The New Scientist proclaims "Star Trek Renassiance"

[CharlesPhipps]

It's going on the network this fall, we'll have actual ratings.

Doesn't really matter because the whole appeal of Discovery is that it provides direct cash infusion to the network rather than relying on advertising revenue. So the savings they get for using DISCO to fill in a timeslot that they would otherwise have to make a new show for is just gravy.

[Riedquat]

WHAT do they like? WHY do they think it's fun?

Why do you like any particular food, or music, or anything else? Sure, people will put up explanations but look in to them and they're probably "because they're similar to something else I like." "Because I like it" is often the real underlying explanation (same with dislike). All going in to more details does is really giving examples of similar things you like, which to be fair is probably good for review purposes in helping the reader make up their mind.

[Link8909]

Why do you like any particular food, or music, or anything else? Sure, people will put up explanations but look in to them and they're probably "because they're similar to something else I like." "Because I like it" is often the real underlying explanation (same with dislike). All going in to more details does is really giving examples of similar things you like, which to be fair is probably good for review purposes in helping the reader make up their mind.

Absolutely, while I do try to give explanations to why I like or dislike something, sometimes the simple explanation is that I just do.

Most times I will even struggle as to why this is and I will try to find out exactly why I do like something but not like another, reviewers like Chuck and Linkara have helped me better understand how to articulate my own opinions.

[Worffan101]

WHAT do they like? WHY do they think it's fun?

Why do you like any particular food, or music, or anything else? Sure, people will put up explanations but look in to them and they're probably "because they're similar to something else I like." "Because I like it" is often the real underlying explanation (same with dislike). All going in to more details does is really giving examples of similar things you like, which to be fair is probably good for review purposes in helping the reader make up their mind.

It's just not a super convincing argument. "I think this is great!" OK. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one. "I think that this character is really interesting and I think that this storyline is really good." OK, NOW we can actually debate something meaty.

Probably still won't agree but still.

[CharlesPhipps]

It's just not a super convincing argument. "I think this is great!" OK. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one. "I think that this character is really interesting and I think that this storyline is really good." OK, NOW we can actually debate something meaty.

Probably still won't agree but still.

The issue I've found is quite a few people don't actually seem to believe DISCO and PICARD have fans, as if the statements are so insane that it breaks their mind. I love the two shows and quite a few of my hardcore Trekkie fans are like, "You're insane!"

[Link8909]

It's just not a super convincing argument. "I think this is great!" OK. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one. "I think that this character is really interesting and I think that this storyline is really good." OK, NOW we can actually debate something meaty.

Probably still won't agree but still.

The issue I've found is quite a few people don't actually seem to believe DISCO and PICARD have fans, as if the statements are so insane that it breaks their mind. I love the two shows and quite a few of my hardcore Trekkie fans are like, "You're insane!"

Pretty much.

I know this is an obvious statement, but people do enjoy different things from other people, and that's fine, good even, it's good that even if you don't enjoy something, someone else will.

And yet it seems like nowadays people have forgotten this fact and believe that their opinion is the definitive one, and that your crazy or stupid for not agreeing, it's honestly why I don't like the Plinkett reviews and think Chuck's reviews are far better, and this is something Linkara pointed out in is review of The Phantom Menace Comic, that the Plinkett reviews were considered the definitive review of these films, but with Chuck he always states that he is just a viewer with an opinion.

Basically with Plinkett reviews it's: this film or series is terrible and this is why, while Chuck is: I don't like this film or series and this is why, they may seem the same, but are actually very different.

And while I'm fine with people not liking the same things as me, what I'm against is this sort of proactive hatred towards the things that they don't like that has become more prominent as of late, it's ok if you don't like Discovery or Picard, it's another to harass the people who do enjoy them, or even spread hearsay and rumors about them and the people that work on them in order to trick people into not watching them, and forcing your own opinions by proclaiming that if you do like a series or film then your crazy or an idiot.

