Author Topic: star trek  (Read 456684 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

stufte

  • Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3060 on: May 21, 2020, 02:36:53 PM »
https://www.startrek.com/news/the-humbling-of-admiral-picard

Mother Fuck this show and anybody who worked on it.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
And anybody who likes it.
[close]

Quote
While TNG positioned Captain Picard as an ally to marginalized groups, from Klingons to androids, Picard challenges him to check the privilege he’s enjoyed through various series as an able-bodied male Earthling of elevated Starfleet rank.


HAHAHAHA what in the absolute fuck. Klingons... a marginalized group??? This shit right here. This author is a fucking idiot.

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3061 on: May 21, 2020, 02:40:02 PM »
When Patrick Stewart started talking about Brexit in promotional material I knew we were in for some pain

GreatSageEqualOfHeaven

  • Dumbass Monkey
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3062 on: May 21, 2020, 02:47:21 PM »
Everything pre-Picard showed the Romulans as aggressively territorial, xenophobic, monocultural, homogenous and totalatarian, with a territory the size of the Federations (where the Federation are comprised of hundreds of different cultures and species up compared to the Romulans ROMULUS FOR ROMULANS empire) but Picard makes them space irish and suddenly they're the underdog minority resisting the colonisers I guess

:idont

D3RANG3D

  • The Bore's Like Bot
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3063 on: May 21, 2020, 02:48:53 PM »
Unironically Picard's Housekeepers the O'Romulans are the best characters in Picard.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3064 on: May 21, 2020, 02:50:25 PM »
When Patrick Stewart started talking about Brexit in promotional material I knew we were in for some pain

How come? A lot of the best Trek episodes are analogies for modern problems.
IYKYK

stufte

  • Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3065 on: May 21, 2020, 02:57:44 PM »
When Patrick Stewart started talking about Brexit in promotional material I knew we were in for some pain

How come? A lot of the best Trek episodes are analogies for modern problems.

Star Trek has always been progressive and tackled controversial real world issues. But Picard has the inherent flaw of both not understanding the Star Trek universe and the general hopefulness for the future that it has, and handling social issues with all the subtlety of a rabid Targ.

GreatSageEqualOfHeaven

  • Dumbass Monkey
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3066 on: May 21, 2020, 03:02:47 PM »
If Britain was a V For Vendetta fascist dystopia that had never been in the EU, and a long history of fucking about in other countries politics and aggressive military confrontations along its borders, and Brexit was the EU refusing to help us out when a natural disaster rendered most of the island uninhabitable, then sure, great analogy

stufte

  • Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3067 on: May 21, 2020, 03:04:21 PM »
Why wasn't Seven seeking revenge for Icheb (who she was practically a mother to) instead of Hugh, who she had just met for the first time?

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3068 on: May 21, 2020, 03:05:30 PM »
When Patrick Stewart started talking about Brexit in promotional material I knew we were in for some pain

How come? A lot of the best Trek episodes are analogies for modern problems.
recent history, every show I've watched that's put our modern boogaloo shithole in their promo material instead of promoting how strong the writing is or such has usually been a preemptive shield against criticism. Picard is no different

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3069 on: May 21, 2020, 03:06:05 PM »
When Patrick Stewart started talking about Brexit in promotional material I knew we were in for some pain

How come? A lot of the best Trek episodes are analogies for modern problems.

Star Trek has always been progressive and tackled controversial real world issues. But Picard has the inherent flaw of both not understanding the Star Trek universe and the general hopefulness for the future that it has, and handling social issues with all the subtlety of a rabid Targ.

True, but my question was for Momo who said Star Trek tackling Brexit - a modern issue - was inherently bad. I'm not talking about Picard's handling of it. I'm talking about Momo finding fault in real world issues placed in Trek which according to him made him know we were  "in for some pain." Which hints that Momo finds placing real world issues in Trek to be bad period.

A big criticism I have with many critics of this is that as said, Trek has ALWAYS put progressive issues at the forefront and showed a spotlight in a futuristic analogy to modern problems. Always. Yet somehow Trek is now seen as "sjw", something Trek has always been. My conclusion is that these people didn't mind in the past because it was further away from them. So now, as they support things like Brexit, they're personally attacked. Now, this isn't the case for every critic. But it is for a lot of them. Politics and Trek mingle like peas and carrots.

