|
Post by Jayman on Jul 11, 2022 8:06:27 GMT 1
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. Unless 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. sorry but I am not about to feel guilty about insulting writers who prioritize their own political agenda over good story. They need to be condemned and they are the ones that ruin television and movies for people that just want to be entertained without a dose of partisan politics shoved down their throat.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 11, 2022 8:19:13 GMT 1
This is your opinion. And insulting to writers who work have many long years to learn and improve their craft. Unless 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. sorry but I am not about to feel guilty about insulting writers who prioritize their own political agenda over good story. They need to be condemned and they are the ones that ruin television and movies for people that just want to be entertained without a dose of partisan politics shoved down their throat. You should feel bad if that is not what they are doing. If you said that of me, I would be very pissed off right now, because I know I'm not the awful person that posers are. You just assume it because it runs counter to your own political sensibilities...which is just find. But please don't make it out to be something it is not. Are we not tearing each other's humanity apart fast enough for you? Jesus. Believe me, I do not begrudge conservative filmmaking. Clint Eastwood is a fine director, but his movie about Sully Sullenberger was straight up right winger and made out the evil government NTSB was hounding him, trying to blame the crash on him, when that's not what happened. Like any in air crash investigation, every aspect has to be thoroughly investigated for public safety. Sully's status as a public hero does not come before air safety. He was cleared of any wrong-doing by them. And I've seen SNWs and it is not political. It's cultural. I hear they are injecting January 6th as the start of world war 3 and other stuff with Stacey Abrams so f-ck them and this franchise and their political activism. There are no writers anymore. There are activists that have a modern day political message to get across. I wanted to get on board with the new Star Trek because I grew up loving Star Trek. But obviously their own personal political goals are what motivated them and I want no part of that.
This is what you wrote back in May. Care to revise it? Because that first part of your sentence never happened. And Stacy Abrams has bigger brass balls than the average man.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 11, 2022 8:30:20 GMT 1
sorry but I am not about to feel guilty about insulting writers who prioritize their own political agenda over good story. They need to be condemned and they are the ones that ruin television and movies for people that just want to be entertained without a dose of partisan politics shoved down their throat. You should feel bad if that is not what they are doing. If you said that of me, I would be very pissed off right now, because I know I'm not the awful person that posers are. You just assume it because it runs counter to your own political sensibilities...which is just find. But please don't make it out to be something it is not. Are we not tearing each other's humanity fast enough for you? Jesus. Believe me, I do not begrudge conservative filmmaking. Clint Eastwood is a fine director, but his movie about Sully Sullenberger was straight up right winger and made out the evil government NTSB was hounding him, trying to blame the crash on him, when that's not what happened. Like any in air crash, everything aspect has to be thoroughly investigated for public safety. Sully's status as a public hero does not come before air safety. He was cleared of any wrong-doing by them. I know what I see with my own eyes and I don’t need tape recorded conversations of them admitting it to know what I see. My political leanings (which I do not even discuss here) are irrelevant. Others in this thread see it too. We are not all hallucinating. I don’t want conservative or liberal or conservative alternatives to television. I just want good television.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 11, 2022 8:33:26 GMT 1
sorry but I am not about to feel guilty about insulting writers who prioritize their own political agenda over good story. They need to be condemned and they are the ones that ruin television and movies for people that just want to be entertained without a dose of partisan politics shoved down their throat. You should feel bad if that is not what they are doing. If you said that of me, I would be very pissed off right now, because I know I'm not the awful person that posers are. You just assume it because it runs counter to your own political sensibilities...which is just find. But please don't make it out to be something it is not. Are we not tearing each other's humanity apart fast enough for you? Jesus. Believe me, I do not begrudge conservative filmmaking. Clint Eastwood is a fine director, but his movie about Sully Sullenberger was straight up right winger and made out the evil government NTSB was hounding him, trying to blame the crash on him, when that's not what happened. Like any in air crash investigation, every aspect has to be thoroughly investigated for public safety. Sully's status as a public hero does not come before air safety. He was cleared of any wrong-doing by them. And I've seen SNWs and it is not political. It's cultural. I hear they are injecting January 6th as the start of world war 3 and other stuff with Stacey Abrams so f-ck them and this franchise and their political activism. There are no writers anymore. There are activists that have a modern day political message to get across. I wanted to get on board with the new Star Trek because I grew up loving Star Trek. But obviously their own personal political goals are what motivated them and I want no part of that.
