You can argue differences in presentation between different iterations of the franchise or even different episodes within the same series, but you can not argue that TOS, or any other show under the Trek umbrella, did not include social commentary.
There are a lot of potential problems with presenting certain material, however, and a bad writer may struggle with presenting subtle analogies or nuanced ideas.
Complaining about the tone of the show? Fair game as far as I am concerned. Trek was always, up until recently anyway, a positive show about how mankind has elevated themselves.
These new shows are a step away and a step back from what Trek was as recently as Enterprise. No longer family friendly, and the people do not at all seem elevated, or at least they choose their times to show it.
Those rumors of an R-rated Tarantino Trek movie seemed like an absurd joke to me.
But now?
Tarantino could direct an episode of Disco in an uncompromising Tarantino style and it would probably fit right in.
Might even be a step-up in comparison to the rest of the episodes.
Not at all my cup of tea.
Not that I automatically dislike violence or certain language in movies, but there is a time and place and for me? Trek ain't it.
To be fair, there was gruesome violence in older Trek too. I remember Voyager episodes where the Borg Queen was having a Borg drone's head being taken apart.
Seeing a part of Seven's head including a separated eye being analysed by Kim and Chakotay (in that one episode where they went back in time to prevent a crash after using the slipstream drive) wasn't such a pleasant thing to see either when I was young.
gotta enjoy the banter here. funny how it mimics a bar discussion with all people 3 to 4 drinks in and the topic takes main stage.
all yall, including myself, will have a stance that may agree with some, but most likely will not be on par with others. and thats ok. i take all aspects and digest what one says, but that doesnt mean i agree nor side with them, but i will agree they have the right to express it.
we all grew up in different worlds (no literally, as we are all on Earth...or are we?) which has shaped our perceptions, likes, dislikes, acceptances, good, bad, and so on.
as for the shows, trek itself has touched many on many topics of interest which will vary with intensity from one person to another.
but alas, i do enjoy seeing people present PoVs none the less. quite intriguing to say the least.
now, to the topic...
id like to see a trek show about the less heard of blood, sweat, and tears, type service to the federation, klinks, and so on. we all enjoy the hero, cape wearing crew, but im with the OP and others that, dammit, lets get some real people in a trek universe for a change. ones where CPTs dont always go on the away team, where number ones die, where adventure leads to discovery but at what cost, etc...where diplomacy can fail, where mini wars erupt due to inability to come to terms or even being able to talk to one another...and so on...more reality and less superhero BS.
peace out.
Responding mostly to the part in italics: yes, that would be nice. I guess the main challenge would be to do all that and still keep the show optimistic, as most people rightly wish Trek to be.
id like to see a trek show about the less heard of blood, sweat, and tears, type service to the federation, klinks, and so on. we all enjoy the hero, cape wearing crew, but im with the OP and others that, dammit, lets get some real people in a trek universe for a change. ones where CPTs dont always go on the away team, where number ones die, where adventure leads to discovery but at what cost, etc...where diplomacy can fail, where mini wars erupt due to inability to come to terms or even being able to talk to one another...and so on...more reality and less superhero BS.
peace out.
I don't think that Trek is a great setting for "realistic".
Space Above and Beyond lasted all of 23 episodes including the pilot. One season. Rated well on IMDB, with no show below a 7.0 (I know, not exactly a perfect measure of show quality, but it's all subjective anyway) but the network didn't want more.
Too expensive? Maybe. But FX can be well done today on the cheap, and a budget-conscious producer can push the writers to keep costs in mind as well, maybe with a trusted staff that can go over finished scripts and clean up unnecessary expenses.
But to me, that is the sort of world best suited for this type of thing.
Even Star Wars, if they can find some competent writers, could do this sort of thing, but they have to keep the force users away from the action while maintaining the feel of Star Wars.
Not every franchise can be, or should even try to be, all things to all people.