Your move, Momo.

IYKYK

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3070 on: May 21, 2020, 03:06:55 PM »
Lol

GreatSageEqualOfHeaven

  • Dumbass Monkey
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3071 on: May 21, 2020, 03:08:07 PM »
honest question, what in Picard had anything to do with Brexit?

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3072 on: May 21, 2020, 03:11:09 PM »
honest question, what in Picard had anything to do with Brexit?

Again, you're talking about what's in Picard. Momo said because Patrick Stewart was talking about Brexit in the shows hype season that it meant we were all in for a bad time.

IYKYK

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3073 on: May 21, 2020, 03:11:32 PM »
honest question, what in Picard had anything to do with Brexit?
I don't even know, nor do I care the show was bad. From where I stand they just used trump and brexit to distract from what they probably knew will be a poorly received show.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3074 on: May 21, 2020, 03:16:06 PM »
I don't take issue with anyone that doesn't like Picard or critiques it.

My issue immediately starts and begins with the very common mindset that modern tv shows using modern real world politic as a commentary for their stories is inherently bad. Even regarding shows that have a vast history of it like Star Trek.

Criticism is fine. Saying Star Trek is getting too political is where I LOL.

Momo's post was,"Patrick Stewart was talking about Brexit therefore I knew it was going to be bad!" can be construed in many ways. So I asked him to expound.
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3075 on: May 21, 2020, 03:18:49 PM »
It's also funny how the same people shit on Star Trek for this also praise things like Black Mirror or Orville's social media episode.

Speaking of Black Mirror, I have no idea why CBS doesn't just make new Star Trek shows in that vein. Black Mirror shows that modern sci-fi doesn't need mass serialization to work or even be popular.
IYKYK

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3076 on: May 21, 2020, 03:18:55 PM »
It's actually kinda nuts if you think about it, Patrick Stewart out there saying Star Trek can't be optimistic anymore because we live in a post brexit world. Like the 90s and the countless horrific civil wars was any better? Prolly was for him cause that shit happened somewhere else lmao

stufte

  • Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3077 on: May 21, 2020, 03:19:22 PM »
I was a pretty politically active teenager when TNG was on the air, I watched it with my super conservative father, who also loved the show. The writing in these new shows (the new Twilight Zone is the same) treats the source material as secondary to the "message" when it should be the other way around.

GreatSageEqualOfHeaven

  • Dumbass Monkey
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3078 on: May 21, 2020, 03:21:37 PM »
Quote
my question was for Momo who said Star Trek tackling Brexit - a modern issue - was inherently bad. I'm not talking about Picard's handling of it. I'm talking about Momo finding fault in real world issues placed in Trek

Quote
Trek has ALWAYS put progressive issues at the forefront and showed a spotlight in a futuristic analogy to modern problems. Always.

Quote
So now, as they support things like Brexit, they're personally attacked. Now, this isn't the case for every critic. But it is for a lot of them. Politics and Trek mingle like peas and carrots.

Quote
Again, you're talking about what's in Picard.

:confused

I can't help but feel if they're talking about a hot button topic pre-release, and there is zero reference to that subject in the actual final product, its difficult to rebut the claim they were pre-emptively trying to do some damage control by invoking culture war

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3079 on: May 21, 2020, 03:21:42 PM »
It's actually kinda nuts if you think about it, Patrick Stewart out there saying Star Trek can't be optimistic anymore because we live in a post brexit world. Like the 90s and the countless horrific civil wars was any better? Prolly was for him cause that shit happened somewhere else lmao

I saw it differently. I watched Patrick Stewart's "I'm back!" speech and how TNG brought so much hope to so many people and read it that the new show would be the hopeful Trek we are looking for. It wasn't exactly that, but I still found it to be optimistic and hopeful in its own way.
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3080 on: May 21, 2020, 03:25:02 PM »
I was a pretty politically active teenager when TNG was on the air, I watched it with my super conservative father, who also loved the show. The writing in these new shows (the new Twilight Zone is the same) treats the source material as secondary to the "message" when it should be the other way around.

That's fair. But Trek never treated message as secondary.





Trek was never subtle.