This is what you wrote back in May. Care to revise it? Because that first part of your sentence never happened. And Stacy Abrams has bigger brass balls than the average man. yes. Take out the Stacy Abrams part and the rest still stands
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 11, 2022 8:59:56 GMT 1
You should feel bad if that is not what they are doing. If you said that of me, I would be very pissed off right now, because I know I'm not the awful person that posers are. You just assume it because it runs counter to your own political sensibilities...which is just find. But please don't make it out to be something it is not. Are we not tearing each other's humanity fast enough for you? Jesus. Believe me, I do not begrudge conservative filmmaking. Clint Eastwood is a fine director, but his movie about Sully Sullenberger was straight up right winger and made out the evil government NTSB was hounding him, trying to blame the crash on him, when that's not what happened. Like any in air crash, everything aspect has to be thoroughly investigated for public safety. Sully's status as a public hero does not come before air safety. He was cleared of any wrong-doing by them. I know what I see with my own eyes and I don’t need tape recorded conversations of them admitting it to know what I see. My political leanings (which I do not even discuss here) are irrelevant. Others in this thread see it too. We are not all hallucinating. I don’t want conservative or liberal or conservative alternatives to television. I just want good television. When you made that jerky Abrams comment above, only one episode had aired. I saw that episode and there was no reference to 1/6 or Abrams. And 1/6 will get its very own mini-series very soon. And there will be no "alternative" ending. My point being is you seem to have made up your mind that posers (from where?) are writing liberal indoctrination TV shows without benefit of seeing if your prediction came true or not.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 11, 2022 9:05:02 GMT 1
You should feel bad if that is not what they are doing. If you said that of me, I would be very pissed off right now, because I know I'm not the awful person that posers are. You just assume it because it runs counter to your own political sensibilities...which is just find. But please don't make it out to be something it is not. Are we not tearing each other's humanity apart fast enough for you? Jesus. Believe me, I do not begrudge conservative filmmaking. Clint Eastwood is a fine director, but his movie about Sully Sullenberger was straight up right winger and made out the evil government NTSB was hounding him, trying to blame the crash on him, when that's not what happened. Like any in air crash investigation, every aspect has to be thoroughly investigated for public safety. Sully's status as a public hero does not come before air safety. He was cleared of any wrong-doing by them. And I've seen SNWs and it is not political. It's cultural. I hear they are injecting January 6th as the start of world war 3 and other stuff with Stacey Abrams so f-ck them and this franchise and their political activism. There are no writers anymore. There are activists that have a modern day political message to get across. I wanted to get on board with the new Star Trek because I grew up loving Star Trek. But obviously their own personal political goals are what motivated them and I want no part of that.
This is what you wrote back in May. Care to revise it? Because that first part of your sentence never happened. And Stacy Abrams has bigger brass balls than the average man. yes. Take out the Stacy Abrams part and the rest still stands Since only one episode aired, where any references to 1/6 specifically written to insult you for being pro-1/6? If you are.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 11, 2022 9:07:26 GMT 1
I know what I see with my own eyes and I don’t need tape recorded conversations of them admitting it to know what I see. My political leanings (which I do not even discuss here) are irrelevant. Others in this thread see it too. We are not all hallucinating. I don’t want conservative or liberal or conservative alternatives to television. I just want good television. When you made that jerky Abrams comment above, only one episode had aired. I saw that episode and there was no reference to 1/6 or Abrams. And 1/6 will get its very own mini-series very soon. And there will be no "alternative" ending. My point being is you seem to have made up your mind that posers (from where?) are writing liberal indoctrination TV shows without benefit of seeing if your prediction came true or not. what jerky Abrams comment? All I did was mention her name and offered no opinion of her. That’s good if 1/6 gets it’s own miniseries. That is irrelevant to what I said. Lord death man already explained to me what happened in the episode and I responded to that a couple of months ago
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 11, 2022 9:52:08 GMT 1
When you made that jerky Abrams comment above, only one episode had aired. I saw that episode and there was no reference to 1/6 or Abrams. And 1/6 will get its very own mini-series very soon. And there will be no "alternative" ending. My point being is you seem to have made up your mind that posers (from where?) are writing liberal indoctrination TV shows without benefit of seeing if your prediction came true or not. what jerky Abrams comment? All I did was mention her name and offered no opinion of her. That’s good if 1/6 gets it’s own miniseries. That is irrelevant to what I said. Lord death man already explained to me what happened in the episode and I responded to that a couple of months ago This is not a political board, but you made this thread so with your comments about a Georgia politicians that Trump has demonized because she stood up to him. So, I think I know what you were going for. Jay. I came here to talk about how good SNWs is and an homage to the original, but somehow it became a bitch and moan about a script that, as far as I can tell, was never written. As far a 1/6 is concerned, Trump is guilty as hell and to the folks who keep believing his con and insisting his election was stolen with zero proof other than what Trump has told them, I don't respect their opinions on politics anyway. If you want to talk about the Star Trek episodes, I'm here.
