always existed in our culture, but where it was once always portrayed negatively, now it can be portrayed positively, if at all, but it is now generally accepted in our society gay people are no different in that they are born, live, fall in love, and die, just like everybody else. This is seen in the final acceptance by most Americans, certainly not all, of gay marriage. I can repeat this paragraph with “fat people” or “black people” instead of “gay.” God bless Gene Roddenberry and his giant brass balls virtue signaling. I’m sure seeing gay life not treated as an aberration, especially after the AIDS epidemic, is something you’re not used to and possibly learned as a kid to think in negative terms about. Don’t think I haven’t been shocked a time or two at what some TV has dared to say. But I try to learn why I’m so resistant considering to my core ethos of equalitarianism. Hey, I’m a liberal. I will say the diversity casting most production use now from commercials to Hollywood blockbusters can be abused. Anne Boleyn was not was black, come on now. As for gun control virtue signaling, I’m not going there on this board other than how about the “virtue signaling” in John Wick movies and most of the violent entertainment that more than necessary dominates presently? Come on, now. Never kid a kidder. somewhere along the line you seem to have interpreted my posts as being “uncomfortable” with topics and with gay people or that I’m some sort of homophobe. I’m not sure what I said that indicated that. I am seeing politics inserted in every aspect of entertainment these days in a way that did not happen remotely in the same level as the previous 40+ years of my life watching television and you just don’t seem to see any difference at all. I don’t want to get into a debate about the definition of the term virtue signal. My overall point was that politics is inserted into entertainment in the last couple of years like it hasn’t been in my lifetime. You just don’t see it and I do. And that’s fine I haven’t said that politics hasn’t been inserted into TV shows, and perhaps it is more so now, or seems that way due to the high proliferation of content. 40+ years ago, there was some cable, but it was mostly the Big Three doing the dramas and comedies. And as per Star Trek, politics were very much a part of some shows from the beginning. The Golden Age of TV had Playhouse 90 with writers like Paddy Chayefsky and other prestige drama. 12 Angry Men was originally a teleplay for Studio One. The TV viewing experience has changed dramatically since 40 years ago. People seem more invested in it than when JR was shot. I daresay percentage-wise, there are no political shows now, than in 1975 when Nixon was being exposed for what he was. SNL premiered that year. Even so, most TV and movies are not political. Plus, the demographics have changed and it’s not the old all white audience, middle class families who buy products from the TV sponsors who pay for shows anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 10, 2022 17:09:46 GMT 1
somewhere along the line you seem to have interpreted my posts as being “uncomfortable” with topics and with gay people or that I’m some sort of homophobe. I’m not sure what I said that indicated that. I am seeing politics inserted in every aspect of entertainment these days in a way that did not happen remotely in the same level as the previous 40+ years of my life watching television and you just don’t seem to see any difference at all. I don’t want to get into a debate about the definition of the term virtue signal. My overall point was that politics is inserted into entertainment in the last couple of years like it hasn’t been in my lifetime. You just don’t see it and I do. And that’s fine I haven’t said that politics hasn’t been inserted into TV shows, and perhaps it is more so now, or seems that way due to the high proliferation of content. 40+ years ago, there was some cable, but it was mostly the Big Three doing the dramas and comedies. And as per Star Trek, politics were very much a part of some shows from the beginning. The Golden Age of TV had Playhouse 90 with writers like Paddy Chayefsky and other prestige drama. 12 Angry Men was originally a teleplay for Studio One. The TV viewing experience has changed dramatically since 40 years ago. People seem more invested in it than when JR was shot. I daresay percentage-wise, there are no political shows now, than in 1975 when Nixon was being exposed for what he was. SNL premiered that year. Even so, most TV and movies are not political. Plus, the demographics have changed and it’s not the old all white audience, middle class families who buy products from the TV sponsors who pay for shows anymore. im not saying your position is that there are no politics but you see it as no different than in decades past and I see it as hugely different with political activists posing as writers
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 11, 2022 1:54:33 GMT 1
