I hope they spend all their money on this show only to loose money, they probably won't. Star trek just isn't the show it use to be, unfortunately these companies don't cater to my tastes anymore which is why I've just simply moved on to other companies who do. But eventually they too will focus too much on attention grabbing drama and action with fast paced quick shots very few moments of tension as everything moves quickly as possible with little to no pauses. Not enough on exploring morality in a mixture of personal and cultural conflicts, while giving hope in the face of adversity.
It's fine that people like nutrek, but it isn't the same show no matter how much people say it is. If I called Marv the martian cartoon, star trek: mars that would not make it trek, extreme example I know but the fact stands that the differences are so great it's hard for me to call them star trek. It isn't about something truly being trek, its just simply a matter of them taking the franchise and making it a different genre that I don't like or can relate to the rest of the trek franchise.
I have to agree with jonsills here. Word choice is everything in a text only environment.
My 2 ECs on that. Ready to move on.
The statement "the writing is bad" or anything in a similar vein is an opinion. It doesn't matter if they say "it is unarguable fact, the writing is bad." It is still an opinion, by definition.
I am not questioning intent. I am just pointing out that not everyone will get the intended intent of the words and view them at face value. With some people you really do have to highlight what you mean by stating something is an opinion or not, otherwise they may view it quite literally.
Lets say someone comes into the forums who's never been here before and sees something about "the writing is terrible". How will they interpret that? Some rational people may recognize that since this is a forum there are a wide array of opinions and treat that statement as one. No problem. However there are others who may view it as a statement of fact, and be discouraged.
And unfortunately we know there are people who will believe it as a statement of fact. Hell... we STILL have people saying ViL was cut short in some conspiracy to push Discovery content. Those are opinions, but the people who keep bringing it up are pushing it as fact when it sure as hell is not. Its been debunked so many times by the Devs themselves.
So yes... word choice matters if you want your intent behind words to come through clearly.
> @smokebailey said:
> (Quote)
>
> This is how Hollywood works, now. Get fired for wrecking a series, and keep the same job, or get a better one.
> Politicians, weather forecasters and bad TV/Movie producers are those folks who never seem to get fired for TRIBBLE up.
>
> (Image)
You missed the point, its clear Star Trek is thriving and the forecasts of doom were BS.
What "forecasts of doom"? Except for Angrytarg's joke no one said anything about doom and gloom in the thread so far.
Smoky didn't take it as a joke, though. It was treated as though Kurtzman staying on was something terrible; of course, Smoky loves to give unsourced claims to the effect that Trek is "too intellectual" for Kurtzman, so...
Actually Kurtzman does say that Star Trek was too intellectual, just a few weeks ago while rummaging around YouTube and other video sources I saw a behind the scenes clip where he said it. Like Abrams, Kurtzman is more for action, eye candy, and simple linear plots that highlight the stunts and SFX.
To be fair, Kurtzman is not the first person to make that complaint, NBC executives said exactly the same thing numerous times about TOS during its run and pushed for more fights (and movie critics later made the same criticism about TMP). They wanted it to be more like a "wild west" show despite the fact that Wagon Train, the most popular western of the time (and the one Roddenberry used to sell NBC on Star Trek in the first place) had the least amount of gratuitous violence and bar fights of any of the westerns airing around that time.
That said, CBS turning Star Trek into a shallow diet version of action movies like Fast and Furious (or the Kelvin Trek stuff) and either ignoring or misunderstanding the older Treks (Kurtzman does both at various times, and even talks about "you have to ignore the old to make something good" or words to that effect) is not the way you add to a story that has been going on for fifty years. It is no wonder that fans of the older shows often see Discovery as a kind of back-door reboot (and even a slap in the face in the case of the purists), and why people say Moonves ordered a Star Trek series meant for people who hate Star Trek.
Look up video interviews of Kurtzman and watch his body language as he talks. It is plain that he does not understand Star Trek and does not really know why the core Trek fans have so many problems with DSC. And to properly change something you really do need to understand it first.
Also, contrast DSC with Lower Decks where the creative staff do understand it, there is a huge difference.
The attitude of Trek being too intellectual, goes back to the late '60s...and has persisted to this present day. A former Tv Show on NBC called KINGS, showed on Sunday nights, early 2000's, was cancelled for being too smart for the same tv audiences. This mindset has been alive throughout the entertainment industry for a long time, and it has not changed.
