> @captainbrian11 said: > (Quote) > > except when you claim "IT ISN'T TREK ANYMORE!" and then list a bunch of issues that have always been around in trek... yes your argument falls apart. > Likewise if you argue that Picard and discovery suck because "they've made trek Liberal" (an argument I've seen made in the past, not by anyone ehre but I've seen it made) it's really really a "....... have you watched trek?" moment
Neither of those are my arguments and I have never seen a single person on these forums argue those points save for the listing issues that have been in other trek shows. No one here is saying that it being liberal made it bad?
Why is it that some people here seem to think that consumers of a product aren't entitled to criticize it? Hell, this is especially true of TRIBBLE and STP which you must directly pay a subscription fee to see.
I don't like paying for a crappy product, especially if it is substandard compared to previous fare from that line of products. For a new IP, it would just die quietly as people don't pay for it.
ST, however, has a very long established history and people are very interested in keeping that IP alive. That involves criticizing where it is going wrong in the newest product lines. Failure to recognize and rectify this means the IP will lose value and could even die off completely.
it is too early to draw conclusions, we do not yet know what is planned for the rest of the PIC show, about the romulans, about the synths. 1 thing bother me however, where was the romulan fleet? Picard is supposedly responsible of having abandoned the romulans, but again where was the romulan fleet?
About the supposed darkness in Picard or other modern tv shows, I suggest that you read "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche.
Why is it that some people here seem to think that consumers of a product aren't entitled to criticize it?
It's not that (some) people think you can't criticize it. It's that (some) people think any criticism of the show is wrong, and that their mission in life is to defend the show at all costs.
Of course, most of this is purely subjective and there is no "right" or "wrong" than can actually be proven. But still, the folks I referenced above want to try to prove your OPINION is wrong.
The entitlement of fanbois, the idea that they get to define what is 'Trek' (or indeed any other brand) and not the people who own said brand.
Yeah! TRIBBLE the FANS! TRIBBLE EM! All mentions of criticism should always be met with hostility and be perceived as direct attack on yourself and your personal identity. We should all worship corporations that are by no means the original creator of said brand and have no thought of our own unless it's positive.
I love NU GEN TREK! Federation is so shady and daaaaaaark. MU was so silly, but this is soooooo fun and coooooool. Much more serious. It represents today's horrible dark struggles of doom and our regressive political climate, blah blah blah whatever. It shows the Federation is not what it once was.... Oh wait that Star Wars....
"There is no civility, only politics. The Republic is not what it once was. The senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good."
I guess the entire Federation is now reduced to this:
Federation wasn't perfect, but not every single person in charge was corrupt like all those one-time admirals you claim was the majority. It always had more optimism. Why you think people like me say fedbears or characters like Garak and Quark compare the Federation as warm and happy.
Garak: "It's vile!" Quark: "I know. It's so bubbly, cloying...and happy." Garak: "Just like the Federation."
Federation of Planets also allow 14 racist/xenophobic as members. Sounds sooooo legit. Sound even more reasonable that they bowed to their demands of letting the Romulans die. 14 planets out of 150 planetary bodies... It so realistic and dark it almost sounds like Alex Kurtzman and Bad Robot partnered up with Snyder.
Or this:
Raffi a drug addict is absurd. What is this weekday episode of Coronation Street? Ah... nm. So coool!
Incest? GoT, sooooo coooooool! A romulan that looks like Elrond from Lotr. Sooooo Cooooool!
PS. Lineage wasn't all about racism. Her father didn't hate her and klingons. Her mother divorced him because her life living as klingon on her home world was more important than converting to that of a human life. Way to miss the mark there @artan42. It was about acceptance of oneself and not blaming yourself for your parents divorce. B'Elanna has a inferiority complex. She is a child of two different races that have big cultural differences and behaviours. She beats herself up for almost everything bad in her life. When parents spilt up at that age kids blame themselves.
/Rant Over....
"Great men are not peacemakers, Great men are conquerors!" - Captain Archer" "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway #Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
Why is it that some people here seem to think that consumers of a product aren't entitled to criticize it?
It's not that (some) people think you can't criticize it. It's that (some) people think any criticism of the show is wrong, and that their mission in life is to defend the show at all costs.
Of course, most of this is purely subjective and there is no "right" or "wrong" than can actually be proven. But still, the folks I referenced above want to try to prove your OPINION is wrong.
Yes. I am so tired of people being labelled all nasty names under the sun because some fans or others have problems with the show. I wonder what book clubs are like in 2020. Do people scream at you and call you a hateful entitled scumbag for not liking the same book?
"Great men are not peacemakers, Great men are conquerors!" - Captain Archer" "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway #Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
> @thegrandnagus1 said: > (Quote) > > It's not that (some) people think you can't criticize it. It's that (some) people think any criticism of the show is wrong, and that their mission in life is to defend the show at all costs. > > Of course, most of this is purely subjective and there is no "right" or "wrong" than can actually be proven. But still, the folks I referenced above want to try to prove your OPINION is wrong.
No one is saying you can’t criticize Discovery and Picard. This thread was supposed to be about fans of those shows talking about valid criticisms and some valid criticisms popped up. The problem is when some fans are using those criticisms to invalidate the shows as Trek.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
> @thegrandnagus1 said:
> (Quote)
>
> It's not that (some) people think you can't criticize it. It's that (some) people think any criticism of the show is wrong, and that their mission in life is to defend the show at all costs.
>
> Of course, most of this is purely subjective and there is no "right" or "wrong" than can actually be proven. But still, the folks I referenced above want to try to prove your OPINION is wrong.
No one is saying you can’t criticize Discovery and Picard. This thread was supposed to be about fans of those shows talking about valid criticisms and some valid criticisms popped up. The problem is when some fans are using those criticisms to invalidate the shows as Trek.
That is irrational. It is not Trek just because the title says so. An IP relies on using the universe it has built up to be recognizable for what is, demanding consistency, logical, visual, and thematical to actually be believed as some relative of previous incarnations.
If Picard took the Enterprise through a canyon where he needed to line up a photon torpedo on a target ~2m wide, and the ghost of Kirk tells him to "Use the horse, Jean Luc!" whereupon he remembers his time in the Nexus and suddenly gets the idea to beam a horse into the target with the torpedo strapped onto its back, is that Star Trek?
Is it Star Trek if he fights a battle with the [Romulan] Empire who fly new ships that look suspiciously like Star Destroyers, but painted Romulan green? If the Borg queen tells him to witness the power of her fully operational dodecahedron battlestation, previously mistaken for a moon, and then tries to fight him in a photonic saber duel? If a Benzite admiral warns his fleet its a trap as they come into range of said battlestation's main weapon?