I do think there's a HUGE difference between autopsy and vivisection. The Borg Drone was dead. Seven was dead...torturing Icheb by pulling his eye out and cutting his Borg optic nerve was obscene. They never should have done that.
I do genuinely miss the Eutopia that was TNG. Yeah, they had hardships, but for the most part...it was an optimistic and nice place to live.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
I do think there's a HUGE difference between autopsy and vivisection. The Borg Drone was dead. Seven was dead...torturing Icheb by pulling his eye out and cutting his Borg optic nerve was obscene. They never should have done that.
I do genuinely miss the Eutopia that was TNG. Yeah, they had hardships, but for the most part...it was an optimistic and nice place to live.
I must admit, I looked away during that scene as I had already heard and read that there would be some very unpleasant things on the screen regarding Icheb.
I was mostly writing my post while keeping the beheading of that one Romulan in mind.
All that being said though, yes. I agree that there shouldn't be so much gore in Trek. Just saying that I also wished there was less of it in some other Trek shows. I'm just not a fan of such things, at all.
Besides, grimdark and violent IS the current trend. Being an actual optimistic outlook on the future would make Trek stand out (again)
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Someone should have sent the regressives a note. 20 years on, and you just figured it out? 55 years on and they, "allowed" PoC in the cast on TOS. Is this a satirical thread?
As for "grimdark" or "reality" I guess you missed that too. Consider TOS Doomsday Machine or Immunity Syndrome. Whole starship crews lost in the line of duty. Commodore Decker clearly affected by "shellshock" (Now identified as PTSD). It's a poor audience that requires the visceral depictions of death on screen. At the time of the broadcasts television code wouldn't allow it, but the weight of those acts, the price was there to see.
Adults can process violence, on screen and in real life, but they don't relish it like a pack of vicarious ghouls so thick they need someone to connect the dots for them.
The people who call it "woke" say that because they feel Burnham is a "Mary Sue", or because they don't like how prominent characters like Stamets, Dr Culber, Adira, and Gray are and feel that that "isn't Trek" even though Star Trek has ALWAYS celebrated diversity since the very beginning.
I cannot speak for everyone, however for me personally this statement is not only ignorant, it is utterly and completely wrong and could not be farther from the truth. I have absolutely no issue with women, women of color or LGBTQ characters on the show. I welcome them. I completely agree those who do take issue with these things are ignorant and quite frankly do not understand the history of Star Trek.
What I do take offense to is how the worst (not best) parts of these modern "woke" agendas are being integrated into Star Trek to make it more grimdark and pervert the sense of optimism and hope for a better future into something dark and dismal.
I watched a video recently that gave a few good examples of this. Compare and contrast how Reg Barclay was treated by the crew on TNG versus how Edward was treated in the short Trek "The Trouble with Edward". Despite his awkwardness, Picard encouraged his crew to get to know Barclay, find a way to help him make a positive contribution and work with him. This ultimately worked and the crew were able to bring out the best in Barclay who became one of the most valued crew members. Contrast this with how the character of Edward Larkin was treated by his Captain. He was basically shown to be useless, irredeemable and berated. He is not worth the effort and it is easier to just get rid of him than to work with him. This is a more modern take in that one character has to be torn down to elevate another.
Another is contrasting how artificial life was treated and respected in episodes like TNG in "Measure of a Man" and Voyager "Author, Author". Contrast this with how poorly androids/synths are treated in Picard. You could also look at how Seven of Nine went from wanting to preserve and protect life to mindlessly blowing people away on Picard.
These changes are not improvements nor are they Star Trek to me personally. This is not something that is unique to Star Trek either. Many of films and television programs today are affected by this.
It is truly unfortunate to see in my opinion. You are welcome to disagree.
