Alex Kurtzman signs 4 year contract extension worth $160 Million

[Yukaphile]

Well, I never saw Force Awakens (I prefer the old Legends EU, we all know that), and I haven't watched DISCO or made it to modern Doctor Who yet, so I'll just take your word on that, hahaha.

The funny part is that Carter would feel like a Mary Sue if she wasn't so well written. Look at all the crazy things she does that's tempered by more grounded human aspirations. She's modest, sure, but take "Death Knell." She's actually allowed to BLEED while being hunted by the ruthless monster, and it was her device that took it out. Hell, there were some movies in the early 1990s that had issues with allowing women in realistic situations that were affecting the men to show equal signs of strain (like Outbreak, when Kevin Spacey's character gets infected, he's all pus-ridden and bleeding from hemorrhages, while Dustin Hoffman's wife character's only sign of visible infection is how her skin goes slightly pinker, that's it, as if beauty is never tarnished, when that's just not realistic). I don't know if studio overlords today would like that, they'd want her to be the one to actually take the killing shot despite being ran ragged in exhaustion, that's just not believable, you know? I wouldn't believe it for Jack either, if you transplanted the wounds she'd had over onto him. Those Kulls are just that hardcore. And of course we all know Carter has her own desire for a spouse and a family, which isn't as shameful as the RadFems today want you to think. A lot of men want the same thing. I mean, I'd like it, but I think such odds for me are pretty low. I mean, if I recall, didn't Tapping herself hate the "reproductive organs" line (which I actually didn't mind, I thought it was kinda cute, lol), so they shoehorned it into a joke in Season 8, with the changed timeline? They also made fun of "Hathor" in that season, which was much appreciated! XD You're right, today the "reproductive organs" line would be the sole bedrock to her characterization, every other word.

That is kinda funny, but the series has been so forgettable to me so far, I don't remember half the names attached to the faces, lol. I'm just dreading when I do dive back in. Oi vey...

[CharlesPhipps]

I'm happy you like it. Sincerely.

My bigger question is why CBS hides their viewing numbers.

Generally I don't think corporations share information that could be used against them like that.

So it becomes a choice of believing CBS/Paramount is very satisfied with the numbers or are run by lunatics throwing money at what online nerds wish was a failure.

Re: Physics

I admit, I fully prefer TOS style lunacy and space opera.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Disagree. I think what makes Stargate one of the best sci-fi series I've ever seen is their willingness to explore actual real-world physics not even Star Trek ever did - the aforementioned supervolcano being one, but there were others. Look at how highly regarded "A Matter of Time" is, and the physics are almost spot-on there. Plus the honesty about their military intentions, which is appreciated. Star Trek shies too hard away from militarism, when let's be real, a lot of militaries have finely honed traditions and rituals of honor that go back generations and centuries. Military doesn't always = bad. How about Carter's admission that a clone wouldn't make a fully-grown adult with your memories, as so often happens in bad sci-fi, but a new being? THAT is very much appreciated and it shows that the creators wanted that fundamental grasp on real science. If they didn't have the real physics as a basic stepping stone, it wouldn't make something as imaginative and unique as, say, the Intergalactic Gate Bridge all the more interesting as a concept. People didn't tune in to Stargate because they wanted social commentary, hell, it never really worked out well when they did - just look at SGU to see what I mean. Or even something within SG-1's own history, "Emancipation." Cut from broadcast when it's about showing off how much of a strong Feminist woman Carter is, but it just came too soon off the premiere.

I disagree. Science fiction (sometimes shortened to sci-fi or SF) is a genre of speculative fiction that typically deals with imaginative and futuristic concepts such as advanced science and technology, space exploration, time travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. It has been called the "literature of ideas", and often explores the potential consequences of scientific, social, and technological innovations.[1][2]

Science fiction, whose roots go back to ancient times, is related to fantasy, horror, and superhero fiction, and contains many subgenres. Its exact definition has long been disputed among authors, critics, scholars, and readers.