Is it Star Trek if temporal investigations uses a Delorean and/or flux capacitor to manage their time travel needs?
Yes, the Millenium Falcon has been in Star Trek for a brief moment, and some of those absurd examples wouldn't be terrible on their own, but put enough of those foreign things into a Star Trek show, and at some point, it adds up to be far too much to actually be Star Trek, but instead is way outside the IP.
People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
> @thegrandnagus1 said:
> (Quote)
>
> It's not that (some) people think you can't criticize it. It's that (some) people think any criticism of the show is wrong, and that their mission in life is to defend the show at all costs.
>
> Of course, most of this is purely subjective and there is no "right" or "wrong" than can actually be proven. But still, the folks I referenced above want to try to prove your OPINION is wrong.
No one is saying you can’t criticize Discovery and Picard. This thread was supposed to be about fans of those shows talking about valid criticisms and some valid criticisms popped up. The problem is when some fans are using those criticisms to invalidate the shows as Trek.
That is irrational. It is not Trek just because the title says so. An IP relies on using the universe it has built up to be recognizable for what is, demanding consistency, logical, visual, and thematical to actually be believed as some relative of previous incarnations.
If Picard took the Enterprise through a canyon where he needed to line up a photon torpedo on a target ~2m wide, and the ghost of Kirk tells him to "Use the horse, Jean Luc!" whereupon he remembers his time in the Nexus and suddenly gets the idea to beam a horse into the target with the torpedo strapped onto its back, is that Star Trek?
Is it Star Trek if he fights a battle with the [Romulan] Empire who fly new ships that look suspiciously like Star Destroyers, but painted Romulan green? If the Borg queen tells him to witness the power of her fully operational dodecahedron battlestation, previously mistaken for a moon, and then tries to fight him in a photonic saber duel? If a Benzite admiral warns his fleet its a trap as they come into range of said battlestation's main weapon?
Is it Star Trek if temporal investigations uses a Delorean and/or flux capacitor to manage their time travel needs?
Yes, the Millenium Falcon has been in Star Trek for a brief moment, and some of those absurd examples wouldn't be terrible on their own, but put enough of those foreign things into a Star Trek show, and at some point, it adds up to be far too much to actually be Star Trek, but instead is way outside the IP.
People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
Change is not bad. Change is not bad. Change is not bad. TNG made significant changes to Star Trek. TMP made significant changes to Star Trek.
Let’s do a though experiment: Let’s say there’s a very popular Live action show on TV based on Batman. Bruce Wayne in a Bat suit punching criminals. Its so popular that the network wants spinoffs. So here comes a Robin show, a Batgirl show, a Nightwing show, a Batwoman show...all variations on so-and-so putting on a suit and punching criminals. The network says give us another show but do something different. So Commissioner Gordon The Series is created and instead of someone putting on a suit and punching bad guys is a procedural show set in Gotham....does this break the Batman IP?
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
> @thegrandnagus1 said:
> (Quote)
>
> It's not that (some) people think you can't criticize it. It's that (some) people think any criticism of the show is wrong, and that their mission in life is to defend the show at all costs.
>
> Of course, most of this is purely subjective and there is no "right" or "wrong" than can actually be proven. But still, the folks I referenced above want to try to prove your OPINION is wrong.
No one is saying you can’t criticize Discovery and Picard. This thread was supposed to be about fans of those shows talking about valid criticisms and some valid criticisms popped up. The problem is when some fans are using those criticisms to invalidate the shows as Trek.
That is irrational. It is not Trek just because the title says so. An IP relies on using the universe it has built up to be recognizable for what is, demanding consistency, logical, visual, and thematical to actually be believed as some relative of previous incarnations.
If Picard took the Enterprise through a canyon where he needed to line up a photon torpedo on a target ~2m wide, and the ghost of Kirk tells him to "Use the horse, Jean Luc!" whereupon he remembers his time in the Nexus and suddenly gets the idea to beam a horse into the target with the torpedo strapped onto its back, is that Star Trek?
Is it Star Trek if he fights a battle with the [Romulan] Empire who fly new ships that look suspiciously like Star Destroyers, but painted Romulan green? If the Borg queen tells him to witness the power of her fully operational dodecahedron battlestation, previously mistaken for a moon, and then tries to fight him in a photonic saber duel? If a Benzite admiral warns his fleet its a trap as they come into range of said battlestation's main weapon?
Is it Star Trek if temporal investigations uses a Delorean and/or flux capacitor to manage their time travel needs?
Yes, the Millenium Falcon has been in Star Trek for a brief moment, and some of those absurd examples wouldn't be terrible on their own, but put enough of those foreign things into a Star Trek show, and at some point, it adds up to be far too much to actually be Star Trek, but instead is way outside the IP.
People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
Change is not bad. Change is not bad. Change is not bad. TNG made significant changes to Star Trek. TMP made significant changes to Star Trek.
Let’s do a though experiment: Let’s say there’s a very popular Live action show on TV based on Batman. Bruce Wayne in a Bat suit punching criminals. Its so popular that the network wants spinoffs. So here comes a Robin show, a Batgirl show, a Nightwing show, a Batwoman show...all variations on so-and-so putting on a suit and punching criminals. The network says give us another show but do something different. So Commissioner Gordon The Series is created and instead of someone putting on a suit and punching bad guys is a procedural show set in Gotham....does this break the Batman IP?
Commissioner Gordon The Series is alright. Batwoman... eh. I don't know great deal about DC so I don't know if they're breaking their own universe's canon left and right. We all know all fiction has continuity errors. Picard just blows them up like firecrackers without any thought or care. Even the writers can't give a decent explanation to cover up their mess. A better comparison would be something like DS9 (since both have darker themes). Difference is Sisko isn't being blamed for everything and the Federation aren't bunch of speciest hating slavers. There is nothing optimistic about this shows story.
"Great men are not peacemakers, Great men are conquerors!" - Captain Archer" "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway #Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
same applies to TNG vs TOS. same applies to DS9.
Explain that Seth Macfarlane's The Orville. Even though it's a parody with humour it has a lot more in common with Trek values and you can clearly recognise it as such even with the different names, uniforms, ships etc than Picard. Picard has more in common with dystopia sci-fi series, except it's more duller and slower. Its entire premise has more in common with Blade Runner than the Star Trek universe.
"Great men are not peacemakers, Great men are conquerors!" - Captain Archer" "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway #Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
> @terranempire#7881 said: > (Quote) > > Commissioner Gordon The Series is alright. Batwoman... eh. I don't know great deal about DC so I don't know if they're breaking their own universe's canon left and right. We all know all fiction has continuity errors. Picard just blows them up like firecrackers without any thought or care. Even the writers can't give a decent explanation to cover up their mess. A better comparison would be something like DS9 (since both have darker themes). Difference is Sisko isn't being blamed for everything and the Federation aren't bunch of speciest hating slavers. There is nothing optimistic about this shows story.