"Woke" and "grimdark" are two different things, "woke" is the term people use when they dislike inclusive casting and storylines while "grimdark" refers to the tone of the story simply being dark in tone with few (if any) light hearted moments. I personally prefer the "grimdark" style myself because it helps build tension and suspense, and I disagree that it lacks hope and optimism. The hope comes from the characters' refusal to give up no matter how bad things get, and the optimism comes when they ultimately prevail. Strange New Worlds will probably be a lot less dark since it's going to be episodic rather than serialized, so it'll be interesting to see how the "NuTrek Bad" crowd responds to that (based on the interactions I've had on Twitter I'm sure they'll find SOMETHING to cling to as a reason to hate the show).
And just to be clear I do not blindly love all of the new Trek shows, Picard season 1 was way too slow and the beginning of Discovery had me sitting in the front row of the hate train for MANY reasons (I still don't like the Burnham character due to her actions in the pilot, that was simply unforgivable and anyone who did that should never be allowed out of prison again). I've enjoyed Discovery from about the middle of season 1 until now though, and Picard had just enough in it to make me hopeful that season 2 will be better.
Were you to have read my complete post and subsequent follow ups, this would be abundantly clear.
I DID read them, but explaining your reasoning doesn't make your opinion correct. To be clear though, I was never trying to accuse YOU of being anti-inclusion or anything like that, in your case I think you are simply misusing the "woke" label.
The first time I remember seeing people refer to something as "woke" was in reference to the all female Ghostbusters reboot, a movie I wouldn't consider to be grimdark in any way, and every subsequent time I've seen people complain about "woke" movies has involved something with prominent female or minority casting, such as Terminator: Dark Fate and the female Doctor Who, with complainers often using the phrase "get woke go broke" to suggest that such things can't make a profit.
* I'm not trying to say any of the above mentioned movies or shows are good, I'm only describing the "woke" complaints I've seen frequently online. I could write a ten page essay on all the things I dislike about the 2016 Ghostbusters movie but gender and race were not the problem, however elaborating further would risk derailing the thread even more than it already has.
...Enterprise had been say a crappy old frigate like the Franklin? Instead of Earth's first blah, blah, blah, Enterprise could have been a regular old Starfleet vessel, which has such amazing adventures that it made the name worth carrying down in history.
I suppose I'm just pining for a series that feels like Star Trek made me feeling when I was growing up, but without all the bells and whistles and CGI and political correctness gone made and really enjoyable...oh and episodic once more.
Describes exactly how I felt about TNG in 1987 after being a TOS fan for 18+ years (first saw an episode in 1969 on NBC; I was 6.)
The 'new' (at the time) series didn't look/feel like the Star Trek I loved at all.
(Amazing how patterns seem to repeat themselvbes, eh? )
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
...Enterprise had been say a crappy old frigate like the Franklin? Instead of Earth's first blah, blah, blah, Enterprise could have been a regular old Starfleet vessel, which has such amazing adventures that it made the name worth carrying down in history.
I suppose I'm just pining for a series that feels like Star Trek made me feeling when I was growing up, but without all the bells and whistles and CGI and political correctness gone made and really enjoyable...oh and episodic once more.
Describes exactly how I felt about TNG in 1987 after being a TOS fan for 18+ years (first saw an episode in 1969 on NBC; I was 6.)
The 'new' (at the time) series didn't look/feel like the Star Trek I loved at all.
(Amazing how patterns seem to repeat themselvbes, eh? )
Until. My. Grave...and actually beyond, I'll never look on Disco with anything other than distaste.
I couldn't have started watching TNG at a better time, because my very first episode was Conundrum...so I didn't know he was an imposter! Voyager...when I saw Caretaker on cassette in my local video shop, I thought it was just a new Enterprise...I had no idea what I was about to be propelled into.
I know that a lot of time passed between the last episode of Voyager and now...ENT I was always uncomfortable with, because they weren't comfortable being in the past of everything that came before, but at least it felt authentic.
Disco...it's producer-driven, millennial political correctness gone madness. It's rating baiting, not anything pleasant...retrospectively, it'll never be pleasant or fondly remembered. If anything...it'll just make every Trek that came before it more beloved, including to new viewers of the franchise.