Do you mind expounding? I mean, there's an entire analogy to Palestine and Israel in TNG/DS9.

Shosta, you might want to back out because of spoilers now.
IYKYK

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3081 on: May 21, 2020, 03:26:51 PM »
You're not even reading anyone's posts Cindi

Tuckers Law

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3082 on: May 21, 2020, 03:28:04 PM »
Who is the massive fa.ggot that merged my thread with this thread?

Your entire thread wasn't merged with this one.  Just the few posts made today.  I thought Tuckers Law bumped the wrong thread and figured I'd help.   APOLOGIES FOR SUCH A MASSIVE ABUSE OF POWER AND DISRUPTION.  ::)

What the fuck is with the hostility in this thread?
I posted that comment mostly in jest.  Like we saw with Nacho, us Star Trek fans are always angry about something and lose sight of the ultimate truth: at least it’s not Star Wars.

Apologies for calling you a cop.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3083 on: May 21, 2020, 03:30:44 PM »
You're not even reading anyone's posts Cindi

Pretttttty sure I am. But the points you're making are highly, highly flawed and in your case, just undeveloped. Saying that Trek made message secondary is a laughable claim to me.
IYKYK

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3084 on: May 21, 2020, 03:34:27 PM »
You can tell a story while respecting lore, everyone is saying new Star Trek is so obsessed by making their points that they have to throw out lore to do so. I'm not sure what you didn't understand, but I am sure you aren't reading anyone's posts to try and understand what they are saying and just doing so in order to further whatever it is you're doing here. So goodday, I can't be arsed

CatsCatsCats

  • 🤷‍♀️
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3085 on: May 21, 2020, 03:35:27 PM »
Continue, the Star Trek wars do

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3086 on: May 21, 2020, 03:36:00 PM »
You can tell a story while respecting lore, everyone is saying new Star Trek is so obsessed by making their points that they have to throw out lore to do so. I'm not sure what you didn't understand, but I am sure you aren't reading anyone's posts to try and understand what they are saying and just doing so in order to further whatever it is you're doing here. So goodday, I can't be arsed

How is Star Trek throwing out lore?
IYKYK

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3087 on: May 21, 2020, 03:36:49 PM »
Not today Satan.

GreatSageEqualOfHeaven

  • Dumbass Monkey
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3088 on: May 21, 2020, 03:37:41 PM »
What was the contemporary political analogue that Picard handled?

Throw out the concept that humanity has evolved into a more utopian society in a post-scarcity universe, and make them racist assholes?
But then the actual nazi-analogues who are the victims of the racist assholes are still even worse, and sort of brought all that shit on themselves anyway, making the racist assholes sort of justified?

e:
Like, I get what you're saying about pre-emptively kneekerking about MUH ESS JAY DUBYAS RUINT MUH STAR TREK mouth breathers, but what does Picard actually do to put its money where its mouth is? Where is its smart writing leaving parallels to be drawn?

Tuckers Law

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3089 on: May 21, 2020, 03:39:07 PM »
I will say that compared to other Treks, Picard does seem to lead less into the speculative side and more in the reactive side of messaging and commentary, which I could see some mistaking as being more upfront and obvious.

Still: Star Trek is and has always had both subtle and overt messaging in its stories, and I’m okay with it as long as they’re trying to say something about “us”, even if it’s hamfisted.

stufte

  • Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior Senior
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3090 on: May 21, 2020, 03:42:05 PM »
I was a pretty politically active teenager when TNG was on the air, I watched it with my super conservative father, who also loved the show. The writing in these new shows (the new Twilight Zone is the same) treats the source material as secondary to the "message" when it should be the other way around.

That's fair. But Trek never treated message as secondary.

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

Trek was never subtle.

Do you mind expounding? I mean, there's an entire analogy to Palestine and Israel in TNG/DS9.

Shosta, you might want to back out because of spoilers now.

That DS9 episode still respects the source material over the message. It talks about the hardships, the struggles of the past within the Star Trek timeline, and the optimism of a future that has moved past those hardships. It doesn't treat Sisco as a victim, it shows how far humans have come as a species. Star Trek has moved from "shit was hard, but we're better now and we want to show you how we deal with these ancient issues as an enlightened species" to "shit is hard NOW, and look how much we suffer for it, please suffer with us".