I used Batman as an example because we are all too close to Star Trek to see it objectively. Why would a show about a disgraced Ex-Starfleet Officer and a crew of non Star fleet officers feel like a show about a crew of Starfleet officers?
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
same applies to TNG vs TOS. same applies to DS9.
Explain that Seth Macfarlane's The Orville. Even though it's a parody with humour it has a lot more in common with Trek values and you can clearly recognise it as such even with the different names, uniforms, ships etc than Picard. Picard has more in common with dystopia sci-fi series, except it's more duller and slower. Its entire premise has more in common with Blade Runner than the Star Trek universe.
I suspect it's "humor" is about as funny as the rest of McFarlaine's garbage hard pass for me.
My point though is TNG had a lot of marked changes from TOS, DS9 well.. had many of the elements (hell the cardassian space station meant the architechture wasn't even the same) we understood that we where viewing trek through a differant lens. Picard's the same way. yes we're not seeing a picture perfect look at the federation. instead we're seeing the dark under belly. It's worth noting that some of this came as a suprise to Picard who ,like us, really only mostly saw a sanatized view of the galaxy. But as I said, if you actually paid ATTENTION it's pretty clear dating all the way back to TOS, those living on the fringe. Let's take a look at some of this shall we?
1st up.. Star Trek TOS: the episode The Conscience of the King deals with a planetary governer whom ordered half the population of his world murdered, according to his own views on eugenitics to survive a famine. no, "better society" here. just brutality. this was a federation coloney with a federation population, provable by the fact that Kirk was present for the events.
There as no starship conveniantly rolling up to solve the problems people died, the Federation... failed.
But that's just TOS! Surely by TNG with replicators etc it's all better right?!
WRONG!
In TNG our first clue the UFP is fasaar from perfect appers within the back story of Tasha Yar. Tasha grew up on Turkana IV, a failed colony, in the 2330s the planetary government began to break down, we're not told why but generally that type of chaos isn't going to happen in a "perfect society". This saw civil war and societal break down throughout the 2340s... and the federation did JACK ALL. then in the early 2350s the government was removed in a military coup by two factions they had given police powers to. who then removed the world from the federation. All contact with the UFP had been cut by 2350. And when in 2361 a federation ship came they where basicly told anyone beaming down would be killed.
Meanwhile the average life for the people are dodging TRIBBLE gangs and other such things.
The federation failed this world several times OVER. in the 2330s when the government was collapsing, where were starfleet mediators to try and right the ship? where were federation experts providing help.
in the 2340s apparently things got so bad the government had to deputize basicly armed milita gangs in a last ditch effort to restore the peace.. what the hell was starfleet doing? how come they didn't send peace keepers? I mean, no wonder when the coup happened the first thing the powers on planet did was tell starfleet to Go the hell away. they failed that world.. UTTERLY.
And this isn't a one time failure, this is a symptomatic long time failure, I mean at least the situation in Picard has an EXCUSE. The Turkana IV failure is completely and utterly INEXCUSABLE.
but ok, one time TRIBBLE up right? nah the federation continues to TRIBBLE up. let's move onwards.
then there was the Maquis situation. we all know what that was about. forcing colonists to move due to politics. It's pretty clear the colonies wheren't even consulted during the negotiations.
And finally we have the Baku in Star Trek Insurrection. A case where a federation admiral was willing to wholesale move a population, ohh and possiably doom their civilization (as they'd no longer have the metaphasic particles) all to win some health benifits that likely wouldn't supply the entire federation anyway.
So yeah let's not pretend that before Picard the federation was perfect. even if you dismiss the Baku and Maquis, the situation at Turkana IV was an inexcuseable long term TRIBBLE up.
No one is saying you can’t criticize Discovery and Picard.
I was referring to insane extremists, not rational people. The rational people can have a discussion with each other, but the you can't with the insane extremists (which are on both "sides", aka the extreme haters and the extreme defenders).
> @thegrandnagus1 said: > (Quote) > > I was referring to insane extremists, not rational people. The rational people can have a discussion with each other, but the you can't with the insane extremists (which are on both "sides", aka the extreme haters and the extreme defenders).
I’ll agree with that
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Why is it that some people here seem to think that consumers of a product aren't entitled to criticize it?
It's not that (some) people think you can't criticize it. It's that (some) people think any criticism of the show is wrong, and that their mission in life is to defend the show at all costs.
Of course, most of this is purely subjective and there is no "right" or "wrong" than can actually be proven. But still, the folks I referenced above want to try to prove your OPINION is wrong.
Yes. I am so tired of people being labelled all nasty names under the sun because some fans or others have problems with the show. I wonder what book clubs are like in 2020. Do people scream at you and call you a hateful entitled scumbag for not liking the same book?
The reason for the type of behavior you are describing is because everything has become politicized. Because hollywood is now seeing more diversity both on screen and in the production side (which is a good thing), a certain group of deranged people are going to label all criticism of shows with diverse cast/crew as some form of "ism" or "ist".
10 years ago you could hate the SW prequels Star Trek Enterprise without anyone suggesting you are racist/sexist/etc. However you cannot hate the new SW movies or the new Trek series without a (currently) small but (steadily) GROWING part of the fandom accusing you of those things.
> @terranempire#7881 said:
> (Quote)
>
> Commissioner Gordon The Series is alright. Batwoman... eh. I don't know great deal about DC so I don't know if they're breaking their own universe's canon left and right. We all know all fiction has continuity errors. Picard just blows them up like firecrackers without any thought or care. Even the writers can't give a decent explanation to cover up their mess. A better comparison would be something like DS9 (since both have darker themes). Difference is Sisko isn't being blamed for everything and the Federation aren't bunch of speciest hating slavers. There is nothing optimistic about this shows story.
I used Batman as an example because we are all too close to Star Trek to see it objectively. Why would a show about a disgraced Ex-Starfleet Officer and a crew of non Star fleet officers feel like a show about a crew of Starfleet officers?
Four of them are all Starfleet affiliated (only two of which aren't). We have already seen ex Starfleet officers before, the Maquis. I think people are having a hard time watching a whole series based around just them. They are polar opposites... Idk.
"Great men are not peacemakers, Great men are conquerors!" - Captain Archer" "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway #Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
same applies to TNG vs TOS. same applies to DS9.
Explain that Seth Macfarlane's The Orville. Even though it's a parody with humour it has a lot more in common with Trek values and you can clearly recognise it as such even with the different names, uniforms, ships etc than Picard. Picard has more in common with dystopia sci-fi series, except it's more duller and slower. Its entire premise has more in common with Blade Runner than the Star Trek universe.