Science fiction literature, film, television, and other media have become popular and influential over much of the world. Besides providing entertainment, it can also criticize present-day society, and is often said to inspire a "sense of wonder".[3]

American science fiction author and editor Lester del Rey wrote, "Even the devoted aficionado or fan—has a hard time trying to explain what science fiction is," and the lack of a "full satisfactory definition" is because "there are no easily delineated limits to science fiction."[4] Whereas, according to Isaac Asimov, "Science fiction can be defined as that branch of literature which deals with the reaction of human beings to changes in science and technology."[5] Furthermore, Robert A. Heinlein wrote that "A handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method."[6] Damon Knight summed up the difficulty, saying "science fiction is what we point to when we say it."[7]

In other words, Star Trek is great unparalleled science fiction.

[Yukaphile]

I think it's a VERY dangerous myth we have just to say "science-fiction is the social commentary alone," because then it feeds into this assumption where liberals own the monopoly on it and conservative fans can "shove it, it was never made for you!" I mean, I've seen a lot of that discourse lately, like Marina Sirtis telling Republican fans to go fuck themselves, and I'm not a conservative fan, but frankly, that's just disturbing to me. I'm not a hardcore liberal, and I understand the stuff about real-world crises, but then why are you even involved in what's supposed to be a pure fictional medium divorced from all our real world context? Why not donate, get involved in actual activism or humanitarian causes instead of being a strutting egotist who thinks you own it merely because of your performance? I think the more blunt your messaging is, the narrower your focus is and the less customers you have. When did we just assume liberals held the reins on sci-fi? Because liberals in the past made it? You know, tomorrow's conservatives are today's progressives. That's a trend I've noticed in recent history. Please keep that in mind, especially since we're STILL refighting the same battles from a hundred years ago, but we do share a lot of values. There's more that unites us than divides us when it comes to social humanity, what we dream, what we fear, what terrifies and elates us, our hopes for the future and justice and the world, trying to find a legacy, and yet whenever it comes to all of this shared media, our fictional story worlds, all I find these days is disappointment, division, and unhappy fans. It's concerning to me for the future. Personally, I just want artists to have more control over their work. That seems to be a thing of the past. What happened to the days when the right-wingers of the present and the left-wingers could just sit down and both agree, when Captain Picard challenged Admiral Satie was a stroke of genius, some of the finest writing in franchise history? We just don't get that kinda thing anymore. And I have no idea why. I just wish I did. Who knows. But I'll just keep saying that. For me, a liberal, conservative fans are welcome in my fandom.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think it's a VERY dangerous myth we have just to say "science-fiction is the social commentary alone,"

Why is this important? I never said this.

[Yukaphile]

Maybe I misunderstood. I do have that, you know.

Especially since you use all those big fancy words.

[Deledrius]

And I think we have a bad habit as fandom to just shrug off bad storytelling with the dismissal "give it time, it'll get better." That should never excuse a poor foundation. NEVER. Because now it's everywhere, infected everything, imo.

It's been a big problem in television for at least the last ten years now, in my opinion.

[Yukaphile]

"Give it time, it'll get better" is not ALWAYS a guarantee. I think that gets confused for the trope known as flanderization. Over time, that becomes more prominent. And you know, if flanderization is meant to take the role of characterization though the inevitability of inertia and entropy, does that mean it was always subpar? I guess that depends on the viewer.

[Frustration]

Unless they like both, in which case the entire argument falls apart.

The two kinds of products are so different that a judgment that enjoys both must be extraordinarily inclusive. It's hard enough to discuss matters of taste already; standards of quality that are too radically different make communication next to impossible.

I have watched Star Trek since TNG and watched TOS on reruns since I was like fucking eight.

I still like DISCO and Picard.

I find the quality of storytelling present in DIS and PIC to be not only inadequate to hold my interest but insulting. You're entitled to your own opinion, but I can only conclude that your opinions on art and entertainment come from such different standards that there's no room for agreement. The first season of DIS made the first two seasons of TNG look like seat-of-your-pants thrillers, and it's obvious the show creators have no idea where they're going with it - they can't even settle on a basic premise.

Discovery is a prime example of an entertainment product that has no vision behind it, just a desire to create a product to make money. There's nothing wrong with trying to make money, but it can't by itself result in quality art.

[McAvoy]

And I think we have a bad habit as fandom to just shrug off bad storytelling with the dismissal "give it time, it'll get better." That should never excuse a poor foundation. NEVER. Because now it's everywhere, infected everything, imo.

It's been a big problem in television for at least the last ten years now, in my opinion.

TNG? Those first two seasons were pretty bad. Though viewership saved it. Along with being fully syndicated.