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3091 on: May 21, 2020, 03:42:46 PM »
What was the contemporary political analogue that Picard handled?

Throw out the concept that humanity has evolved into a more utopian society in a post-scarcity universe, and make them racist assholes?
But then the actual nazi-analogues who are the victims of the racist assholes are still even worse, and sort of brought all that shit on themselves anyway, making the racist assholes sort of justified?

I'm not the one saying that Picard even had political analogies. I'm not the one saying political message overtook the lore of Star Trek or that Patrick Stewart talking about Brexit meant that the show was going to suck.

They've made the claim politics and message is overcoming the story. They're the ones saying injecting politics into Trek is bad. I'm just going with what they're saying. I never made any claims about Picard's political analogies at all.

That's other people. This entire time all I've done is counter that Trek injecting politics isn't inherently bad because it's something its always done. That's their argument. I'm refuting their argument.

IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3092 on: May 21, 2020, 03:49:40 PM »
I was a pretty politically active teenager when TNG was on the air, I watched it with my super conservative father, who also loved the show. The writing in these new shows (the new Twilight Zone is the same) treats the source material as secondary to the "message" when it should be the other way around.

That's fair. But Trek never treated message as secondary.

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

Trek was never subtle.

Do you mind expounding? I mean, there's an entire analogy to Palestine and Israel in TNG/DS9.

Shosta, you might want to back out because of spoilers now.

That DS9 episode still respects the source material over the message. It talks about the hardships, the struggles of the past within the Star Trek timeline, and the optimism of a future that has moved past those hardships. It doesn't treat Sisco as a victim, it shows how far humans have come as a species. Star Trek has moved from "shit was hard, but we're better now and we want to show you how we deal with these ancient issues as an enlightened species" to "shit is hard NOW, and look how much we suffer for it, please suffer with us".

But the message is the source material.

Even Kirk gave in to his own racism, although he later realized his error. Admirals are routinely shown as corrupt. Sisko, the very person you're defending, literally was a co-conspirator in assassinating a Romulan leader to force them into fighting against the Dominion. Much of the most renown DS9 quotes revolve around flawed humanity.


And I quote:

Quote
"But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time, and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon."

But suddenly humanity is incapable of ills? Remember in DS9 when they institute fear mongering and even genocide against a species because of shape shifters?

This is a highly flawed premise.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2020, 03:55:11 PM by Cindi Mayweather »
IYKYK

GreatSageEqualOfHeaven

  • Dumbass Monkey
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3093 on: May 21, 2020, 03:51:47 PM »
Still: Star Trek is and has always had both subtle and overt messaging in its stories, and I’m okay with it as long as they’re trying to say something about “us”, even if it’s hamfisted.

which is why I've found both Discovery and Picard deeply unsatisfying for scifi shows using the Star Trek name, because... in the end they don't really have much to say, and threw out what made star trek special because their mystery box plots needed them to do that for the plot to work.

GreatSageEqualOfHeaven

  • Dumbass Monkey
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3094 on: May 21, 2020, 03:55:18 PM »
I'm not the one saying that Picard even had political analogies. I'm not the one saying political message overtook the lore of Star Trek or that Patrick Stewart talking about Brexit meant that the show was going to suck.

They've made the claim politics and message is overcoming the story. They're the ones saying injecting politics into Trek is bad. I'm just going with what they're saying. I never made any claims about Picard's political analogies at all.

That's other people. This entire time all I've done is counter that Trek injecting politics isn't inherently bad because it's something its always done. That's their argument. I'm refuting their argument.

But that just begs the question, if you have nothing political to say and no analogous insights to make, why would you imply what you have created does exactly that before release?

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3095 on: May 21, 2020, 04:01:53 PM »
I'm not the one saying that Picard even had political analogies. I'm not the one saying political message overtook the lore of Star Trek or that Patrick Stewart talking about Brexit meant that the show was going to suck.

They've made the claim politics and message is overcoming the story. They're the ones saying injecting politics into Trek is bad. I'm just going with what they're saying. I never made any claims about Picard's political analogies at all.

That's other people. This entire time all I've done is counter that Trek injecting politics isn't inherently bad because it's something its always done. That's their argument. I'm refuting their argument.