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 11, 2022 11:16:49 GMT 1
what jerky Abrams comment? All I did was mention her name and offered no opinion of her. That’s good if 1/6 gets it’s own miniseries. That is irrelevant to what I said. Lord death man already explained to me what happened in the episode and I responded to that a couple of months ago This is not a political board, but you made this thread so with your comments about a Georgia politicians that Trump has demonized because she stood up to him. So, I think I know what you were going for. Jay. I came here to talk about how good SNWs is and an homage to the original, but somehow it became a bitch and moan about a script that, as far as I can tell, was never written. As far a 1/6 is concerned, Trump is guilty as hell and to the folks who keep believing his con and insisting his election was stolen with zero proof other than what Trump has told them, I don't respect their opinions on politics anyway. If you want to talk about the Star Trek episodes, I'm here. I posted my opinions on how I felt about a certain level of politics in current television. I don’t see that as in any way inciting a political debate here. That’s not why I post here. I made a few general statements about current day television and how I didn’t want Star Trek to go that route and I moved on. You started responding to posts I made 2 months ago and going much deeper into the weeds of politics than I ever did here and now you’re blaming me for ruining the thread and making it too political. You’re talking about Trump and the election and all that. I have no interest in discussing that here. all I did was mention Stacy Abrams’ name after I saw her mentioned in the article which apparently is a terrible thing to do. But not to worry, as I have no need to mention her again
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 11, 2022 14:58:05 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 And if you knew who he was, it might just blow your mind. I know a great deal about him including his serious personal flaws.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 11, 2022 16:11:26 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. I have seen Strange New Worlds, and I'm generally delighted with it overall; however, I'm not as wildly enthusiastic about the show as other fans. If you want direct evidence of Paramount's fundamental misunderstanding of the Star Trek IP, Strange New Worlds is the proof. The return to the episodic format almost reads like a blubbering apology to the fans. The show is exceptional in some ways despite its dubious origins. Anson Mount's Christopher Pike is the first great commander of the modern era of Star Trek. He has a unique command style that earns him a place among the great Captains of the franchise like Janeway, Kirk, Sisko, Archer, and Picard. I love his collaborative approach and supportive qualities. Michael Burnham is just an inscrutable collection of exemplary attributes by comparison. SNW is a return to several aspects of Star Trek that were either underrepresented or wholly ignored in the newer shows. There is a recognizable command hierarchy on Enterprise; the ship doesn't feel like a floating social club with a flat command structure. The ship's officers and technicians seem to be engaged in the business of running a busy ship as opposed to just standing around waiting to receive orders directly from the captain or the exec. Trips through hallways and turbolifts to the medical bay, engineering, bridge, etc., seem more urgent during a crisis. I like it, but Paramount and Alex Kurtzman have a long way to go before they secure my undying allegiance. They are poor custodians of the Star Trek IP. Star Trek is a worldwide phenomenon; there is no excuse for the poor handling of the global rollout of Paramount+. It's alienating longtime fans (like Grandmaster ) and forcing them to turn away from the franchise. The constant delays and mishandling of cinematic outings reeks of greed and sheer incompetence. The overreliance on "prequels" based on legacy Star Trek is offensive and appalling. There is no need to exploit classic characters like Kirk, Spock, and Pike - over and over again - to build up newer characters. They need to do what was done in the 90s and early 2000s --- create new characters that can stand on their own in new shows set in the same universe. Don't even get me started on their numerous production design issues, and brazen disregard for established canon. Paramount should seriously consider selling the IP. They're already fattening it up for the kill with high-budget spectacle on steaming and by constantly trotting out "names you must know." Why not give it over to people who actually care about Rodenberry's original vision of the show?