As for AK, he got paid on the cheap, 25.7 million dollars for 5 years contract if that correct. SH was created in 2014, and was given the reins back then, to a 40's-year-old something franchise, a studio that no previous experience on making anything else.
The cheapness of AK, is quietly apparent, stating that the trek they are managing now is a platform (On video too).
As for this Nu-Trek doing well, I don't see the numbers of that happening, in fact those numbers are hidden, except when some numbers come out, from different areas outside the American market. And they mostly ratings, but for profit...nada.
So, at some point would we be able to see a Good decent Trek down the road? That will take a miracle, of epic proportions for that to happen. But as long you have those who think we the majority should not be treated with respect, and just want our money...well, how that doing now?
lol, in my country we still don't have season 1 of Discovery, Picard or Lower Decks.
Not a single episode is available to stream anywhere either, cause of region restrictions..
Seems just like most of the Star Trek Online contests, new Star Trek is for North America only...
Besides Netflick & Amazon having international access, as far it is known, no other foreign Tv country has pick it up, maybe because of the license fees *too much cost, or they have paid attention to the ratings and see it is not worth the expense*
Lower Decks had a two-year advance before release and didn't nail down any deals. They say they are still working on it. But nothing yet.
Judging by how long it took Trekkies to warm up to TNG...Season 3 of Disco should be the one to change people’s minds.
I watched it, and felt nothing, had no expectations, just let myself be a blank slate and wanted to see if the season opener will intrigue me.
It will probably work for someone who doesn't know the entire lore of Trek, I read how great visually it was, it was awesome, looks good, etc, etc...but in those reviews I didn't see anything mostly on how great the story to many, well...a few spoke on the latter part on meeting that official at the Fed station. But those were minumum among the accolades that lauded the visual look more, than the story itself.
That is not balance from what I witness, if that the formula they are going to use going forward...then this show will not be remembered well. And yes, the previous Treks did take time to find their audience back then, but those shows did not outright insult with careless writing, crazy visuals and whatever else. They learnt from feedback and listening to the fans.
What rails against Discovery, Picard and maybe LD, it is the history before them, a comparsion measuring stick, and the goal should be, you should surpass them in all levels.
Um... who's saying anyone's at fault? All I'm saying is that some people might take things the wrong way. That's it.
ViL was not cut short. The Devs themselves have said it. Yet some people insist that the Devs are lying and basically saying that is proof. It is derrived from a dislike, moving into outright hatred, of Discovery. Their opinion is they don't like Discovery. They're using that to try and push ViL being cut short as fact. Problem is the Devs themselves, the people MAKING the game, have debunked that. But still... this belief persists because reasons.
The problem is these days its hard to decern fact from fiction, and sometimes fact from opinion. Especially on forums. We live in a world where "alternative facts" were legitimized by a certain politician, and anything that doesn't follow the "alternative facts" is "fake news".
Honestly this is a highly volitile subject, open to a WIDE range of interpretations. Being clear on intent is rather important to avoid misunderstandings.
Um... who's saying anyone's at fault? All I'm saying is that some people might take things the wrong way. That's it.
ViL was not cut short. The Devs themselves have said it. Yet some people insist that the Devs are lying and basically saying that is proof. It is derrived from a dislike, moving into outright hatred, of Discovery. Their opinion is they don't like Discovery. They're using that to try and push ViL being cut short as fact. Problem is the Devs themselves, the people MAKING the game, have debunked that. But still... this belief persists because reasons.
The problem is these days its hard to decern fact from fiction, and sometimes fact from opinion. Especially on forums. We live in a world where "alternative facts" were legitimized by a certain politician, and anything that doesn't follow the "alternative facts" is "fake news".
Honestly this is a highly volitile subject, open to a WIDE range of interpretations. Being clear on intent is rather important to avoid misunderstandings.
Captain Picard, does he deserve to be the captain of the Enterprise? Should he even be a Starfleet captain at all?
He has endured severe mental stress after being assimilated by the Borg and captured by the Cardassians and subjected to mental torture. What are the effects of this?
Captain Picard believes he has unique attention from an omnipotent being that is responsible for all sorts of mischief. Captain Picard believes he experienced a lifetime on a dying planet that sent a probe the Enterprise later found. Captain Picard was involved in deliberately using his command codes to attempt to disable the Enterprise in the service of a hostile force. Captain Picard nearly started a war because he struggled to understand the cultural importance of historical events to a foreign culture. Captain Picard also deliberately violated the Romulan neutral zone with Klingon allies in tow, which could have caused a massive war across the quadrant!
