DS9 - Rejoined

[clearspira]

It is undeniable that there is a moral absolutism to today's Trek although it also has to be said that this is not the first time. Season 1 of TNG treated anyone who believed in capitalism, a national flag (unless it was Picard's), a uniform (unless it was Starfleet's) or even eating meat as the scum of humanity. And then of course later on we got into the Prime Directive as gospel which killed people.

Honestly, the only time Trek really treated the left and right equally was in TOS and probably because its creator was someone who often only play-acted as being on the left. I can only imagine the ripples that would ensue across Twitter if you had Kirk passionately quote the US constitution to a group of aliens today. It just would not happen.

[GreyICE]

Ah here comes the unnecessary and unwarranted condescension...But funny that you mention assumptions. Because I did not assume anything in my original post.

And yet here's a whole pile of assumptions about me and what you think I'm doing.

However the more I watched the way this discussion was going the more I realized that it is less of a discussion and more of a battlefield that got rushed and quickly overtaken by the progressive "modern thinking" posters like GreyICE and mathewgsmith who stated their opinions and showed that they are ready to immediately engage any opposition with labels like "bigot" or "homophobe" therefor allowing themselves the opportunity to claim moral and ethical superiority and stopping any further discussion in it's tracks because nobody wants to argue with someone so detestable as a bigot. (Funny thing 400 years ago that label would've been "stinking Jew" and 50 years ago it would've been "commie fag")

I admit to not really giving a fuck here. I didn't say anything about you, you said this pile of horseshit, and now you want to get worked up because I was a little condescending in my answer.

Y'know what? Life's too short. I hope that chip on your shoulder works out for you. Ta

[Riedquat]

It is undeniable that there is a moral absolutism to today's Trek although it also has to be said that this is not the first time. Season 1 of TNG treated anyone who believed in capitalism, a national flag (unless it was Picard's), a uniform (unless it was Starfleet's) or even eating meat as the scum of humanity. And then of course later on we got into the Prime Directive as gospel which killed people.

Reflective of the times, at least now. It's a pity it doesn't try to find the line between that and trying to be "grey" by being needlessly arseholeish (a direction DISCO tried to go in as far as I can tell, at least going by Chuck's reviews), but subtle and reasonable is out of fashion. I'm not sure if it's ever been in fashion.

[TGLS]

But funny that you mention assumptions. Because I did not assume anything in my original post. Instead the second half of my post - which you either seem to have mis-understood or completely forgotten about was stating an opinion - based on verifiable facts - that it would seem people around the world are not interested in modern Star Trek and in fact much of the current media presenting "modern values" and seem to prefer the old TNG-era Trek which is happily streaming on Netflix and is beloved all around the world while Star Trek: Lower Decks still haven't found anyone willing to distribute it internationally.

Well, here I'm fairly sure you're assuming that people prefer TNG era over 2010s era Trek (and thus dislike "modern values") because TNG era Trek is on Netflix and Lower Decks isn't. And well, that's a bit of a reach. Here are some other reasons why people might not like 2010 Star Trek compared to TNG trek:
1) Increased Serialization
2) Dislike of the Cast
3) Nostalgia for TNG era (and thus not for the new)
4) There's less to binge

And then there's the argument of why Lower Decks might not have been picked up by international streamers over TNG era (which has). Beyond regional differences:
1) Star Trek is largely unproven in the animated market
2) The other two series might not be doing too well and the streamers might want to see how this one does in the US first.
3) TNG has already been made some time ago and CBS/Paramount has let it go cheap

And, last, what do you mean by "modern values"? Beyond having openly gay characters, if anything, the political arguments have been toned down if anything. Message episodes are long gone, beyond milquetoast "don't commit planetary genocide on a massive scale" that get very little debate.

[hammerofglass]

Just look at mathewgsmith who is so certain and so safe in his beliefs - so sure that "The World is wrong and Delen is right" that he's surprised that anyone uses a clearly defined term "extreme conservative" in any other way than as a label for somebody who should be ousted from the conversation and shunned for their differing opinion that is obviously and scientifically proven to be - the "wrong opinion."

Dude, that's just what open bigots call themselves (or "real" conservative). It's their own terminology. That's how Laura Ingraham uses it, that's how Tucker Carson uses it, that's how Ben Shapiro uses it. That's why it's weird to see it used differently. This is not a new phenomenon.

[hammerofglass]

Also, that's a terrible example because Delenn really was right. The guy who said the line knew she was right. He was using bullshit and wordplay to make her doubt her reason and her faith.

Either you didn't think that through or you're dropping a bit of a heavy hint as to your intentions.

[tyrteg]

Heya. Sorry for not responding sooner - I was away from internet for a while.

Here are some other reasons why people might not like 2010 Star Trek compared to TNG trek:
1) Increased Serialization
2) Dislike of the Cast
3) Nostalgia for TNG era (and thus not for the new)
4) There's less to binge

And then there's the argument of why Lower Decks might not have been picked up by international streamers over TNG era (which has). Beyond regional differences:
1) Star Trek is largely unproven in the animated market
2) The other two series might not be doing too well and the streamers might want to see how this one does in the US first.
3) TNG has already been made some time ago and CBS/Paramount has let it go cheap

And, last, what do you mean by "modern values"? Beyond having openly gay characters, if anything, the political arguments have been toned down if anything. Message episodes are long gone, beyond milquetoast "don't commit planetary genocide on a massive scale" that get very little debate.