|
|
|
Post by Gene Roddenberry on Jul 11, 2022 17:44:22 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 My child, the original Star Trek series was as liberal as television got in the 1960s. Do you really believe conservatives of that era went in for anti-war messages? My stars! To think what Barry Goldwater thought of my series! I do not believe a man like him would watch a series with a black woman and an Asian man and (god forbid) a Russian in positions of leadership! I’m afraid the ignorance lies with you, my son. And I hope one day you will know better.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 11, 2022 18:28:36 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 My child, the original Star Trek series was as liberal as television got in the 1960s. Do you really believe conservatives of that era went in for anti-war messages? My stars! To think what Barry Goldwater thought of my series! I do not believe a man like him would watch a series with a black woman and an Asian man and (god forbid) a Russian in positions of leadership! I’m afraid the ignorance lies with you, my son. And I hope one day you will know better. If you read my post you will see that it doesn't say anything about the political aspects of Star Trek. I said "war is bad and peace is good" is a universally held view and not a left or right issue. Support for a specific war effort does not mean someone thinks war is good. All the people that supported the WWII war effort did not think war was good just that it had been thrust upon us and had to be won. As for Star Trek, yes it did sometimes have liberal messages for the time, however, it also sometimes had conservative messages and it almost always handled them in a mature and respectful way that acknowledged both sides. Also, people often exaggerate the shock of the casting in Star Trek. Before Star Trek ever aired I-Spy and The Man From UNCLE had already had Black and Russian characters in more important roles than Star Trek did. Also both of those shows had as much or more success than Star Trek originally had. Also, your 1 dimensional view of history needs some work. It was conservative Republicans, including Barry Goldwater, who voted for the Civil Rights Act in larger numbers than Democrats did. It was also liberals JFK and LBJ that got the US involved in the Vietnam War and Conservative Richard Nixon who got the US out of it. This board is not for political discussion and I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Also, if you want to enjoy this community please use a member account.
|
|
|
Post by a member account on Jul 11, 2022 18:37:15 GMT 1
My child, the original Star Trek series was as liberal as television got in the 1960s. Do you really believe conservatives of that era went in for anti-war messages? My stars! To think what Barry Goldwater thought of my series! I do not believe a man like him would watch a series with a black woman and an Asian man and (god forbid) a Russian in positions of leadership! I’m afraid the ignorance lies with you, my son. And I hope one day you will know better. If you read my post you will see that it doesn't say anything about the political aspects of Star Trek. I said "war is bad and peace is good" is a universally held view and not a left or right issue. Support for a specific war effort does not mean someone thinks war is good. All the people that supported the WWII war effort did not think war was good just that it had been thrust upon us and had to be won. As for Star Trek, yes it did sometimes have liberal messages for the time, however, it also sometimes had conservative messages and it almost always handled them in a mature and respectful way that acknowledged both sides. Also, people often exaggerate the shock of the casting in Star Trek. Before Star Trek ever aired I-Spy and The Man From UNCLE had already had Black and Russian characters in more important roles than Star Trek did. Also both of those shows had as much or more success than Star Trek originally had. Also, your 1 dimensional view of history needs some work. It was conservative Republicans, including Barry Goldwater, who voted for the Civil Rights Act in larger numbers than Democrats did. It was also liberals JFK and LBJ that got the US involved in the Vietnam War and Conservative Richard Nixon who got the US out of it. This board is not for political discussion and I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Also, if you want to enjoy this community please use a member account. When Star Trek aired there was a huge liberal antiwar movement. This movement was reflected on the show. No amount of semantics can change that. Also, you can't tell me what to do. Peace.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2022 22:56:33 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 Yeah from my own experience with the days of True Detective, Breaking Bad and The Sopranos ,shows in general have become more political and some specifically so. For example Watchmen, yes that story has politics originally but it wasnt nearly as overt as the Hbo show focusing on the Tulsa carnage and the plight of African Americans. Basically a mouthpiece. Im there to watch for entertainment and escape, not to be lectured on something as obvious as "all this stuff was bad." The normal, moderate and majority audience knows this. Further it's so pervasive now that even Disney shows are engaged in it. Disney for chrissakes!