I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not talking about a general message that peace is good and war is bad and bigotry is wrong. I’m talking about specifically pushing messages and virtue signaling using blatant references to current day partisan politics. They are not sneaking around brainstorming some evil plot to push messages. That’s not how this works. It’s more that they have a message to push and find a way to shoehorn it in and think nothing of it. I’m not specifically talking Star Trek as I have not watched this series. This is a general observation about television today and also why I ditched the arrow verse My child, I must interject here to remind you of a time when the message that “war is bad. peace is good” was a very VERY liberal one. To say such a thing in the 1950s and 60s was not widely accepted as mainstream. It was very far left indeed. Live long and prosper, my friend. Roodenbury out. This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Liberals never had a monopoly on thinking war is bad and peace is good. Practically everyone believes that and has for at least a century. Disagreements come from different ideas on how to best avoid war and ensure lasting peace and freedom. Of course "war is bad and peace is good" was mainstream in the 50's and 60's and if you think otherwise you are woefully misinformed. BTW there is no need to hide behind a fake guest account. We can all speak freely here. OT, since you mentioned Gene Roddenberry here's some trivia about him: He flew multiple bomber missions as a B-17 pilot in WWII He served as a police office with the LAPD before becoming a TV writer
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 11, 2022 3:26:09 GMT 1
My child, I must interject here to remind you of a time when the message that “war is bad. peace is good” was a very VERY liberal one. To say such a thing in the 1950s and 60s was not widely accepted as mainstream. It was very far left indeed. Live long and prosper, my friend. Roodenbury out. This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Liberals never had a monopoly on thinking war is bad and peace is good. Practically everyone believes that and has for at least a century. Disagreements come from different ideas on how to best avoid war and ensure lasting peace and freedom. Of course "war is bad and peace is good" was mainstream in the 50's and 60's and if you think otherwise you are woefully misinformed. BTW there is no need to hide behind a fake guest account. We can all speak freely here. OT, since you mentioned Gene Roddenberry here's some trivia about him: He flew multiple bomber missions as a B-17 pilot in WWII He served as a police office with the LAPD before becoming a TV writer I too was having trouble wrapping my head around that one but didn’t want to go off track in this discussion. The whole idea that peace is better than war was a very far left position and the public just absolutely loved sending their kids off to war doesn’t make a whole lot of sense
|
|
Gene Roddenberry’s Spirit
Guest
|
Post by Gene Roddenberry’s Spirit on Jul 11, 2022 4:36:23 GMT 1
This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Liberals never had a monopoly on thinking war is bad and peace is good. Practically everyone believes that and has for at least a century. Disagreements come from different ideas on how to best avoid war and ensure lasting peace and freedom. Of course "war is bad and peace is good" was mainstream in the 50's and 60's and if you think otherwise you are woefully misinformed. BTW there is no need to hide behind a fake guest account. We can all speak freely here. OT, since you mentioned Gene Roddenberry here's some trivia about him: He flew multiple bomber missions as a B-17 pilot in WWII He served as a police office with the LAPD before becoming a TV writer I too was having trouble wrapping my head around that one but didn’t want to go off track in this discussion. The whole idea that peace is better than war was a very far left position and the public just absolutely loved sending their kids off to war doesn’t make a whole lot of sense I guess neither one of you remembers the late 60s left wing anti-war movement. You must both be "ignorant"
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 11, 2022 4:49:15 GMT 1
pointing out that people were against the Vietnam war is quite different than your claim that the only people that didn’t have this general love affair with war were few and on the far left fringes. How come you’re not registered here?
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 11, 2022 6:46:24 GMT 1
The difference is that television writers of the past were more skilled at their jobs and had greater respect and appreciation for the material they were writing.
It's a common misconception that Star Trek TOS, TNG, DS9, and even VOG were devoid of political commentary.
TOS featured stories highlighting Cold War tensions, the growing futility of the conflict in Vietnam, and the struggle for social justice via the civil rights movement.
DS9 had an ongoing examination of antisemitism and the holocaust in its depiction of the occupation of Bajor by the Nazi-like Cardassia. There are myriad additional examples from Star Trek shows of the 90s and early 2000s. Star Trek Enterprise tackled 9/11 with its Xindi story arc.
Today's Star Trek writers and producers seem to lack subtlety, empathy, and the practical wisdom needed to see an issue from both sides.