...Enterprise had been say a crappy old frigate like the Franklin? Instead of Earth's first blah, blah, blah, Enterprise could have been a regular old Starfleet vessel, which has such amazing adventures that it made the name worth carrying down in history.
I suppose I'm just pining for a series that feels like Star Trek made me feeling when I was growing up, but without all the bells and whistles and CGI and political correctness gone made and really enjoyable...oh and episodic once more.
Describes exactly how I felt about TNG in 1987 after being a TOS fan for 18+ years (first saw an episode in 1969 on NBC; I was 6.)
The 'new' (at the time) series didn't look/feel like the Star Trek I loved at all.
(Amazing how patterns seem to repeat themselvbes, eh? )
Until. My. Grave...and actually beyond, I'll never look on Disco with anything other than distaste.
I couldn't have started watching TNG at a better time, because my very first episode was Conundrum...so I didn't know he was an imposter! Voyager...when I saw Caretaker on cassette in my local video shop, I thought it was just a new Enterprise...I had no idea what I was about to be propelled into.
I know that a lot of time passed between the last episode of Voyager and now...ENT I was always uncomfortable with, because they weren't comfortable being in the past of everything that came before, but at least it felt authentic.
Disco...it's producer-driven, millennial political correctness gone madness. It's rating baiting, not anything pleasant...retrospectively, it'll never be pleasant or fondly remembered. If anything...it'll just make every Trek that came before it more beloved, including to new viewers of the franchise.
Well, you're free to have your own opinions, of course. I disagree strongly with them, but you're free to have them. I would take it as a favor if you'd stop stating them as if they were objective fact, however, as you're beginning to skate awfully close to gatekeeping and the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Also, you sound a bit like my late father, who didn't warm up to DS9 until about the fourth season or so because sitting in a space station wasn't his idea of Star Trek. So if you were looking to sound like a crotchety old man, congratulations.
The people who call it "woke" say that because they feel Burnham is a "Mary Sue", or because they don't like how prominent characters like Stamets, Dr Culber, Adira, and Gray are and feel that that "isn't Trek" even though Star Trek has ALWAYS celebrated diversity since the very beginning.
I cannot speak for everyone, however for me personally this statement is not only ignorant, it is utterly and completely wrong and could not be farther from the truth. I have absolutely no issue with women, women of color or LGBTQ characters on the show. I welcome them. I completely agree those who do take issue with these things are ignorant and quite frankly do not understand the history of Star Trek.
What I do take offense to is how the worst (not best) parts of these modern "woke" agendas are being integrated into Star Trek to make it more grimdark and pervert the sense of optimism and hope for a better future into something dark and dismal.
I watched a video recently that gave a few good examples of this. Compare and contrast how Reg Barclay was treated by the crew on TNG versus how Edward was treated in the short Trek "The Trouble with Edward". Despite his awkwardness, Picard encouraged his crew to get to know Barclay, find a way to help him make a positive contribution and work with him. This ultimately worked and the crew were able to bring out the best in Barclay who became one of the most valued crew members. Contrast this with how the character of Edward Larkin was treated by his Captain. He was basically shown to be useless, irredeemable and berated. He is not worth the effort and it is easier to just get rid of him than to work with him. This is a more modern take in that one character has to be torn down to elevate another.
Another is contrasting how artificial life was treated and respected in episodes like TNG in "Measure of a Man" and Voyager "Author, Author". Contrast this with how poorly androids/synths are treated in Picard. You could also look at how Seven of Nine went from wanting to preserve and protect life to mindlessly blowing people away on Picard.
These changes are not improvements nor are they Star Trek to me personally. This is not something that is unique to Star Trek either. Many of films and television programs today are affected by this.