But that just begs the question, if you have nothing political to say and no analogous insights to make, why would you imply what you have created does exactly that before release?

Mmm.

This is where I step in and defend Picard's politics and say that, yes, it does have something political to say. I'm not quite sure how Romulans hunting Synths because of what they are and killing them or Federation abandoning Romulans because of political pressure isn't political. Or that the show has no message at all.

It's funny you're arguing it's not stating these messages while others are saying these messages are too overt.

Quite a contradiction. Which is it?

IYKYK

Tuckers Law

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3096 on: May 21, 2020, 04:04:50 PM »

Quote
"But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time, and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon."
Fucking love Quark  :rejoice

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3097 on: May 21, 2020, 04:05:21 PM »
Many Trekkies:

Federation would NEVER abandon refugees like this! This goes against Federation principles!

Also Trekkies:

Star Trek Picard has NO political messages or analogies!

IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3098 on: May 21, 2020, 04:06:01 PM »
I agree that most shows/movies where the pre-hype media involves talking about hot button political issues instead of the show itself regardless of if the show touches or doesn't touch said issues usually aren't high quality in the end. That's not exactly the same thing as "media that uses current issues analogues are always bad", but they do tend to intertwine a lot.

This is fair.
IYKYK

Tuckers Law

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3099 on: May 21, 2020, 04:06:31 PM »
Real talk: when we gonna get Nic Cage as Starfleet captain?  Can you imagine?

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3100 on: May 21, 2020, 04:09:38 PM »

Quote
"But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time, and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon."
Fucking love Quark  :rejoice

Trekkies: Humans are perfect in the future  :six:

Also Trekkies: says DS9, the show that is highly critical of the Federation, humanity, and what it takes to maintain such an utopia, is the best Trek

 :crowdlaff
IYKYK

Yeti

  • Hail Hydra
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3101 on: May 21, 2020, 04:11:23 PM »
Continue, the Star Trek wars do

It’s 20XX and people are mad online about Star Trek
WDW

D3RANG3D

  • The Bore's Like Bot
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3102 on: May 21, 2020, 04:12:10 PM »
TOS is best Trek though.

GreatSageEqualOfHeaven

  • Dumbass Monkey
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3103 on: May 21, 2020, 04:13:30 PM »
Mmm.

This is where I step in and defend Picard's politics and say that, yes, it does have something political to say. I'm not quite sure how Romulans hunting Synths because of what they are and killing them or Federation abandoning Romulans because of political pressure isn't political. Or that the show has no message at all.

It's funny you're arguing it's not stating these messages while others are saying these messages are too overt.

Quite a contradiction. Which is it?

Well I was asking you what the message was for multiple posts and this is the closest you've come to answering that instead of just saying "but I didn't say they did!".

What's the contradiction?
That I don't see the modern U.N. denying humanitarian aid to a country wracked by a natural disaster, no mattera how shitty that counties history is, and I don't see how an even more evolved society that doesn't even have actual logistical concerns about sacrificing their own resources to assist someone else would do that either?
Except that they have to do that or the plot doesn't work.

That a demonstrably shitty group will do shitty things, but instead of doing it in secret as every other appearance they have made has shown to be their preference, would instead choose to do it openly and clumsily?
Except they have to do that or the plot doesn't work.

I'm not trying to shit on something you enjoyed, but there are so many "it has to be like this so the plot works" aspects that makes me frustrated, because the plot just isn't fucking good enough to justify everything they sacrifice in order to make it happen.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3104 on: May 21, 2020, 04:19:39 PM »
Mmm.

This is where I step in and defend Picard's politics and say that, yes, it does have something political to say. I'm not quite sure how Romulans hunting Synths because of what they are and killing them or Federation abandoning Romulans because of political pressure isn't political. Or that the show has no message at all.

It's funny you're arguing it's not stating these messages while others are saying these messages are too overt.

Quite a contradiction. Which is it?

Well I was asking you what the message was for multiple posts and this is the closest you've come to answering that instead of just saying "but I didn't say they did!".

We were arguing two different things at first. Then what we argued just intertwined.