As far as I've been able to observe, they also lack a genuine love and appreciation for the genre. Many of the writers of legacy Star Trek were plucked from the ranks of fandom. Today's writers, by necessity, are careerist journeymen who go from gig to gig chasing incremental pay raises and Emmy-winning/nominated showrunners. There is no particular love for a franchise or a genre tied to what they do anymore. Their worth as writers amongst their peers is connected directly to the prestige they've earned. It is far better to write something that is "important" than it is to write something good.
In all fairness, it's not just a failing of craft. The nature of political discourse today also drives the approach to modern Star Trek. Political debate has become more tribalistic and vitriolic. In today's landscape, if someone disagrees with your viewpoint politically, they are not only wrong but also wicked and inhuman.
In the past, politically/socially themed episodes of Star Trek were presented in a way that allowed users to reflect on the issue(s) and determine how they felt about them without much prodding or guidance. The stories demonstrated their viewpoint without needing the additional hard elbow to the viewer's side, saying, "See? Racism bad, okay?" Today's approach is far more instructive to the point of trying to dictate what you should feel and borderline shaming you if you hold a different viewpoint.
The writing is heavy-handed and filled with virtue-signaling that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how best to use science fiction as a delivery system for commentary on some of the biggest obstacles to humankind reaching its full potential.
There is no reason for people of the 31st century to be struggling with a young person's pronouns. The whole idea of Star Trek is that we put those biases aside long ago and learned to work and live alongside each other despite our differences.
|
|
Richard Nixon’s demonic ghost
Guest
|
Post by Richard Nixon’s demonic ghost on Jul 11, 2022 7:05:56 GMT 1
Aaaaaaarrrrrrroooooo! What’s this about conservatives being anti war?! You hippy dippy flower children are a bunch of pussies! Sock it to me you punks!
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 11, 2022 7:55:26 GMT 1
I haven’t said that politics hasn’t been inserted into TV shows, and perhaps it is more so now, or seems that way due to the high proliferation of content. 40+ years ago, there was some cable, but it was mostly the Big Three doing the dramas and comedies. And as per Star Trek, politics were very much a part of some shows from the beginning. The Golden Age of TV had Playhouse 90 with writers like Paddy Chayefsky and other prestige drama. 12 Angry Men was originally a teleplay for Studio One. The TV viewing experience has changed dramatically since 40 years ago. People seem more invested in it than when JR was shot. I daresay percentage-wise, there are no political shows now, than in 1975 when Nixon was being exposed for what he was. SNL premiered that year. Even so, most TV and movies are not political. Plus, the demographics have changed and it’s not the old all white audience, middle class families who buy products from the TV sponsors who pay for shows anymore. im not saying your position is that there are no politics but you see it as no different than in decades past and I see it as hugely different with political activists posing as writers This is your opinion. And insulting to writers who work have many long years to learn and improve their craft. If you know for sure writers are posing as political activists, then show me some proof. Why deflate someone in such a way? Are there any conservative screenwriters posing as political activists? You know what I hate being "forced" on me in movies and TV: product placement. I pay to see a movie, not a Pepsi ad.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 11, 2022 7:58:53 GMT 1
My child, I must interject here to remind you of a time when the message that “war is bad. peace is good” was a very VERY liberal one. To say such a thing in the 1950s and 60s was not widely accepted as mainstream. It was very far left indeed. Live long and prosper, my friend. Roodenbury out. This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Liberals never had a monopoly on thinking war is bad and peace is good. Practically everyone believes that and has for at least a century. Disagreements come from different ideas on how to best avoid war and ensure lasting peace and freedom. Of course "war is bad and peace is good" was mainstream in the 50's and 60's and if you think otherwise you are woefully misinformed. BTW there is no need to hide behind a fake guest account. We can all speak freely here. OT, since you mentioned Gene Roddenberry here's some trivia about him: He flew multiple bomber missions as a B-17 pilot in WWII He served as a police office with the LAPD before becoming a TV writer And apparently a poser.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 11, 2022 8:01:02 GMT 1