It is truly unfortunate to see in my opinion. You are welcome to disagree.
absolutely right. I'm not sure why entertainment as a whole has gotten so freaking dark. y'all remember Sabrina the teenage witch? fun comedy.. the netflix remake is one of the darkest shows I have ever watched. just like the cw show based on archie comics.. pretty much everything from the 60s to the 80s and even 90s being remakes is some dark mirror version. creeps me out, really.
there is a difference between celebrating diversity and having it shoved down your throat at every turn.
Oh you mean like how heterosexuality is shoved down our thropat with every form of media? but two homosexual characters is apparently going too far? Please. And the people calling diversity "woke" are the people this franchise wasn't created for. And are frankly, not very good people. Like c'mon guys, you're barely trying to hide it anymore. Just own how hateful you are and stop trying to seem intellectual about it.
one can be TRIBBLE or bi, as in Annemarie's case, and not be militant about it. so get off your high horse and just STOP. you want to be a freaking TRIBBLE rights N A Z I go right ahead, but leave those of us who are LGBTQ and just want to be left alone OUT OF IT
The people who call it "woke" say that because they feel Burnham is a "Mary Sue", or because they don't like how prominent characters like Stamets, Dr Culber, Adira, and Gray are and feel that that "isn't Trek" even though Star Trek has ALWAYS celebrated diversity since the very beginning.
I cannot speak for everyone, however for me personally this statement is not only ignorant, it is utterly and completely wrong and could not be farther from the truth. I have absolutely no issue with women, women of color or LGBTQ characters on the show. I welcome them. I completely agree those who do take issue with these things are ignorant and quite frankly do not understand the history of Star Trek.
What I do take offense to is how the worst (not best) parts of these modern "woke" agendas are being integrated into Star Trek to make it more grimdark and pervert the sense of optimism and hope for a better future into something dark and dismal.
I watched a video recently that gave a few good examples of this. Compare and contrast how Reg Barclay was treated by the crew on TNG versus how Edward was treated in the short Trek "The Trouble with Edward". Despite his awkwardness, Picard encouraged his crew to get to know Barclay, find a way to help him make a positive contribution and work with him. This ultimately worked and the crew were able to bring out the best in Barclay who became one of the most valued crew members. Contrast this with how the character of Edward Larkin was treated by his Captain. He was basically shown to be useless, irredeemable and berated. He is not worth the effort and it is easier to just get rid of him than to work with him. This is a more modern take in that one character has to be torn down to elevate another.
Another is contrasting how artificial life was treated and respected in episodes like TNG in "Measure of a Man" and Voyager "Author, Author". Contrast this with how poorly androids/synths are treated in Picard. You could also look at how Seven of Nine went from wanting to preserve and protect life to mindlessly blowing people away on Picard.
These changes are not improvements nor are they Star Trek to me personally. This is not something that is unique to Star Trek either. Many of films and television programs today are affected by this.
It is truly unfortunate to see in my opinion. You are welcome to disagree.
absolutely right. I'm not sure why entertainment as a whole has gotten so freaking dark. y'all remember Sabrina the teenage witch? fun comedy.. the netflix remake is one of the darkest shows I have ever watched. just like the cw show based on archie comics.. pretty much everything from the 60s to the 80s and even 90s being remakes is some dark mirror version. creeps me out, really.
Either dark or a silly spoof. Examples of the latter are Charlie's Angels, The Green Hornet movies and others (the Charlies Angels reboot series apparently was no gem either from what I heard about it), and the reboot of Charmed while not an intentional spoof still came across as one (like instead of the original's starting buildup where they discovered what they were over several episodes, in the new one they get tied to chairs and get everything dropped in their laps in exposition by their whitelighter near the start of the pilot, the ultimate tell-don't-show gaffe).
Hollywood does not seem to want to put any thought or substance in the shows nowadays, it is almost all for the stunts, the shocks, the dark snark, or the laughs. A lot of the remake shows even feel like the only reason they are made is to sneer at the originals instead of striving to be good shows in of themselves.