I find most of the critiques of Picard's politics in the Federation are almost all flawed. They're so bad. Arguments like,"Federation would never be that xenophobic". A big flaw Picard makes is not referencing the Dominion War and its effects on post-war Federation. After the Cardassian border conflict, Dominion, shape shifter sabotage I think it would be fairly realistic for the Federation to grow more xenophobic after that war. The problem is that Michael Chabon and ilk said they didn't want new viewers to to get too wrapped up in lore. Big mistake. But I understand the reasoning and why the Federation is like this.

You say Picard makes no modern political analogies but I find the western world growing more xenophobic. This is directly in Picard. So the idea that Picard has no political relevance or commentary is baffling to me.

:idont
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3105 on: May 21, 2020, 04:23:38 PM »
Also, first Momo says recent shows that put political message above the story are bad.

Now he's liking your posts that says Picard has no political analogies.

Momo doesn't even know what he wants nor can he argue for himself.

IYKYK

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3106 on: May 21, 2020, 04:24:49 PM »
Fact Check: I'm liking everything I can that will annoy you because you still refuse to actually read anything I posted.

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3107 on: May 21, 2020, 04:27:41 PM »
Either way, Son Son, your argument that Picard has no political messaging goes against what many people in this thread have actively argued.



Isn't that right? How isn't that contradictory?

Fact Check: I'm liking everything I can that will annoy you because you still refuse to actually read anything I posted.

You gonna post an RLM video next?
IYKYK

Momo

  • Nebuchadnezzar
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3108 on: May 21, 2020, 04:28:27 PM »
Off to mandark world for you  :nope

D3RANG3D

  • The Bore's Like Bot
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3109 on: May 21, 2020, 04:28:44 PM »
I don't think that having something to say is bad, but these people can't write to save their lives.

spoiler (click to show/hide)
I will say for my part that it immediately raises a red flag to me when they start going on about muh blumpf or muh brexit or whatever, because I don't think I have ever come across any media that doesn't go on about that stuff before a product is delivered and then said product turns out to be complete gobshite Pukehard included.
[close]

« Last Edit: May 21, 2020, 04:36:45 PM by D3RANG3D »

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3110 on: May 21, 2020, 04:31:32 PM »
Off to mandark world for you  :nope

Thanks!

I'm honored.
IYKYK

GreatSageEqualOfHeaven

  • Dumbass Monkey
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3111 on: May 21, 2020, 04:38:54 PM »

I find most of the critiques of Picard's politics in the Federation are almost all flawed. They're so bad. Arguments like,"Federation would never be that xenophobic". A big flaw Picard makes is not referencing the Dominion War and its effects on post-war Federation. After the Cardassian border conflict, Dominion, shape shifter sabotage I think it would be fairly realistic for the Federation to grow more xenophobic after that war. The problem is that Michael Chabon and ilk said they didn't want new viewers to to get too wrapped up in lore. Big mistake. But I understand the reasoning and why the Federation is like this.

You say Picard makes no modern political analogies but I find the western world growing more xenophobic. This is directly in Picard. So the idea that Picard has no political relevance or commentary is baffling to me.

:idont

But it's not like DS9 ended with the federation saying "nah, FUCK cardassia, collaborating assholes".
What you're talking about is a post-scarcity society that is even shittier than contemporary alliances are.
And apparently more xenophobic than contemporary society, despite being literally a federation of multiple cultures, with literally their prime directive being about respecting other cultures, but just letting an entire species nearly die despite being able to help, because they're just dicks.

And by the plots own premise, are still the good guys for all of that.

Is this an American thing? That because you see America getting more xenophobic that means the world is?
Because the Federation isn't America, let alone 21st century empire-in-decline America.
Why are the Bolians going "nah, fuck romulus.". Why are the fucking Vulcans, when Spock risked all kinds of shit in an attempt at reunification?

I just don't see a scenario in our contemporary universe where, say, China has a giant fucking earthquake tomorrow and the U.N doesn't step in and help.
Would the U.S. under Trump assist? Probably not, but all the fucking rest of the U.N. member states would, even despite all of Chinas fuckery.
Because governments aren't people.
The only way you get to the point of credulity in Picards premise, is that the United Federation Of Planets are bigger more useless assholes than scarcity and resource limited modern earth is, and yet are still the good guys for that.

MMaRsu

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3112 on: May 21, 2020, 04:39:29 PM »
Who is the massive fa.ggot that merged my thread with this thread?