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 11, 2022 23:13:43 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 Yeah from my own experience with the days of True Detective, Breaking Bad and The Sopranos ,shows in general have become more political and some specifically so. For example Watchmen, yes that story has politics originally but it wasnt nearly as overt as the Hbo show focusing on the Tulsa carnage and the plight of African Americans. Basically a mouthpiece. Im there to watch for entertainment and escape, not to be lectured on something as obvious as "all this stuff was bad." The normal, moderate and majority audience knows this. Further it's so pervasive now that even Disney shows are engaged in it. Disney for chrissakes! Yeah that is true. Ofcourse with certain things you can't avoid some politics but it depends on how it is done. But yeah Disney is pretty bad. Just glad I was a kid when I was before this stuff started
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2022 23:21:38 GMT 1
Yeah from my own experience with the days of True Detective, Breaking Bad and The Sopranos ,shows in general have become more political and some specifically so. For example Watchmen, yes that story has politics originally but it wasnt nearly as overt as the Hbo show focusing on the Tulsa carnage and the plight of African Americans. Basically a mouthpiece. Im there to watch for entertainment and escape, not to be lectured on something as obvious as "all this stuff was bad." The normal, moderate and majority audience knows this. Further it's so pervasive now that even Disney shows are engaged in it. Disney for chrissakes! Yeah that is true. Ofcourse with certain things you can't avoid some politics but it depends on how it is done. But yeah Disney is pretty bad. Just glad I was a kid when I was before this stuff started That too but I was more thinking of the monologue at the end of Falcon and the Winter Soldier and during the show. You had Democrats as the villains in that show heeheehee
|
|
|
Post by Jayman on Jul 11, 2022 23:44:21 GMT 1
Yeah that is true. Ofcourse with certain things you can't avoid some politics but it depends on how it is done. But yeah Disney is pretty bad. Just glad I was a kid when I was before this stuff started That too but I was more thinking of the monologue at the end of Falcon and the Winter Soldier and during the show. You had Democrats as the villains in that show heeheehee yes that left a sour taste in my mouth and not the way I would've liked it to end. Also the scene with the cops ofcourse. I was close to ditching the series at that point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2022 23:46:45 GMT 1
That too but I was more thinking of the monologue at the end of Falcon and the Winter Soldier and during the show. You had Democrats as the villains in that show heeheehee yes that left a sour taste in my mouth and not the way I would've liked it to end. Also the scene with the cops ofcourse. I was close to ditching the series at that point. Yup and black Captain America and his suffering. I was totally shocked they didnt turn that into a George Floyd re-enactment
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 11, 2022 23:52:36 GMT 1
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. I have seen Strange New Worlds, and I'm generally delighted with it overall; however, I'm not as wildly enthusiastic about the show as other fans. If you want direct evidence of Paramount's fundamental misunderstanding of the Star Trek IP, Strange New Worlds is the proof. The return to the episodic format almost reads like a blubbering apology to the fans.The show is exceptional in some ways despite its dubious origins. Anson Mount's Christopher Pike is the first great commander of the modern era of Star Trek. He has a unique command style that earns him a place among the great Captains of the franchise like Janeway, Kirk, Sisko, Archer, and Picard. I love his collaborative approach and supportive qualities. Michael Burnham is just an inscrutable collection of exemplary attributes by comparison. SNW is a return to several aspects of Star Trek that were either underrepresented or wholly ignored in the newer shows. There is a recognizable command hierarchy on Enterprise; the ship doesn't feel like a floating social club with a flat command structure. The ship's officers and technicians seem to be engaged in the business of running a busy ship as opposed to just standing around waiting to receive orders directly from the captain or the exec. Trips through hallways and turbolifts to the medical bay, engineering, bridge, etc., seem more urgent during a crisis. I like it, but Paramount and Alex Kurtzman have a long way to go before they secure my undying allegiance. They are poor custodians of the Star Trek IP. Star Trek is a worldwide phenomenon; there is no excuse for the poor handling of the global rollout of Paramount+. It's alienating longtime fans (like Grandmaster ) and forcing them to turn away from the franchise. The constant delays and mishandling of cinematic outings reeks of greed and sheer incompetence. The