"Blood and Fire" should have been made and not just as a fan fiction episode.
Seven should have been allowed to be a TRIBBLE on Voyager, but it was Rick Berman who blocked everything at every turn, right?
And "The Outcast" would have been terrific and ICONIC...if only they hadn't cast so clearly a woman in the role. They could have cast an androgynous man.
Berman was not comfortable with the grittier survival oriented plots so he had them rewrite a lot of them into something much closer to the bland TNG space-procedural formula. That is why you don't see the torpedo count banner at the end the episodes like the pilot had, the crews just melded together without a lot of fuss (yes there were occasional spots of trouble but it was minimal), and the fuel thing was mostly turned into a joke.
On the other hand, he was apparently not one of those who did not like the fact that the Intrepid class was a heavy torpedo destroyer meant for short to medium deployments, which the crew was converting into a light cruiser on the fly to make it home, and insisted they not use the word in describing the ship in dialog (that was the fault of the same Paramount execs who insisted ENT use the Akira for the hero ship and wanted them to use all of the TNG era stuff way before it was invented), so he did have at least some sense.
In fact Berman went out of his way to say the ship was Starfleet's allegorical equivalent of today's Arleigh Burke heavy missile destroyer in interviews and whatnot.
Berman was not comfortable with the grittier survival oriented plots so he had them rewrite a lot of them into something much closer to the bland TNG space-procedural formula. That is why you don't see the torpedo count banner at the end the episodes like the pilot had, the crews just melded together without a lot of fuss (yes there were occasional spots of trouble but it was minimal), and the fuel thing was mostly turned into a joke.
On the other hand, he was apparently not one of those who did not like the fact that the Intrepid class was a heavy torpedo destroyer meant for short to medium deployments, which the crew was converting into a light cruiser on the fly to make it home, and insisted they not use the word in describing the ship in dialog (that was the fault of the same Paramount execs who insisted ENT use the Akira for the hero ship and wanted them to use all of the TNG era stuff way before it was invented), so he did have at least some sense.
In fact Berman went out of his way to say the ship was Starfleet's allegorical equivalent of today's Arleigh Burke heavy missile destroyer in interviews and whatnot.
Berman though was/is famously homophobic. I think I read an article where he and Kate had a showdown, because she felt strongly about TRIBBLE characters being in Star Trek. He blocked them on both Voyager and DS9, which he was basically in total control of. It's a shame, because in the late 90's, early 2000's; I think it would have been handled better.
It's just being mishandled so badly through Disco, because it's not subtle, it's not organic to the plot...it's plonked there for the wrong reasons and landed at badly as on a Class L planet, after an abortion QS flight.
to be fair, the Netflix version of Sabrina is actually true to the comics, which were very dark. The comedy version from the 90's was a complete re-imagining because it had to be appropriate for kids, which the original source material was not.
Comments
There are a lot of potential problems with presenting certain material, however, and a bad writer may struggle with presenting subtle analogies or nuanced ideas.
Complaining about the tone of the show? Fair game as far as I am concerned. Trek was always, up until recently anyway, a positive show about how mankind has elevated themselves.
These new shows are a step away and a step back from what Trek was as recently as Enterprise. No longer family friendly, and the people do not at all seem elevated, or at least they choose their times to show it.
Those rumors of an R-rated Tarantino Trek movie seemed like an absurd joke to me.
But now?
Tarantino could direct an episode of Disco in an uncompromising Tarantino style and it would probably fit right in.
Might even be a step-up in comparison to the rest of the episodes.
Not at all my cup of tea.
Not that I automatically dislike violence or certain language in movies, but there is a time and place and for me? Trek ain't it.
Seeing a part of Seven's head including a separated eye being analysed by Kim and Chakotay (in that one episode where they went back in time to prevent a crash after using the slipstream drive) wasn't such a pleasant thing to see either when I was young.