Your entire thread wasn't merged with this one.  Just the few posts made today.  I thought Tuckers Law bumped the wrong thread and figured I'd help.   APOLOGIES FOR SUCH A MASSIVE ABUSE OF POWER AND DISRUPTION.  ::)

What the fuck is with the hostility in this thread?

Star Trek is serious business  :doge
What

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3113 on: May 21, 2020, 04:55:51 PM »

I find most of the critiques of Picard's politics in the Federation are almost all flawed. They're so bad. Arguments like,"Federation would never be that xenophobic". A big flaw Picard makes is not referencing the Dominion War and its effects on post-war Federation. After the Cardassian border conflict, Dominion, shape shifter sabotage I think it would be fairly realistic for the Federation to grow more xenophobic after that war. The problem is that Michael Chabon and ilk said they didn't want new viewers to to get too wrapped up in lore. Big mistake. But I understand the reasoning and why the Federation is like this.

You say Picard makes no modern political analogies but I find the western world growing more xenophobic. This is directly in Picard. So the idea that Picard has no political relevance or commentary is baffling to me.

:idont

But it's not like DS9 ended with the federation saying "nah, FUCK cardassia, collaborating assholes".

This is a very bad point to make.

For one thing, Picard isn't even over yet and you're comparing a show with 7 seasons and over 170 episodes to a show with 1 season and 12 episodes. Second, Picard season 1 literally ends with the Federation sending in help to defend the Synths planet. So even Picard shows hope amid strife despite being labeled as completely cynical show without hope.

Trekkies are so jaded now that they are they completely unwilling to give new shows a chance despite everyone knowing that every single first (and second) season of Trek (sans TOS) is flawed af.

Mmm.

This is where I step in and defend Picard's politics and say that, yes, it does have something political to say. I'm not quite sure how Romulans hunting Synths because of what they are and killing them or Federation abandoning Romulans because of political pressure isn't political. Or that the show has no message at all.

It's funny you're arguing it's not stating these messages while others are saying these messages are too overt.

Quite a contradiction. Which is it?

Well I was asking you what the message was for multiple posts and this is the closest you've come to answering that instead of just saying "but I didn't say they did!".

We were arguing two different things at first. Then what we argued just intertwined.

I find most of the critiques of Picard's politics in the Federation are almost all flawed. They're so bad. Arguments like,"Federation would never be that xenophobic". A big flaw Picard makes is not referencing the Dominion War and its effects on post-war Federation. After the Cardassian border conflict, Dominion, shape shifter sabotage I think it would be fairly realistic for the Federation to grow more xenophobic after that war. The problem is that Michael Chabon and ilk said they didn't want new viewers to to get too wrapped up in lore. Big mistake. But I understand the reasoning and why the Federation is like this.

You say Picard makes no modern political analogies but I find the western world growing more xenophobic. This is directly in Picard. So the idea that Picard has no political relevance or commentary is baffling to me.

:idont

This makes no sense at all to me, the new viewers audience for Picard has to be under 5%. A nostalgia revival/spin off/continuation but you're more worried about the tiny fraction of viewers who have never seen Star Trek shows than the audience the show actually appeals to? :what

Chabon said exactly that on his instagram and I vehemently disagree with it.
IYKYK

Himu

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3114 on: May 21, 2020, 05:11:34 PM »

Is this an American thing? That because you see America getting more xenophobic that means the world is?

This is a very hilarious point to make especially during a European refugee crisis. It's like you're not even in tune with the news cycle or the world at large.

Right wing xenophobia and isolationsim has only grown in the past few years, especially in Europe, and especially after Trump's victory.

The refugees in Picard are an analogue to Syrian refugees. This is a profoundly hilarious point to make. I'm like, actually laughing at you, mate. I'm sorry.

https://apnews.com/4fc82489d5bc44fab6edccb91b0c896f

https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-news/97587/european-commission-alarmed-by-growing-racism-in-europe/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/30/how-europes-nationalists-became-internationalists/

So a show about extremists wanting to destroy what they deem a threat to them, their sovereignty, and existence is in actuality, topical.

Further, your premise is even extra flawed because the Federation has always been an analogy for America. Star Trek, I hate to remind you, is an American show.