Those are some great reasons there. I whole-heartily agree. And I could think of quite a few more. Like:
1)Old TNG fans disliking the Discovery visual style
2)Klingons looking like orcs
3)Cinematography focusing on dynamic angled shots - instead of steady camera shots of the whole bridge

But honestly I don't believe that any of those would drive people away in such a decisive and overwhelming manner as we're seeing among all the various cultures around the globe. Other Trek shows had problems yet people mostly stayed with them or treated them as one bad show among many good ones. Now people (and companies) are just dropping the brand as a whole.

Also some of the reasons you mention - like "Dislike of the Cast" are very much tied with what I see as "modern values" - in this case the sudden Hollywood's need for the main characters of almost every new show to be women - possibly women of color and always perfect. From Ray in Star Wars to Michael Burnham to Cpt. Freeman in the new show (who is not a MC but the person of authority).
- All of them always end up being right and whoever doubts them (usually a white male) ends up dead before the episode's end.
- All of them are strong independent - best at anything and everything they decide to do.
- All of them are perfect the way they are, don't need to learn and grow and whenever there is conflict - it comes from the outside.
- And with the exception of the new Lower Decks Captain (who hasn't had enough screen-time yet) they all end up upstaging existing canon male characters to show how awesome they are.

So yes. I'm pretty sure plenty of people around the world dislike the Cast. But I'd say a lot of is tied to the way the characters that they're playing are written.

Finally about Star Trek preaching. The political arguments have been toned down overtly. That is correct. But it's not just somebody speaking straight at the camera that's sending a message. Let me just share a video that perfectly demonstrates the difference in ethical and philosophical values on display. There is no commentary only the two shows - side by side. Just 3-minute video that speaks for pages of arguments:
https://youtu.be/gW-BdB2nesU
Here is one about sanctity of life: https://youtu.be/bAIzvP6gHIU
Here is another one - on smoking among humans in Trek. Even Voyager was able to not fuck it up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnlxugk3Qb0
Can you see the difference? Major Grin has hundreds of them.

Just put those shows side by side. One ethical or philosophical issue after another - be it respect for the dead. Destructive behavior. Treatment of Barkley vs Edward. Sudden shower of vulgar language just to be edgy. In every single one the new Trek shows you their disregard for what Star Trek was trying to show and teach. And it doesn't matter where on Earth you live - you can see it on whichever of the modern shows you watch. So people don't watch it and instead watch the shoes that they know to be good.

Also, that's a terrible example because Delenn really was right. The guy who said the line knew she was right. He was using bullshit and wordplay to make her doubt her reason and her faith.

Either you didn't think that through or you're dropping a bit of a heavy hint as to your intentions.

I... yeah I'm starting to see why FFS might just be the only adequate response. "He was using bullshit and wordplay to make her doubt her reason and her faith." I have watched this episode way too many times. I watched the SF Debris video on this episode. I've talked about it with friends. Yet I still can't tell how on Earth have you come to that conclusion about the message of those words and the episode as a whole.

[Freeverse]

I... yeah I'm starting to see why FFS might just be the only adequate response. "He was using bullshit and wordplay to make her doubt her reason and her faith." I have watched this episode way too many times. I watched the SF Debris video on this episode. I've talked about it with friends. Yet I still can't tell how on Earth have you come to that conclusion about the message of those words and the episode as a whole.

The point is that Delenn had a savior complex, and that she's not the most important person in the universe. It sure as hell wasn't meant to establish that she was wrong, only that she could be wrong, because she's not infallible. I mean, you've seen the rest of the show, right? 'cause based on all of the events that follow that episode... turns out she was right!

[hammerofglass]

I... yeah I'm starting to see why FFS might just be the only adequate response. "He was using bullshit and wordplay to make her doubt her reason and her faith." I have watched this episode way too many times. I watched the SF Debris video on this episode. I've talked about it with friends. Yet I still can't tell how on Earth have you come to that conclusion about the message of those words and the episode as a whole.

The point is that Delenn had a savior complex, and that she's not the most important person in the universe. It sure as hell wasn't meant to establish that she was wrong, only that she could be wrong, because she's not infallible. I mean, you've seen the rest of the show, right? 'cause based on all of the events that follow that episode... turns out she was right!

Or as the actual freaking scene puts it:

"And if the world says otherwise?"
"Then the world is wrong!"
"And Delenn is right? Perhaps the world is right and Delenn is wrong? Have you ever considered that? Have you?"
"Yes. Sometimes."
"Then there may yet be hope for you."

[CharlesPhipps]

Also some of the reasons you mention - like "Dislike of the Cast" are very much tied with what I see as "modern values" - in this case the sudden Hollywood's need for the main characters of almost every new show to be women - possibly women of color and always perfect. From Ray in Star Wars to Michael Burnham to Cpt. Freeman in the new show (who is not a MC but the person of authority).

I find this ridiculous and dumb. Michael Burnham's problem is not that she's perfect. The writing for her is quite clear that she's not. Hell, I'd argue that she's quite a bit more flawed than Janeway was ever written to be or Picard. They've given her crushing PTSD and had her fuck up the beginning of the story. Michael's problem is that she's overexposed and up against some really great actors like Michelle Yeoh, Mary Wiseman, Jason Isaacs, and others we'd like to see more of.

It's also a stupid complaint about Rey. The problem with Rey isn't that she's perfect, the problem is we don't give her character much to do beyond action or quiet moments. We know Rey misses her parents but that's all we know about her character.

Oh and she hates fascism. Good for her.

Even the Captain Freeman one is weird because she's established as being an absolute shit mother.