Responding mostly to the part in italics: yes, that would be nice. I guess the main challenge would be to do all that and still keep the show optimistic, as most people rightly wish Trek to be.
I don't think that Trek is a great setting for "realistic".
Space Above and Beyond lasted all of 23 episodes including the pilot. One season. Rated well on IMDB, with no show below a 7.0 (I know, not exactly a perfect measure of show quality, but it's all subjective anyway) but the network didn't want more.
Too expensive? Maybe. But FX can be well done today on the cheap, and a budget-conscious producer can push the writers to keep costs in mind as well, maybe with a trusted staff that can go over finished scripts and clean up unnecessary expenses.
But to me, that is the sort of world best suited for this type of thing.
Even Star Wars, if they can find some competent writers, could do this sort of thing, but they have to keep the force users away from the action while maintaining the feel of Star Wars.
Not every franchise can be, or should even try to be, all things to all people.
I do genuinely miss the Eutopia that was TNG. Yeah, they had hardships, but for the most part...it was an optimistic and nice place to live.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
I must admit, I looked away during that scene as I had already heard and read that there would be some very unpleasant things on the screen regarding Icheb.
I was mostly writing my post while keeping the beheading of that one Romulan in mind.
All that being said though, yes. I agree that there shouldn't be so much gore in Trek. Just saying that I also wished there was less of it in some other Trek shows. I'm just not a fan of such things, at all.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
As for "grimdark" or "reality" I guess you missed that too. Consider TOS Doomsday Machine or Immunity Syndrome. Whole starship crews lost in the line of duty. Commodore Decker clearly affected by "shellshock" (Now identified as PTSD). It's a poor audience that requires the visceral depictions of death on screen. At the time of the broadcasts television code wouldn't allow it, but the weight of those acts, the price was there to see.
Adults can process violence, on screen and in real life, but they don't relish it like a pack of vicarious ghouls so thick they need someone to connect the dots for them.
"Woke" and "grimdark" are two different things, "woke" is the term people use when they dislike inclusive casting and storylines while "grimdark" refers to the tone of the story simply being dark in tone with few (if any) light hearted moments. I personally prefer the "grimdark" style myself because it helps build tension and suspense, and I disagree that it lacks hope and optimism. The hope comes from the characters' refusal to give up no matter how bad things get, and the optimism comes when they ultimately prevail. Strange New Worlds will probably be a lot less dark since it's going to be episodic rather than serialized, so it'll be interesting to see how the "NuTrek Bad" crowd responds to that (based on the interactions I've had on Twitter I'm sure they'll find SOMETHING to cling to as a reason to hate the show).
And just to be clear I do not blindly love all of the new Trek shows, Picard season 1 was way too slow and the beginning of Discovery had me sitting in the front row of the hate train for MANY reasons (I still don't like the Burnham character due to her actions in the pilot, that was simply unforgivable and anyone who did that should never be allowed out of prison again). I've enjoyed Discovery from about the middle of season 1 until now though, and Picard had just enough in it to make me hopeful that season 2 will be better.
In real life f we ever developed a ship as fast as the NX-01 we would most likely name it Enterprise.
I DID read them, but explaining your reasoning doesn't make your opinion correct. To be clear though, I was never trying to accuse YOU of being anti-inclusion or anything like that, in your case I think you are simply misusing the "woke" label.
The first time I remember seeing people refer to something as "woke" was in reference to the all female Ghostbusters reboot, a movie I wouldn't consider to be grimdark in any way, and every subsequent time I've seen people complain about "woke" movies has involved something with prominent female or minority casting, such as Terminator: Dark Fate and the female Doctor Who, with complainers often using the phrase "get woke go broke" to suggest that such things can't make a profit.
* I'm not trying to say any of the above mentioned movies or shows are good, I'm only describing the "woke" complaints I've seen frequently online. I could write a ten page essay on all the things I dislike about the 2016 Ghostbusters movie but gender and race were not the problem, however elaborating further would risk derailing the thread even more than it already has.