I'm sorry but most of the arguments surrounding Star Trek Picard are outright bad. I hated Star Wars: The Last Jedi and still thought most of the fan arguments made against it were outright daft. Shit like,"Luke Skywalker would never try to kill his own nephew". The same guy that fought between his dark side and light side and nearly killed his own father in rage. These arguments remind me of that. The only difference is that I don't hate Picard the way I do TLJ.
IYKYK

D3RANG3D

  • The Bore's Like Bot
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3115 on: May 21, 2020, 05:42:56 PM »
How much is Kurtzman paying you?

GreatSageEqualOfHeaven

  • Dumbass Monkey
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3116 on: May 21, 2020, 05:47:37 PM »
This is a very bad point to make.

It's a rebuttal to your point, that because the Federation was at war... 20? years ago in universe time they wouldn't accept new entries to the Federation.
When DS9 shows them virtually begging the dudes they were literally just at war with to get their shit together then join up.
Same deal with Undiscovered Country. Same deal with Reunification pts 1 and 2.
Everything in Trek shows the Federation will bend over backwards to get people to join if they'll subscribe to federation ideology.
Doesn't matter what they did in the past. If the Borg would chill with the assimilation, they'd be welcomed in.


Trekkies are so jaded now that they are they completely unwilling to give new shows a chance despite everyone knowing that every single first (and second) season of Trek (sans TOS) is flawed af.

This is an argument to make before the shows been released, not afterwards when people are criticising the shows actual contents, not what they think it might be based on trailers.
And no, sorry, a made-to-order 10 episode run with zero network pressures for weekly ratings released exclusively on streaming services in the 21st century doesn't get the "oh, shows released in entirely different circumstances needed to find their feet" excuse.
Apart from the fact that seems like a tacit admission that... well, its just not a very good show, other shows on other streaming services under similar structures make their mark with their first season. They kind of have to. That's todays landscape.

The people in charge of nutrek have jad three swings at the plate now. How many more chances do they get?
How many more do-overs before conceding that they're just not making what a lot of people want to watch?
The amount of showrunner churn and mid season pivots doesn't suggest that the people in charge are confident in this creative direction.
Assurances from execs that things will get better doesn't suggest that audiences are happy with this creative direction.

This is a very hilarious point to make especially during a European refugee crisis.

Is it though?
European countries are accepting sometimes up to 10% of their entire population overnight of people who have paid no taxes, and are in urgent need of clothing, food, accommodation, education, social work, medical care and employment.
That's a huge amount of people putting additional stress on an already stretched thin social security network, and its a 'right now' type of deal, there isn't lead up to prepare for it.
And yes, that kind of stress on existing infrastructure creates societal tension. How could it not?
And they still fucking accept them. Because it's the right thing to do.

Meanwhile, the federation, with fucking empty planets that can be colonised, near instantaneous travel across the planet, all the food, clothing, habitats, medicine, health care and provisions an industrial replicator can churn out, and no need for money or employment can't fucking help them out?

Maybe they don't have enough starships to ferry them.
Oh, wait, except for the fucking giant armada of starships that are doing fuck all else important that can show up at the end of Picard.

That's what a post-scarcity society means. You choose not to help because you're a fucking dick. Because you have all the help anyone could possibly want at literally the touch of a button.

Nintex

  • Finish the Fight
  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3117 on: May 21, 2020, 06:40:58 PM »
Europe is so racist that we send our own naval ships to save drowning refugees scammed by Turkish smugglers and Somali pirates to cross over to Europe on a raft and provide them with food, shelter, welfare benefits and if fleeing from war a permanent invitation to stay and start a new life.

You know, just like Picard.



If Picard wanted to do Brexit and Trump they shouldn't have made space Hillary Clinton the one to yell at Patrick Stewart about his fucking hubris.
🤴

Tasty

  • Senior Member
Re: star trek
« Reply #3118 on: May 21, 2020, 06:44:02 PM »
:mindblown the fuck happened here

bork

  • おっぱいは命、尻は故郷
  • Global Moderator
Re: star trek
« Reply #3119 on: May 21, 2020, 07:24:00 PM »
Real talk: when we gonna get Nic Cage as Starfleet captain?  Can you imagine?


ど助平