I suspect it's "humor" is about as funny as the rest of McFarlaine's TRIBBLE, hard pass for me.
Fine, more Oreville for me.....I like seeing more positive sci fi, and Oreville does it.
Also, I remember a 1998 Red Dwarf tape, which had Pat Stewart, a Red Dwarf fan, introducing it, and he said he wished his time on star Trek could have some more humor in it.
Hell, Red Dwarf feels more positive and optimistic than Trek for the past decade has been. o.o
People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
same applies to TNG vs TOS. same applies to DS9.
Explain that Seth Macfarlane's The Orville. Even though it's a parody with humour it has a lot more in common with Trek values and you can clearly recognise it as such even with the different names, uniforms, ships etc than Picard. Picard has more in common with dystopia sci-fi series, except it's more duller and slower. Its entire premise has more in common with Blade Runner than the Star Trek universe.
I suspect it's "humor" is about as funny as the rest of McFarlaine's TRIBBLE, hard pass for me.
I wasn't ever fan of Family Guy but the Orville is more funny than Discovery S2 gags.
"Great men are not peacemakers, Great men are conquerors!" - Captain Archer" "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway #Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
> @terranempire#7881 said: > (Quote) > > Four of them are all Starfleet affiliated (only two of which aren't). We have already seen ex Starfleet officers before, the Maquis. I think people are having a hard time watching a whole series based around just them. They are polar opposites... Idk.
Four are Ex-Starfleet And the Marquis in Voyager quickly became Starfleet in less than a few episodes
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
> @terranempire#7881 said:
> (Quote)
>
> Four of them are all Starfleet affiliated (only two of which aren't). We have already seen ex Starfleet officers before, the Maquis. I think people are having a hard time watching a whole series based around just them. They are polar opposites... Idk.
Four are Ex-Starfleet
And the Marquis in Voyager quickly became Starfleet in less than a few episodes
Sure and that is why it worked. People say that the writers chickened out and should have kept the Maquis on Voyager crew as hostile threat/problem. They gradually learned to work and integrate into Starfleet roles which I thought was better as they grew as characters rather than stay as emotionally angry people that blame everyone for their woes 24/7. Could you imagine a starship full of ego eccentric Michael Eddingtons? That go into rants about how TRIBBLE the Federation is and they ruined his life episode after episode. That reminds me of another sci-fi drama show I couldn't stand. "Another Life". At least Picard's crew is more likeable than those on that show.
"Great men are not peacemakers, Great men are conquerors!" - Captain Archer" "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway #Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
> @thegrandnagus1 said: > (Quote) > > The reason for the type of behavior you are describing is because everything has become politicized. Because hollywood is now seeing more diversity both on screen and in the production side (which is a good thing), a certain group of deranged people are going to label all criticism of shows with diverse cast/crew as some form of "ism" or "ist". > > 10 years ago you could hate the SW prequels Star Trek Enterprise without anyone suggesting you are racist/sexist/etc. However you cannot hate the new SW movies or the new Trek series without a (currently) small but (steadily) GROWING part of the fandom accusing you of those things.
I know I’m on the other side of the Discovery argument but I’ve not seen anyone get called racist/sexist/etc for not liking the show. This thread is on its 5th page and no one has called anyone racist/sexist/etc for not liking the shows. I lurk over at the Reddit boards and I don’t see it over there either.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
> @khan5000 said: > > @thegrandnagus1 said: > > (Quote) > > > > The reason for the type of behavior you are describing is because everything has become politicized. Because hollywood is now seeing more diversity both on screen and in the production side (which is a good thing), a certain group of deranged people are going to label all criticism of shows with diverse cast/crew as some form of "ism" or "ist". > > > > 10 years ago you could hate the SW prequels Star Trek Enterprise without anyone suggesting you are racist/sexist/etc. However you cannot hate the new SW movies or the new Trek series without a (currently) small but (steadily) GROWING part of the fandom accusing you of those things. > > I know I’m on the other side of the Discovery argument but I’ve not seen anyone get called racist/sexist/etc for not liking the show. This thread is on its 5th page and no one has called anyone racist/sexist/etc for not liking the shows. I lurk over at the Reddit boards and I don’t see it over there either. >
The people he is talking about usually reside on Twitter. Twitter is a cesspool for people who feel the need to try and appear more virtuous by attacking any dissenters like a rabid dog. Twitter can be used for reasonable discussion sometimes but it's pretty infamous for the rabid fans of any ip or thing that live there.(K pop fans are the best example)
I have not seen anyone directly calling another forum goer racist or sexist on the forum, but I have seen a handful of times where someone implied that people only disliked discovery or the star wars sequels because they were sexist. Never any direct attacks just generalizations.
> @thegrandnagus1 said:
> (Quote)
>
> The reason for the type of behavior you are describing is because everything has become politicized. Because hollywood is now seeing more diversity both on screen and in the production side (which is a good thing), a certain group of deranged people are going to label all criticism of shows with diverse cast/crew as some form of "ism" or "ist".
>
> 10 years ago you could hate the SW prequels Star Trek Enterprise without anyone suggesting you are racist/sexist/etc. However you cannot hate the new SW movies or the new Trek series without a (currently) small but (steadily) GROWING part of the fandom accusing you of those things.
I know I’m on the other side of the Discovery argument but I’ve not seen anyone get called racist/sexist/etc for not liking the show. This thread is on its 5th page and no one has called anyone racist/sexist/etc for not liking the shows. I lurk over at the Reddit boards and I don’t see it over there either.
Hey everyone has different tastes. I noticed your quote of Star Trek V and that according to most people I meet dislike that movie the most out of all of TMP era films. I thought it was pretty fun but it definitely could have been done better. I like parts of Discovery. Not biggest fan of Burnham and I wished they didn't murder Michelle Yeoh character (yes they brought back the evil version of her back but I feel robbed of getting a potential cool captain). I would have much rather have had Yeoh & Saru as first officer. I like most of the Federation ship designs of Discovery (minus the pew pew pew pew lasers, because beams look cooler in Trek) The overly long nacelles remind me of the Excelsior-class which I kind of like.
Klingons are dreadful. Wasn't a fan of either their extremely unnecessary redesign costumes/looks or their generic alien of the day ships that don't remotly connect to past designs. At least when you look at Fed ships you can recognise them.