It makes you wonder what side he's really on, doesn't it? Is this the man we want as our chief diplomat and representative of the Federation?
***
What did I just do there? It is an opinion, one backed up with facts, but not all the facts. One could say there are facts missing, alternative facts (as dumb as that phrase is.) But it happens to be the same sort of tactic people in the legacy media (and elsewhere) use to deliberately portray a biased and incomplete narrative.
Now I'm not trying to get political here at all, but I need to prove a point. Like or hate Orange Man, there is a serious problem with Fake News, and it didn't start with Orange Man, either. There are repeated, provable and blatant lies about him and continuous unprovable nonsense from anonymous sources. And you can still find plenty of reasons to dislike him without the lies. One of the easiest ones to completely debunk is the Charlottesville "very fine people on both sides" lie, a lie that has been repeated for over 3 years now. All one has to do is watch that section of the press conference in full, or read the transcript to see what the Orange Man actually said. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/
The point I'm making here is simple. You can complain about someone having a hard time discerning opinion from truth, but there are many many people out there who make a living on deliberately obfuscating the two if not explicitly lying, banking on your trust in them to buy the lie. You can't train your mind to see when that is happening if you demand normal people to be explicit with their opinions and facts because there are many people who deliberately blur that line.
I will not change the way I present my opinions for anyone. If they are unsure it is an opinion, they are more than welcome to ask. But if they take it as fact because I didn't use certain key words to signify an opinion, and have no interest in seeking out alternative information, that doesn't bode well for them IRL.
Ok now I'm confused.
I'm not shaming anyone. If that's how I'm coming across I apologize because that was not my intent.
And when I brought up the fact vs fiction comparison to fact vs opinion, I was trying to highlight how things can be hard to tell apart.
Right now in the US, our Tangerine in Chief keeps claiming that we're turning things around against Corona. His opinion is being colored by his belief in a false narritive, as the science actually says things are getting worse. And he lashes out against anyone who contradicts him, calling them fake and acting like he knows more than the experts.
It muddies the water.
Like I said, this is a volitile subject.
And perhaps... we should probably end this discussion because things are getting a bit too heated. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But at the same time... probably should be clear that it is an opinion to avoid misunderstandings that cause long drawn out fights.
Then again we got people who just don't care and want to viciously defend their stance. Not trying to nail you cold. I'm just remembering the hate of Enterprise, Kelvin Timeline, and even Discovery that came up in the past. It was just... it got ugly.
Well you brought up "Fake news" as if it isn't a real thing. It very much is. Whether it is about Orange Man, from Orange Man, about the CCP virus or anything else, fake news is a real issue.
As Mark Twain said a long time ago, "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you're misinformed." Some things just never change, which is why people have to learn to read things and develop a BS detector, as well as look for alternative news sources. And that includes understanding when things are opinions, not relying on people to tell you that.
As a 90s boy it fascinated me to learn that TNG was a maligned new Trek once and it put a lot of my opinions into perspective. I dislike the Kelvin universe films and I'm at peace with that. Discovery struggled at the start but the back half of season 1 turned things around (hail the empress) and I've not looked back. I love love loved Picard (90stalgia I guess) and while sceptical at first I thoroughly enjoyed Lower Decks. Prodigy I'm not sure about because I'm 30 next year and it may not be meant for me but god help me more Janeway is exciting so who knows. SNW is very exciting which surprises me a little because I dont care for TOS.
I'm ok with what we've got and what we're going to get. I wasnt always and espoused my share of vitriol I confess.
To keep the game canon too most people missed the fact that the whole temporal angle of discovery was meant for STO. What that means is whatever it was that destroyed all the dilithium has leaked back in the time continuum and destroyed all dilithium thus resetting the dilithium exchange rate. So by the season finale of discovery all your dilithium will explode. Then Fed side will start getting marauding contraband missions too for their couriers. It was all an elaborate ruse to destroy the games economy and you can thank Kurtzman for that.
To keep the game canon too most people missed the fact that the whole temporal angle of discovery was meant for STO. What that means is whatever it was that destroyed all the dilithium has leaked back in the time continuum and destroyed all dilithium thus resetting the dilithium exchange rate. So by the season finale of discovery all your dilithium will explode. Then Fed side will start getting marauding contraband missions too for their couriers. It was all an elaborate ruse to destroy the games economy and you can thank Kurtzman for that.