overreliance on "prequels" based on legacy Star Trek is offensive and appalling. There is no need to exploit classic characters like Kirk, Spock, and Pike - over and over again - to build up newer characters. They need to do what was done in the 90s and early 2000s --- create new characters that can stand on their own in new shows set in the same universe. Don't even get me started on their numerous production design issues, and brazen disregard for established canon. Paramount should seriously consider selling the IP. They're already fattening it up for the kill with high-budget spectacle on steaming and by constantly trotting out "names you must know." Why not give it over to people who actually care about Rodenberry's original vision of the show? I’m only speaking as one of the original Trekkies and they nailed it with the first episode. After 55 years, I got a few moments of what it felt like watching the first episode that aired on NBC. This was back when if you missed tonight’s episode, you were out of luck. For me at least, I felt like kid again. No one here can deflate that. I don’t want to over analyze or have to defend my emotions. Live long and prosper.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Death Man on Jul 12, 2022 0:13:07 GMT 1
I have seen Strange New Worlds, and I'm generally delighted with it overall; however, I'm not as wildly enthusiastic about the show as other fans. If you want direct evidence of Paramount's fundamental misunderstanding of the Star Trek IP, Strange New Worlds is the proof. The return to the episodic format almost reads like a blubbering apology to the fans.The show is exceptional in some ways despite its dubious origins. Anson Mount's Christopher Pike is the first great commander of the modern era of Star Trek. He has a unique command style that earns him a place among the great Captains of the franchise like Janeway, Kirk, Sisko, Archer, and Picard. I love his collaborative approach and supportive qualities. Michael Burnham is just an inscrutable collection of exemplary attributes by comparison. SNW is a return to several aspects of Star Trek that were either underrepresented or wholly ignored in the newer shows. There is a recognizable command hierarchy on Enterprise; the ship doesn't feel like a floating social club with a flat command structure. The ship's officers and technicians seem to be engaged in the business of running a busy ship as opposed to just standing around waiting to receive orders directly from the captain or the exec. Trips through hallways and turbolifts to the medical bay, engineering, bridge, etc., seem more urgent during a crisis. I like it, but Paramount and Alex Kurtzman have a long way to go before they secure my undying allegiance. They are poor custodians of the Star Trek IP. Star Trek is a worldwide phenomenon; there is no excuse for the poor handling of the global rollout of Paramount+. It's alienating longtime fans (like Grandmaster ) and forcing them to turn away from the franchise. The constant delays and mishandling of cinematic outings reeks of greed and sheer incompetence. The overreliance on "prequels" based on legacy Star Trek is offensive and appalling. There is no need to exploit classic characters like Kirk, Spock, and Pike - over and over again - to build up newer characters. They need to do what was done in the 90s and early 2000s --- create new characters that can stand on their own in new shows set in the same universe. Don't even get me started on their numerous production design issues, and brazen disregard for established canon. Paramount should seriously consider selling the IP. They're already fattening it up for the kill with high-budget spectacle on steaming and by constantly trotting out "names you must know." Why not give it over to people who actually care about Rodenberry's original vision of the show? I’m only speaking as one of the original Trekkies and they nailed it with the first episode. After 55 years, I got a few moments of what it felt like watching the first episode that aired on NBC. This was back when if you missed tonight’s episode, you were out of luck. For me at least, I felt like kid again. No one here can deflate that. I don’t want to over analyze or have to defend my emotions. Live long and prosper. Like I said, SNW is good, but the franchise as a whole needs better stewardship. Glad you're enjoying it. Favorite episodes from SNW: 1,4,6, and 10.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 12, 2022 0:24:42 GMT 1