"Great men are not peacemakers, Great men are conquerors!" - Captain Archer" "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway #Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
I don't think the Klingon redesign has many fans. there is a reason why they backed away from "this is the new klingon redesign deal with it" and started trying to restore the accepted look by season 2. I'm a pretty easy going guy, I don't overly nitpick stuff but at the same time a radical species redesign just so a show runner can "put him stamp" on he franchise, yeah THAT kind of thing leaves a sour taste in my mouth
People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
same applies to TNG vs TOS. same applies to DS9.
Explain that Seth Macfarlane's The Orville. Even though it's a parody with humour it has a lot more in common with Trek values and you can clearly recognise it as such even with the different names, uniforms, ships etc than Picard. Picard has more in common with dystopia sci-fi series, except it's more duller and slower. Its entire premise has more in common with Blade Runner than the Star Trek universe.
I suspect it's "humor" is about as funny as the rest of McFarlaine's garbage hard pass for me.
My point though is TNG had a lot of marked changes from TOS, DS9 well.. had many of the elements (hell the cardassian space station meant the architechture wasn't even the same) we understood that we where viewing trek through a differant lens. Picard's the same way. yes we're not seeing a picture perfect look at the federation. instead we're seeing the dark under belly. It's worth noting that some of this came as a suprise to Picard who ,like us, really only mostly saw a sanatized view of the galaxy. But as I said, if you actually paid ATTENTION it's pretty clear dating all the way back to TOS, those living on the fringe. Let's take a look at some of this shall we?
1st up.. Star Trek TOS: the episode The Conscience of the King deals with a planetary governer whom ordered half the population of his world murdered, according to his own views on eugenitics to survive a famine. no, "better society" here. just brutality. this was a federation coloney with a federation population, provable by the fact that Kirk was present for the events.
There as no starship conveniantly rolling up to solve the problems people died, the Federation... failed.
But that's just TOS! Surely by TNG with replicators etc it's all better right?!
WRONG!
In TNG our first clue the UFP is fasaar from perfect appers within the back story of Tasha Yar. Tasha grew up on Turkana IV, a failed colony, in the 2330s the planetary government began to break down, we're not told why but generally that type of chaos isn't going to happen in a "perfect society". This saw civil war and societal break down throughout the 2340s... and the federation did JACK ALL. then in the early 2350s the government was removed in a military coup by two factions they had given police powers to. who then removed the world from the federation. All contact with the UFP had been cut by 2350. And when in 2361 a federation ship came they where basicly told anyone beaming down would be killed.
Meanwhile the average life for the people are dodging TRIBBLE gangs and other such things.
The federation failed this world several times OVER. in the 2330s when the government was collapsing, where were starfleet mediators to try and right the ship? where were federation experts providing help.
in the 2340s apparently things got so bad the government had to deputize basicly armed milita gangs in a last ditch effort to restore the peace.. what the hell was starfleet doing? how come they didn't send peace keepers? I mean, no wonder when the coup happened the first thing the powers on planet did was tell starfleet to Go the hell away. they failed that world.. UTTERLY.
And this isn't a one time failure, this is a symptomatic long time failure, I mean at least the situation in Picard has an EXCUSE. The Turkana IV failure is completely and utterly INEXCUSABLE.
but ok, one time TRIBBLE up right? nah the federation continues to TRIBBLE up. let's move onwards.
then there was the Maquis situation. we all know what that was about. forcing colonists to move due to politics. It's pretty clear the colonies wheren't even consulted during the negotiations.
And finally we have the Baku in Star Trek Insurrection. A case where a federation admiral was willing to wholesale move a population, ohh and possiably doom their civilization (as they'd no longer have the metaphasic particles) all to win some health benifits that likely wouldn't supply the entire federation anyway.
So yeah let's not pretend that before Picard the federation was perfect. even if you dismiss the Baku and Maquis, the situation at Turkana IV was an inexcuseable long term TRIBBLE up.
Nobody saying it was perfect (unless you're Gene Roddenberry). There is nothing wrong with conflict or dark moments in a story. Like you said we get examples of bad people or corrupt/misguided admirals. You're missing the point that every episode that had those things still had optimism in the end or throughout the episode. Picard is missing that one ingredient. Having every follow up episode grim and dark all the time with no cheer isn't at all like Trek.
"Great men are not peacemakers, Great men are conquerors!" - Captain Archer" "When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway #Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
> @terranempire#7881 said: > (Quote) > > Hey everyone has different tastes. I noticed your quote of Star Trek V and that according to most people I meet dislike that movie the most out of all of TMP era films. I thought it was pretty fun but it definitely could have been done better. I like parts of Discovery. Not biggest fan of Burnham and I wished they didn't murder Michelle Yeoh character (yes they brought back the evil version of her back but I feel robbed of getting a potential cool captain). I would have much rather have had Yeoh & Saru as first officer. I like most of the Federation ship designs of Discovery (minus the pew pew pew pew lasers, because beams look cooler in Trek) The overly long nacelles remind me of the Excelsior-class which I kind of like. > > Klingons are dreadful. Wasn't a fan of either their extremely unnecessary redesign costumes/looks or their generic alien of the day ships that don't remotly connect to past designs. At least when you look at Fed ships you can recognise them.
I quote that movie ironically. It’s not my fave. WOK, UC and STID are my top three in any order based on my mood. The funny part is a lot of your views are the same as mine. I like Discovery. I can take or leave Michael. I’m more of a fan of the other characters. Her presence doesn’t make or break the show for me. Yeah the Klingons are a misstep but I’m not bothered by it because the first Klingons I saw were men with shoe polish on their faces.
I guess I’m a weird Trek fan because I think we’ve had six shows about a Starfleet crew and captain and there’s a part of me that wants to see what the other people are doing. Who investigates crime in the federation? What does Starfleet Intelligence do? What would a show based around a Harry Mudd type character be like? Star Trek Picard scratches a lot of those itches on showing us something other than another Starfleet ship.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
The people he is talking about usually reside on Twitter. Twitter is a cesspool for people who feel the need to try and appear more virtuous by attacking any dissenters like a rabid dog. Twitter can be used for reasonable discussion sometimes but it's pretty infamous for the rabid fans of any ip or thing that live there.(K pop fans are the best example)
I have not seen anyone directly calling another forum goer racist or sexist on the forum, but I have seen a handful of times where someone implied that people only disliked discovery or the star wars sequels because they were sexist. Never any direct attacks just generalizations.
The world would be a much better place if Twitter's servers was nuked from orbit. I expect vile comments coming from a place like 4chan where users are protected through the shadow of anonymity not where everyone can see who posted a certain vile comment. It is as if these people are addicted to the attention created by posting extreme comments that they would never say face to face.
I know I’m on the other side of the Discovery argument but I’ve not seen anyone get called racist/sexist/etc for not liking the show.
Unfortunately we have not all been so lucky as to not see it.