Describes exactly how I felt about TNG in 1987 after being a TOS fan for 18+ years (first saw an episode in 1969 on NBC; I was 6.)
The 'new' (at the time) series didn't look/feel like the Star Trek I loved at all.
(Amazing how patterns seem to repeat themselvbes, eh?
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Until. My. Grave...and actually beyond, I'll never look on Disco with anything other than distaste.
I couldn't have started watching TNG at a better time, because my very first episode was Conundrum...so I didn't know he was an imposter! Voyager...when I saw Caretaker on cassette in my local video shop, I thought it was just a new Enterprise...I had no idea what I was about to be propelled into.
I know that a lot of time passed between the last episode of Voyager and now...ENT I was always uncomfortable with, because they weren't comfortable being in the past of everything that came before, but at least it felt authentic.
Disco...it's producer-driven, millennial political correctness gone madness. It's rating baiting, not anything pleasant...retrospectively, it'll never be pleasant or fondly remembered. If anything...it'll just make every Trek that came before it more beloved, including to new viewers of the franchise.
Also, you sound a bit like my late father, who didn't warm up to DS9 until about the fourth season or so because sitting in a space station wasn't his idea of Star Trek. So if you were looking to sound like a crotchety old man, congratulations.
absolutely right. I'm not sure why entertainment as a whole has gotten so freaking dark. y'all remember Sabrina the teenage witch? fun comedy.. the netflix remake is one of the darkest shows I have ever watched. just like the cw show based on archie comics.. pretty much everything from the 60s to the 80s and even 90s being remakes is some dark mirror version. creeps me out, really.
one can be TRIBBLE or bi, as in Annemarie's case, and not be militant about it. so get off your high horse and just STOP. you want to be a freaking TRIBBLE rights N A Z I go right ahead, but leave those of us who are LGBTQ and just want to be left alone OUT OF IT
Either dark or a silly spoof. Examples of the latter are Charlie's Angels, The Green Hornet movies and others (the Charlies Angels reboot series apparently was no gem either from what I heard about it), and the reboot of Charmed while not an intentional spoof still came across as one (like instead of the original's starting buildup where they discovered what they were over several episodes, in the new one they get tied to chairs and get everything dropped in their laps in exposition by their whitelighter near the start of the pilot, the ultimate tell-don't-show gaffe).
Hollywood does not seem to want to put any thought or substance in the shows nowadays, it is almost all for the stunts, the shocks, the dark snark, or the laughs. A lot of the remake shows even feel like the only reason they are made is to sneer at the originals instead of striving to be good shows in of themselves.
Seven should have been allowed to be a TRIBBLE on Voyager, but it was Rick Berman who blocked everything at every turn, right?
And "The Outcast" would have been terrific and ICONIC...if only they hadn't cast so clearly a woman in the role. They could have cast an androgynous man.
On the other hand, he was apparently not one of those who did not like the fact that the Intrepid class was a heavy torpedo destroyer meant for short to medium deployments, which the crew was converting into a light cruiser on the fly to make it home, and insisted they not use the word in describing the ship in dialog (that was the fault of the same Paramount execs who insisted ENT use the Akira for the hero ship and wanted them to use all of the TNG era stuff way before it was invented), so he did have at least some sense.
In fact Berman went out of his way to say the ship was Starfleet's allegorical equivalent of today's Arleigh Burke heavy missile destroyer in interviews and whatnot.
Berman though was/is famously homophobic. I think I read an article where he and Kate had a showdown, because she felt strongly about TRIBBLE characters being in Star Trek. He blocked them on both Voyager and DS9, which he was basically in total control of. It's a shame, because in the late 90's, early 2000's; I think it would have been handled better.
It's just being mishandled so badly through Disco, because it's not subtle, it's not organic to the plot...it's plonked there for the wrong reasons and landed at badly as on a Class L planet, after an abortion QS flight.