If you read my post you will see that it doesn't say anything about the political aspects of Star Trek. I said "war is bad and peace is good" is a universally held view and not a left or right issue. Support for a specific war effort does not mean someone thinks war is good. All the people that supported the WWII war effort did not think war was good just that it had been thrust upon us and had to be won. As for Star Trek, yes it did sometimes have liberal messages for the time, however, it also sometimes had conservative messages and it almost always handled them in a mature and respectful way that acknowledged both sides. Also, people often exaggerate the shock of the casting in Star Trek. Before Star Trek ever aired I-Spy and The Man From UNCLE had already had Black and Russian characters in more important roles than Star Trek did. Also both of those shows had as much or more success than Star Trek originally had. Also, your 1 dimensional view of history needs some work. It was conservative Republicans, including Barry Goldwater, who voted for the Civil Rights Act in larger numbers than Democrats did. It was also liberals JFK and LBJ that got the US involved in the Vietnam War and Conservative Richard Nixon who got the US out of it. This board is not for political discussion and I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Also, if you want to enjoy this community please use a member account. When Star Trek aired there was a huge liberal antiwar movement. This movement was reflected on the show. No amount of semantics can change that. Also, you can't tell me what to do. Peace. Gene McCarthy was a Bernie Sanders when Bernie had dropped out, gone up country, and writing misogynistic articles for radical Vermont Freeman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 0:25:49 GMT 1
Legion shouldntve been about multiple personality disorder but instead about 51 multiple genders identity crisis. Missed opportunity Fox! So backwards and bigoted... Ok Im done now. Had my fun
|
|
|
Post by Snowflake Detector on Jul 12, 2022 2:07:56 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 12, 2022 2:13:37 GMT 1
I’m only speaking as one of the original Trekkies and they nailed it with the first episode. After 55 years, I got a few moments of what it felt like watching the first episode that aired on NBC. This was back when if you missed tonight’s episode, you were out of luck. For me at least, I felt like kid again. No one here can deflate that. I don’t want to over analyze or have to defend my emotions. Live long and prosper. Like I said, SNW is good, but the franchise as a whole needs better stewardship. Glad you're enjoying it. Favorite episodes from SNW: 1,4,6, and 10. I get it. My opinion on the quality of the franchise is not what I wanted to share. Sometimes it’s fun to not judge things, but enjoy in the moment. What the original episode gave to a lot of teens of my generation was hope for a better future, rather than repeating the same hatreds over and over. We need a lot of that now and god bless the makers of that first episode. Like Kirk at the end of the Wrath of Khan, I felt young again.
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 12, 2022 2:16:09 GMT 1
Legion shouldntve been about multiple personality disorder but instead about 51 multiple genders identity crisis. Missed opportunity Fox! So backwards and bigoted... Ok Im done now. Had my fun Do you have a gender issue? You talk about it a lot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 2:31:24 GMT 1
Legion shouldntve been about multiple personality disorder but instead about 51 multiple genders identity crisis. Missed opportunity Fox! So backwards and bigoted... Ok Im done now. Had my fun Do you have a gender issue? You talk about it a lot. Yeah why not? Lately sure but you know otherwise on Monkeys. Look at all my thread history
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 2:32:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by LokisMom on Jul 12, 2022 4:03:54 GMT 1
Do you have a gender issue? You talk about it a lot. Yeah why not? Lately sure but you know otherwise on Monkeys. Look at all my thread history I look at it this way, if a person doesn’t have this “malady,” they have no idea what these people and their loved ones are going through. They human beings, no more, no less than me. It’s not helping them stop this from happening by being mean about it. Nor is it productive for a narrow group of people to decide for them what they must do. I think compassion and understanding is the better way. Sometimes just let it be. I’m not perfect and know I have a sharp, often unforgiving tongue, but I’m for the underdog. I attack the big dogs not the weak ones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2022 4:11:15 GMT 1
Yeah why not? Lately sure but you know otherwise on Monkeys. Look at all my thread history I look at it this way, if a person doesn’t have this “malady,” they have no idea what these people and their loved ones are going through. They human beings, no more, no less than me. It’s not helping them stop this from happening by being mean about it. Nor is it productive for a narrow group of people to decide for them what they must do. I think compassion and understanding is the better way. Sometimes just let it be. I’m not perfect and know I have a sharp, often unforgiving tongue, but I’m for the underdog. I attack the big dogs not the weak ones. Everyone has loved ones ThorsAunt...and the rest with the whole sanctimonious spiel, that may as well be noise. You just make me roll my eyes at times...you have no self-awareness that is one problem with you. Everyone is open to criticism. Everyone. There is no special protected class, amigo
|
|