This thread is on its 5th page and no one has called anyone racist/sexist/etc for not liking the shows.
My post was not a reply to "this thread" in general, it was a direct reply to the post I quoted. And that post was asking why they have been called "nasty names" for not liking this show. While this thread has not yet experienced that (that I have seen), that is sadly not the case on every forum and platform.
I lurk over at the Reddit boards and I don’t see it over there either.
Again, unfortunately we have not all been as lucky as you. I too read reddit quite a bit and when discovery first aired you could not make a valid criticism against the character of Burnham without someone suggesting it had to do without her race or gender or both.
To be clear, I never said that type of comment represented the majority of the fandom. But that group of people IS growing like a cancer.
Comments
> (Quote)
>
> except when you claim "IT ISN'T TREK ANYMORE!" and then list a bunch of issues that have always been around in trek... yes your argument falls apart.
> Likewise if you argue that Picard and discovery suck because "they've made trek Liberal" (an argument I've seen made in the past, not by anyone ehre but I've seen it made) it's really really a "....... have you watched trek?" moment
Neither of those are my arguments and I have never seen a single person on these forums argue those points save for the listing issues that have been in other trek shows. No one here is saying that it being liberal made it bad?
I don't like paying for a crappy product, especially if it is substandard compared to previous fare from that line of products. For a new IP, it would just die quietly as people don't pay for it.
ST, however, has a very long established history and people are very interested in keeping that IP alive. That involves criticizing where it is going wrong in the newest product lines. Failure to recognize and rectify this means the IP will lose value and could even die off completely.
About the supposed darkness in Picard or other modern tv shows, I suggest that you read "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche.
It's not that (some) people think you can't criticize it. It's that (some) people think any criticism of the show is wrong, and that their mission in life is to defend the show at all costs.
Of course, most of this is purely subjective and there is no "right" or "wrong" than can actually be proven. But still, the folks I referenced above want to try to prove your OPINION is wrong.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Yeah! TRIBBLE the FANS! TRIBBLE EM! All mentions of criticism should always be met with hostility and be perceived as direct attack on yourself and your personal identity. We should all worship corporations that are by no means the original creator of said brand and have no thought of our own unless it's positive.
I love NU GEN TREK! Federation is so shady and daaaaaaark. MU was so silly, but this is soooooo fun and coooooool. Much more serious. It represents today's horrible dark struggles of doom and our regressive political climate, blah blah blah whatever. It shows the Federation is not what it once was.... Oh wait that Star Wars....
"There is no civility, only politics. The Republic is not what it once was. The senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good."
I guess the entire Federation is now reduced to this:
Federation wasn't perfect, but not every single person in charge was corrupt like all those one-time admirals you claim was the majority. It always had more optimism. Why you think people like me say fedbears or characters like Garak and Quark compare the Federation as warm and happy.
Garak: "It's vile!" Quark: "I know. It's so bubbly, cloying...and happy." Garak: "Just like the Federation."
Federation of Planets also allow 14 racist/xenophobic as members. Sounds sooooo legit. Sound even more reasonable that they bowed to their demands of letting the Romulans die. 14 planets out of 150 planetary bodies... It so realistic and dark it almost sounds like Alex Kurtzman and Bad Robot partnered up with Snyder.
Or this:
Raffi a drug addict is absurd. What is this weekday episode of Coronation Street? Ah... nm. So coool!
Incest? GoT, sooooo coooooool! A romulan that looks like Elrond from Lotr. Sooooo Cooooool!
PS. Lineage wasn't all about racism. Her father didn't hate her and klingons. Her mother divorced him because her life living as klingon on her home world was more important than converting to that of a human life. Way to miss the mark there @artan42. It was about acceptance of oneself and not blaming yourself for your parents divorce. B'Elanna has a inferiority complex. She is a child of two different races that have big cultural differences and behaviours. She beats herself up for almost everything bad in her life. When parents spilt up at that age kids blame themselves.
/Rant Over....
"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway
#Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
Yes. I am so tired of people being labelled all nasty names under the sun because some fans or others have problems with the show. I wonder what book clubs are like in 2020. Do people scream at you and call you a hateful entitled scumbag for not liking the same book?
"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway
#Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
> (Quote)
>
> It's not that (some) people think you can't criticize it. It's that (some) people think any criticism of the show is wrong, and that their mission in life is to defend the show at all costs.
>
> Of course, most of this is purely subjective and there is no "right" or "wrong" than can actually be proven. But still, the folks I referenced above want to try to prove your OPINION is wrong.
No one is saying you can’t criticize Discovery and Picard. This thread was supposed to be about fans of those shows talking about valid criticisms and some valid criticisms popped up. The problem is when some fans are using those criticisms to invalidate the shows as Trek.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
That is irrational. It is not Trek just because the title says so. An IP relies on using the universe it has built up to be recognizable for what is, demanding consistency, logical, visual, and thematical to actually be believed as some relative of previous incarnations.
If Picard took the Enterprise through a canyon where he needed to line up a photon torpedo on a target ~2m wide, and the ghost of Kirk tells him to "Use the horse, Jean Luc!" whereupon he remembers his time in the Nexus and suddenly gets the idea to beam a horse into the target with the torpedo strapped onto its back, is that Star Trek?
Is it Star Trek if he fights a battle with the [Romulan] Empire who fly new ships that look suspiciously like Star Destroyers, but painted Romulan green? If the Borg queen tells him to witness the power of her fully operational dodecahedron battlestation, previously mistaken for a moon, and then tries to fight him in a photonic saber duel? If a Benzite admiral warns his fleet its a trap as they come into range of said battlestation's main weapon?
Is it Star Trek if temporal investigations uses a Delorean and/or flux capacitor to manage their time travel needs?
Yes, the Millenium Falcon has been in Star Trek for a brief moment, and some of those absurd examples wouldn't be terrible on their own, but put enough of those foreign things into a Star Trek show, and at some point, it adds up to be far too much to actually be Star Trek, but instead is way outside the IP.
People saying this is not Star Trek are saying that because they find it unrecognizable as Star Trek. The themes and icons of Star Trek are not there, or only superficially. Would Picard even be recognizable as a Star Trek show if they changed all the relevant proper names? If JL was Bob, if Seven was Nancy, if Starfleet was Spaceforce, if the Federation was the Unity, if the Romulans were the Illuminatians, would we even be able to tell we were watching a Star Trek inspired show?
Change is not bad. Change is not bad. Change is not bad. TNG made significant changes to Star Trek. TMP made significant changes to Star Trek.