I find your concepts interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
The more Trek the better, new season of Discovery has been great so far and I can't wait for 'Strange New Worlds' and the next season of Lower Decks. I love it all.. TOS to Discovery.. keep it coming.
To keep the game canon too most people missed the fact that the whole temporal angle of discovery was meant for STO. What that means is whatever it was that destroyed all the dilithium has leaked back in the time continuum and destroyed all dilithium thus resetting the dilithium exchange rate. So by the season finale of discovery all your dilithium will explode. Then Fed side will start getting marauding contraband missions too for their couriers. It was all an elaborate ruse to destroy the games economy and you can thank Kurtzman for that.
So the temporal ban was also meant for STO to prevent us from getting 32nd Century ships? It also explains why we received 29th Century and 31st Century ships in the first place.
Comments
It's fine that people like nutrek, but it isn't the same show no matter how much people say it is. If I called Marv the martian cartoon, star trek: mars that would not make it trek, extreme example I know but the fact stands that the differences are so great it's hard for me to call them star trek. It isn't about something truly being trek, its just simply a matter of them taking the franchise and making it a different genre that I don't like or can relate to the rest of the trek franchise.
The statement "the writing is bad" or anything in a similar vein is an opinion. It doesn't matter if they say "it is unarguable fact, the writing is bad." It is still an opinion, by definition.
Lets say someone comes into the forums who's never been here before and sees something about "the writing is terrible". How will they interpret that? Some rational people may recognize that since this is a forum there are a wide array of opinions and treat that statement as one. No problem. However there are others who may view it as a statement of fact, and be discouraged.
And unfortunately we know there are people who will believe it as a statement of fact. Hell... we STILL have people saying ViL was cut short in some conspiracy to push Discovery content. Those are opinions, but the people who keep bringing it up are pushing it as fact when it sure as hell is not. Its been debunked so many times by the Devs themselves.
So yes... word choice matters if you want your intent behind words to come through clearly.
The attitude of Trek being too intellectual, goes back to the late '60s...and has persisted to this present day. A former Tv Show on NBC called KINGS, showed on Sunday nights, early 2000's, was cancelled for being too smart for the same tv audiences. This mindset has been alive throughout the entertainment industry for a long time, and it has not changed.
As for AK, he got paid on the cheap, 25.7 million dollars for 5 years contract if that correct. SH was created in 2014, and was given the reins back then, to a 40's-year-old something franchise, a studio that no previous experience on making anything else.
The cheapness of AK, is quietly apparent, stating that the trek they are managing now is a platform (On video too).
As for this Nu-Trek doing well, I don't see the numbers of that happening, in fact those numbers are hidden, except when some numbers come out, from different areas outside the American market. And they mostly ratings, but for profit...nada.
So, at some point would we be able to see a Good decent Trek down the road? That will take a miracle, of epic proportions for that to happen. But as long you have those who think we the majority should not be treated with respect, and just want our money...well, how that doing now?
Besides Netflick & Amazon having international access, as far it is known, no other foreign Tv country has pick it up, maybe because of the license fees *too much cost, or they have paid attention to the ratings and see it is not worth the expense*
Lower Decks had a two-year advance before release and didn't nail down any deals. They say they are still working on it. But nothing yet.
I watched it, and felt nothing, had no expectations, just let myself be a blank slate and wanted to see if the season opener will intrigue me.
It will probably work for someone who doesn't know the entire lore of Trek, I read how great visually it was, it was awesome, looks good, etc, etc...but in those reviews I didn't see anything mostly on how great the story to many, well...a few spoke on the latter part on meeting that official at the Fed station. But those were minumum among the accolades that lauded the visual look more, than the story itself.
That is not balance from what I witness, if that the formula they are going to use going forward...then this show will not be remembered well. And yes, the previous Treks did take time to find their audience back then, but those shows did not outright insult with careless writing, crazy visuals and whatever else. They learnt from feedback and listening to the fans.
What rails against Discovery, Picard and maybe LD, it is the history before them, a comparsion measuring stick, and the goal should be, you should surpass them in all levels.
So far, the former mentions...are not doing that.
ViL was not cut short. The Devs themselves have said it. Yet some people insist that the Devs are lying and basically saying that is proof. It is derrived from a dislike, moving into outright hatred, of Discovery. Their opinion is they don't like Discovery. They're using that to try and push ViL being cut short as fact. Problem is the Devs themselves, the people MAKING the game, have debunked that. But still... this belief persists because reasons.