This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Liberals never had a monopoly on thinking war is bad and peace is good. Practically everyone believes that and has for at least a century. Disagreements come from different ideas on how to best avoid war and ensure lasting peace and freedom. Of course "war is bad and peace is good" was mainstream in the 50's and 60's and if you think otherwise you are woefully misinformed. BTW there is no need to hide behind a fake guest account. We can all speak freely here. OT, since you mentioned Gene Roddenberry here's some trivia about him: He flew multiple bomber missions as a B-17 pilot in WWII He served as a police office with the LAPD before becoming a TV writer I too was having trouble wrapping my head around that one but didn’t want to go off track in this discussion. The whole idea that peace is better than war was a very far left position and the public just absolutely loved sending their kids off to war doesn’t make a whole lot of sense Gee, I thought "peace is better than war" was a given for all people. Who knew it was a debatable position.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 11, 2022 8:02:10 GMT 1
My child, I must interject here to remind you of a time when the message that “war is bad. peace is good” was a very VERY liberal one. To say such a thing in the 1950s and 60s was not widely accepted as mainstream. It was very far left indeed. Live long and prosper, my friend. Roodenbury out. This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read. Liberals never had a monopoly on thinking war is bad and peace is good. Practically everyone believes that and has for at least a century. Disagreements come from different ideas on how to best avoid war and ensure lasting peace and freedom. Of course "war is bad and peace is good" was mainstream in the 50's and 60's and if you think otherwise you are woefully misinformed. BTW there is no need to hide behind a fake guest account. We can all speak freely here. OT, since you mentioned Gene Roddenberry here's some trivia about him: He flew multiple bomber missions as a B-17 pilot in WWII He served as a police office with the LAPD before becoming a TV writer And if you knew who he was, it might just blow your mind.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 11, 2022 8:03:54 GMT 1
The difference is that television writers of the past were more skilled at their jobs and had greater respect and appreciation for the material they were writing. It's a common misconception that Star Trek TOS, TNG, DS9, and even VOG were devoid of political commentary. TOS featured stories highlighting Cold War tensions, the growing futility of the conflict in Vietnam, and the struggle for social justice via the civil rights movement. DS9 had an ongoing examination of antisemitism and the holocaust in its depiction of the occupation of Bajor by the Nazi-like Cardassia. There are myriad additional examples from Star Trek shows of the 90s and early 2000s. Star Trek Enterprise tackled 9/11 with its Xindi story arc. Today's Star Trek writers and producers seem to lack subtlety, empathy, and the practical wisdom needed to see an issue from both sides.
As far as I've been able to observe, they also lack a genuine love and appreciation for the genre. Many of the writers of legacy Star Trek were plucked from the ranks of fandom. Today's writers, by necessity, are careerist journeymen who go from gig to gig chasing incremental pay raises and Emmy-winning/nominated showrunners. There is no particular love for a franchise or a genre tied to what they do anymore. Their worth as writers amongst their peers is connected directly to the prestige they've earned. It is far better to write something that is "important" than it is to write something good. In all fairness, it's not just a failing of craft. The nature of political discourse today also drives the approach to modern Star Trek. Political debate has become more tribalistic and vitriolic. In today's landscape, if someone disagrees with your viewpoint politically, they are not only wrong but also wicked and inhuman. In the past, politically/socially themed episodes of Star Trek were presented in a way that allowed users to reflect on the issue(s) and determine how they felt about them without much prodding or guidance. The stories demonstrated their viewpoint without needing the additional hard elbow to the viewer's side, saying, "See? Racism bad, okay?" Today's approach is far more instructive to the point of trying to dictate what you should feel and borderline shaming you if you hold a different viewpoint. The writing is heavy-handed and filled with virtue-signaling that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how best to use science fiction as a delivery system for commentary on some of the biggest obstacles to humankind reaching its full potential. There is no reason for people of the 31st century to be struggling with a young person's pronouns. The whole idea of Star Trek is that we put those biases aside long ago and learned to work and live alongside each other despite our differences. Then you've not watch SNWs. It's very well written and not preachy at all. I recommend it. In all fairness, it's not just a failing of craft. The nature of political discourse today also drives the approach to modern Star Trek. Political debate has become more tribalistic and vitriolic. In today's landscape, if someone disagrees with your viewpoint politically, they are not only wrong but also wicked and inhuman.
Tell me about it. I get called a pedophile groomer about every other day.
|
|