Let’s do a though experiment: Let’s say there’s a very popular Live action show on TV based on Batman. Bruce Wayne in a Bat suit punching criminals. Its so popular that the network wants spinoffs. So here comes a Robin show, a Batgirl show, a Nightwing show, a Batwoman show...all variations on so-and-so putting on a suit and punching criminals. The network says give us another show but do something different. So Commissioner Gordon The Series is created and instead of someone putting on a suit and punching bad guys is a procedural show set in Gotham....does this break the Batman IP?
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
same applies to TNG vs TOS. same applies to DS9.
Commissioner Gordon The Series is alright. Batwoman... eh. I don't know great deal about DC so I don't know if they're breaking their own universe's canon left and right. We all know all fiction has continuity errors. Picard just blows them up like firecrackers without any thought or care. Even the writers can't give a decent explanation to cover up their mess. A better comparison would be something like DS9 (since both have darker themes). Difference is Sisko isn't being blamed for everything and the Federation aren't bunch of speciest hating slavers. There is nothing optimistic about this shows story.
"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway
#Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
Explain that Seth Macfarlane's The Orville. Even though it's a parody with humour it has a lot more in common with Trek values and you can clearly recognise it as such even with the different names, uniforms, ships etc than Picard. Picard has more in common with dystopia sci-fi series, except it's more duller and slower. Its entire premise has more in common with Blade Runner than the Star Trek universe.
"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway
#Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
> (Quote)
>
> Commissioner Gordon The Series is alright. Batwoman... eh. I don't know great deal about DC so I don't know if they're breaking their own universe's canon left and right. We all know all fiction has continuity errors. Picard just blows them up like firecrackers without any thought or care. Even the writers can't give a decent explanation to cover up their mess. A better comparison would be something like DS9 (since both have darker themes). Difference is Sisko isn't being blamed for everything and the Federation aren't bunch of speciest hating slavers. There is nothing optimistic about this shows story.
I used Batman as an example because we are all too close to Star Trek to see it objectively. Why would a show about a disgraced Ex-Starfleet Officer and a crew of non Star fleet officers feel like a show about a crew of Starfleet officers?
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I suspect it's "humor" is about as funny as the rest of McFarlaine's garbage hard pass for me.
My point though is TNG had a lot of marked changes from TOS, DS9 well.. had many of the elements (hell the cardassian space station meant the architechture wasn't even the same) we understood that we where viewing trek through a differant lens. Picard's the same way. yes we're not seeing a picture perfect look at the federation. instead we're seeing the dark under belly. It's worth noting that some of this came as a suprise to Picard who ,like us, really only mostly saw a sanatized view of the galaxy. But as I said, if you actually paid ATTENTION it's pretty clear dating all the way back to TOS, those living on the fringe. Let's take a look at some of this shall we?
1st up.. Star Trek TOS: the episode The Conscience of the King deals with a planetary governer whom ordered half the population of his world murdered, according to his own views on eugenitics to survive a famine. no, "better society" here. just brutality. this was a federation coloney with a federation population, provable by the fact that Kirk was present for the events.
There as no starship conveniantly rolling up to solve the problems people died, the Federation... failed.
But that's just TOS! Surely by TNG with replicators etc it's all better right?!
WRONG!
In TNG our first clue the UFP is fasaar from perfect appers within the back story of Tasha Yar. Tasha grew up on Turkana IV, a failed colony, in the 2330s the planetary government began to break down, we're not told why but generally that type of chaos isn't going to happen in a "perfect society". This saw civil war and societal break down throughout the 2340s... and the federation did JACK ALL. then in the early 2350s the government was removed in a military coup by two factions they had given police powers to. who then removed the world from the federation. All contact with the UFP had been cut by 2350. And when in 2361 a federation ship came they where basicly told anyone beaming down would be killed.
Meanwhile the average life for the people are dodging TRIBBLE gangs and other such things.
The federation failed this world several times OVER. in the 2330s when the government was collapsing, where were starfleet mediators to try and right the ship? where were federation experts providing help.
in the 2340s apparently things got so bad the government had to deputize basicly armed milita gangs in a last ditch effort to restore the peace.. what the hell was starfleet doing? how come they didn't send peace keepers? I mean, no wonder when the coup happened the first thing the powers on planet did was tell starfleet to Go the hell away. they failed that world.. UTTERLY.
And this isn't a one time failure, this is a symptomatic long time failure, I mean at least the situation in Picard has an EXCUSE. The Turkana IV failure is completely and utterly INEXCUSABLE.
but ok, one time TRIBBLE up right? nah the federation continues to TRIBBLE up. let's move onwards.
then there was the Maquis situation. we all know what that was about. forcing colonists to move due to politics. It's pretty clear the colonies wheren't even consulted during the negotiations.
And finally we have the Baku in Star Trek Insurrection. A case where a federation admiral was willing to wholesale move a population, ohh and possiably doom their civilization (as they'd no longer have the metaphasic particles) all to win some health benifits that likely wouldn't supply the entire federation anyway.
So yeah let's not pretend that before Picard the federation was perfect. even if you dismiss the Baku and Maquis, the situation at Turkana IV was an inexcuseable long term TRIBBLE up.
I was referring to insane extremists, not rational people. The rational people can have a discussion with each other, but the you can't with the insane extremists (which are on both "sides", aka the extreme haters and the extreme defenders).
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
> (Quote)
>
> I was referring to insane extremists, not rational people. The rational people can have a discussion with each other, but the you can't with the insane extremists (which are on both "sides", aka the extreme haters and the extreme defenders).
I’ll agree with that
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
The reason for the type of behavior you are describing is because everything has become politicized. Because hollywood is now seeing more diversity both on screen and in the production side (which is a good thing), a certain group of deranged people are going to label all criticism of shows with diverse cast/crew as some form of "ism" or "ist".
10 years ago you could hate the SW prequels Star Trek Enterprise without anyone suggesting you are racist/sexist/etc. However you cannot hate the new SW movies or the new Trek series without a (currently) small but (steadily) GROWING part of the fandom accusing you of those things.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Four of them are all Starfleet affiliated (only two of which aren't). We have already seen ex Starfleet officers before, the Maquis. I think people are having a hard time watching a whole series based around just them. They are polar opposites... Idk.
"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway
#Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
Fine, more Oreville for me.....I like seeing more positive sci fi, and Oreville does it.
Also, I remember a 1998 Red Dwarf tape, which had Pat Stewart, a Red Dwarf fan, introducing it, and he said he wished his time on star Trek could have some more humor in it.
Hell, Red Dwarf feels more positive and optimistic than Trek for the past decade has been. o.o
I wasn't ever fan of Family Guy but the Orville is more funny than Discovery S2 gags.
"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway
#Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
> (Quote)
>
> Four of them are all Starfleet affiliated (only two of which aren't). We have already seen ex Starfleet officers before, the Maquis. I think people are having a hard time watching a whole series based around just them. They are polar opposites... Idk.