The problem is these days its hard to decern fact from fiction, and sometimes fact from opinion. Especially on forums. We live in a world where "alternative facts" were legitimized by a certain politician, and anything that doesn't follow the "alternative facts" is "fake news".
Honestly this is a highly volitile subject, open to a WIDE range of interpretations. Being clear on intent is rather important to avoid misunderstandings.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Yes...it looks to be so.
Tends to happen a lot on these forums.
Captain Picard, does he deserve to be the captain of the Enterprise? Should he even be a Starfleet captain at all?
He has endured severe mental stress after being assimilated by the Borg and captured by the Cardassians and subjected to mental torture. What are the effects of this?
Captain Picard believes he has unique attention from an omnipotent being that is responsible for all sorts of mischief. Captain Picard believes he experienced a lifetime on a dying planet that sent a probe the Enterprise later found. Captain Picard was involved in deliberately using his command codes to attempt to disable the Enterprise in the service of a hostile force. Captain Picard nearly started a war because he struggled to understand the cultural importance of historical events to a foreign culture. Captain Picard also deliberately violated the Romulan neutral zone with Klingon allies in tow, which could have caused a massive war across the quadrant!
It makes you wonder what side he's really on, doesn't it? Is this the man we want as our chief diplomat and representative of the Federation?
***
What did I just do there? It is an opinion, one backed up with facts, but not all the facts. One could say there are facts missing, alternative facts (as dumb as that phrase is.) But it happens to be the same sort of tactic people in the legacy media (and elsewhere) use to deliberately portray a biased and incomplete narrative.
Now I'm not trying to get political here at all, but I need to prove a point. Like or hate Orange Man, there is a serious problem with Fake News, and it didn't start with Orange Man, either. There are repeated, provable and blatant lies about him and continuous unprovable nonsense from anonymous sources. And you can still find plenty of reasons to dislike him without the lies. One of the easiest ones to completely debunk is the Charlottesville "very fine people on both sides" lie, a lie that has been repeated for over 3 years now. All one has to do is watch that section of the press conference in full, or read the transcript to see what the Orange Man actually said. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/
The point I'm making here is simple. You can complain about someone having a hard time discerning opinion from truth, but there are many many people out there who make a living on deliberately obfuscating the two if not explicitly lying, banking on your trust in them to buy the lie. You can't train your mind to see when that is happening if you demand normal people to be explicit with their opinions and facts because there are many people who deliberately blur that line.
I will not change the way I present my opinions for anyone. If they are unsure it is an opinion, they are more than welcome to ask. But if they take it as fact because I didn't use certain key words to signify an opinion, and have no interest in seeking out alternative information, that doesn't bode well for them IRL.
I'm not shaming anyone. If that's how I'm coming across I apologize because that was not my intent.
And when I brought up the fact vs fiction comparison to fact vs opinion, I was trying to highlight how things can be hard to tell apart.
Right now in the US, our Tangerine in Chief keeps claiming that we're turning things around against Corona. His opinion is being colored by his belief in a false narritive, as the science actually says things are getting worse. And he lashes out against anyone who contradicts him, calling them fake and acting like he knows more than the experts.
It muddies the water.
Like I said, this is a volitile subject.
And perhaps... we should probably end this discussion because things are getting a bit too heated. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But at the same time... probably should be clear that it is an opinion to avoid misunderstandings that cause long drawn out fights.
Then again we got people who just don't care and want to viciously defend their stance. Not trying to nail you cold. I'm just remembering the hate of Enterprise, Kelvin Timeline, and even Discovery that came up in the past. It was just... it got ugly.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Ah. Is there a list anywhere with community moderators?
In all seriousness though guys; leave it. Just leave it. This is going way past debate or expressions of opinion.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
And the current two are darkblade and wingedhussar.
As Mark Twain said a long time ago, "If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you're misinformed." Some things just never change, which is why people have to learn to read things and develop a BS detector, as well as look for alternative news sources. And that includes understanding when things are opinions, not relying on people to tell you that.
I'm ok with what we've got and what we're going to get. I wasnt always and espoused my share of vitriol I confess.
I find your concepts interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
The more Trek the better, new season of Discovery has been great so far and I can't wait for 'Strange New Worlds' and the next season of Lower Decks. I love it all.. TOS to Discovery.. keep it coming.
So the temporal ban was also meant for STO to prevent us from getting 32nd Century ships? It also explains why we received 29th Century and 31st Century ships in the first place.