Four are Ex-Starfleet
And the Marquis in Voyager quickly became Starfleet in less than a few episodes
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Sure and that is why it worked. People say that the writers chickened out and should have kept the Maquis on Voyager crew as hostile threat/problem. They gradually learned to work and integrate into Starfleet roles which I thought was better as they grew as characters rather than stay as emotionally angry people that blame everyone for their woes 24/7. Could you imagine a starship full of ego eccentric Michael Eddingtons? That go into rants about how TRIBBLE the Federation is and they ruined his life episode after episode. That reminds me of another sci-fi drama show I couldn't stand. "Another Life". At least Picard's crew is more likeable than those on that show.
"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway
#Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
> (Quote)
>
> The reason for the type of behavior you are describing is because everything has become politicized. Because hollywood is now seeing more diversity both on screen and in the production side (which is a good thing), a certain group of deranged people are going to label all criticism of shows with diverse cast/crew as some form of "ism" or "ist".
>
> 10 years ago you could hate the SW prequels Star Trek Enterprise without anyone suggesting you are racist/sexist/etc. However you cannot hate the new SW movies or the new Trek series without a (currently) small but (steadily) GROWING part of the fandom accusing you of those things.
I know I’m on the other side of the Discovery argument but I’ve not seen anyone get called racist/sexist/etc for not liking the show. This thread is on its 5th page and no one has called anyone racist/sexist/etc for not liking the shows. I lurk over at the Reddit boards and I don’t see it over there either.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
> > @thegrandnagus1 said:
> > (Quote)
> >
> > The reason for the type of behavior you are describing is because everything has become politicized. Because hollywood is now seeing more diversity both on screen and in the production side (which is a good thing), a certain group of deranged people are going to label all criticism of shows with diverse cast/crew as some form of "ism" or "ist".
> >
> > 10 years ago you could hate the SW prequels Star Trek Enterprise without anyone suggesting you are racist/sexist/etc. However you cannot hate the new SW movies or the new Trek series without a (currently) small but (steadily) GROWING part of the fandom accusing you of those things.
>
> I know I’m on the other side of the Discovery argument but I’ve not seen anyone get called racist/sexist/etc for not liking the show. This thread is on its 5th page and no one has called anyone racist/sexist/etc for not liking the shows. I lurk over at the Reddit boards and I don’t see it over there either.
>
The people he is talking about usually reside on Twitter. Twitter is a cesspool for people who feel the need to try and appear more virtuous by attacking any dissenters like a rabid dog. Twitter can be used for reasonable discussion sometimes but it's pretty infamous for the rabid fans of any ip or thing that live there.(K pop fans are the best example)
I have not seen anyone directly calling another forum goer racist or sexist on the forum, but I have seen a handful of times where someone implied that people only disliked discovery or the star wars sequels because they were sexist. Never any direct attacks just generalizations.
Hey everyone has different tastes. I noticed your quote of Star Trek V and that according to most people I meet dislike that movie the most out of all of TMP era films. I thought it was pretty fun but it definitely could have been done better. I like parts of Discovery. Not biggest fan of Burnham and I wished they didn't murder Michelle Yeoh character (yes they brought back the evil version of her back but I feel robbed of getting a potential cool captain). I would have much rather have had Yeoh & Saru as first officer. I like most of the Federation ship designs of Discovery (minus the pew pew pew pew lasers, because beams look cooler in Trek) The overly long nacelles remind me of the Excelsior-class which I kind of like.
Klingons are dreadful. Wasn't a fan of either their extremely unnecessary redesign costumes/looks or their generic alien of the day ships that don't remotly connect to past designs. At least when you look at Fed ships you can recognise them.
"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway
#Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
Nobody saying it was perfect (unless you're Gene Roddenberry). There is nothing wrong with conflict or dark moments in a story. Like you said we get examples of bad people or corrupt/misguided admirals. You're missing the point that every episode that had those things still had optimism in the end or throughout the episode. Picard is missing that one ingredient. Having every follow up episode grim and dark all the time with no cheer isn't at all like Trek.
"When diplomacy fails, there's only one alternative - violence. Force must be applied without apology. It's the Starfleet way." - Captain Janeway
#Support Mirror Universe I.S.S. Prefixes
> (Quote)
>
> Hey everyone has different tastes. I noticed your quote of Star Trek V and that according to most people I meet dislike that movie the most out of all of TMP era films. I thought it was pretty fun but it definitely could have been done better. I like parts of Discovery. Not biggest fan of Burnham and I wished they didn't murder Michelle Yeoh character (yes they brought back the evil version of her back but I feel robbed of getting a potential cool captain). I would have much rather have had Yeoh & Saru as first officer. I like most of the Federation ship designs of Discovery (minus the pew pew pew pew lasers, because beams look cooler in Trek) The overly long nacelles remind me of the Excelsior-class which I kind of like.
>
> Klingons are dreadful. Wasn't a fan of either their extremely unnecessary redesign costumes/looks or their generic alien of the day ships that don't remotly connect to past designs. At least when you look at Fed ships you can recognise them.
I quote that movie ironically. It’s not my fave. WOK, UC and STID are my top three in any order based on my mood.
The funny part is a lot of your views are the same as mine. I like Discovery. I can take or leave Michael. I’m more of a fan of the other characters. Her presence doesn’t make or break the show for me. Yeah the Klingons are a misstep but I’m not bothered by it because the first Klingons I saw were men with shoe polish on their faces.
I guess I’m a weird Trek fan because I think we’ve had six shows about a Starfleet crew and captain and there’s a part of me that wants to see what the other people are doing. Who investigates crime in the federation? What does Starfleet Intelligence do? What would a show based around a Harry Mudd type character be like? Star Trek Picard scratches a lot of those itches on showing us something other than another Starfleet ship.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
The world would be a much better place if Twitter's servers was nuked from orbit. I expect vile comments coming from a place like 4chan where users are protected through the shadow of anonymity not where everyone can see who posted a certain vile comment. It is as if these people are addicted to the attention created by posting extreme comments that they would never say face to face.
Unfortunately we have not all been so lucky as to not see it.
My post was not a reply to "this thread" in general, it was a direct reply to the post I quoted. And that post was asking why they have been called "nasty names" for not liking this show. While this thread has not yet experienced that (that I have seen), that is sadly not the case on every forum and platform.
Again, unfortunately we have not all been as lucky as you. I too read reddit quite a bit and when discovery first aired you could not make a valid criticism against the character of Burnham without someone suggesting it had to do without her race or gender or both.
To be clear, I never said that type of comment represented the majority of the fandom. But that group of people IS growing like a cancer.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008