[CharlesPhipps]

Its actually the conformity that bothers me most. If I were a snooty Star Trek fan, I'd be GLAD that I hated something the masses loved because I'd assume I had "better" taste. However, quite a few haters insist they are somehow the voice of the multitudes.

Whether it's true or not.

[Worffan101]

Picard isn't a bad show, just one deeply flawed by the toxic influence of Secret Hideout in general and Akiva Goldsman in particular. There's some stuff in it that I not only loved but that I believe is genuinely revolutionary for Trek, like Troi and Riker's kid inventing his own planet because he was born in space. And Jeri Ryan and Patrick Stewart universally stole the show.

The problem is that the Borg cube scenes mostly suck, the Romulan worldbuilding is mediocre and almost feels too TOS Vulcan, which I guess was the point but is kinda a letdown compared to "Rihannsu", Murderbot is a shitty villain, the fake-out death sucks totally, killing off Icheb and Hugh was cruel and unnecessary (ESPECIALLY both of them!), Raffi is not sufficiently sympathetic to make up for being a jerkass, the android planet's magic flowers and hippie presentation wore on me due to my experience with Berman-era Trek's aging flower-child obsessions, and quite frankly they ripped the plot off of Mass Effect.

It's still way better than STD, which is Dick Cheney's darkest masturbatory fantasies brought to life with a "We're diverse!" social-capital coat of paint slapped over top, and then processed through the patented and time-tested Alex Kurtzman Shittification Engine, then capped off with the most obvious "oh fuck we really should've paid attention to Clexagate happening THE YEAR BEFORE WE FRIDGED THE GAY GUY and not fridged the gay guy" fix-it imaginable. And season 2 is basically ripped straight from David Hack's shitty novels about the Federation being a secret dystopia run by an evil AI because being good is stupid and naive and for babies and only Hard Men doing Hard Things and making Hard Decisions are able to preserve the fatherland and oh, oh, oh god, Dave Hack just creamed himself all over his Jack Bauer body pillow. But Section 31 are totally good guys it's just that they made a little mistake, y'all.

I mean, at least Picard has the balls to say that mindless nationalism is bad. And some of its scripts are actually competent. And it has two of the best actors in the world.

[CharlesPhipps]

I think Icheb was killed because of his actor's comments about Anthony Rapp's sexual abuse. They recast the role and killed him.

Poor Hugh could have been a regular.

It should be noted Culber's death wasn't a "fix" as he was always going to die and get resurrected. They even said as much in the aftermath interview RIGHT AFTER THE EPISODE AIRED.

And season 2 is basically ripped straight from David Hack's shitty novels about the Federation being a secret dystopia run by an evil AI because being good is stupid and naive and for babies and only Hard Men doing Hard Things and making Hard Decisions are able to preserve the fatherland and oh, oh, oh god, Dave Hack just creamed himself all over his Jack Bauer body pillow. But Section 31 are totally good guys it's just that they made a little mistake, y'all.

I'm glad they retconned Control as having no control over the Federation. Its just an evil AI.

[Riedquat]

It's just not a super convincing argument. "I think this is great!" OK. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone's got one. "I think that this character is really interesting and I think that this storyline is really good." OK, NOW we can actually debate something meaty.

Probably still won't agree but still.

Why do you think the character is interesting? Why do you think the storyline is really good?

This is another case of trying to post-justify personal taste with facts (as much as "interesting" or "good" can be more than just subjective anyway). You might like boring characters and inane storylines - indeed, there is a chunk of that in most of us, because plenty of people enjoy a bit of so good it's bad.

Facts alone tell you what something actually is. They've got nothing to say about desirable or otherwise, to do that you need to put them in to context of what you happen to prefer. It's a very common mistake (right up to those at the top) to get those the wrong way round. "This list of facts trumps any explanation based on 'well I like it / don't like it'" is in reality a complete absurdity. You can use the facts to make an assessment towards whether they're likely to produce something you like or not, but without that they have zero value.

You can draw some conclusions about how well something's likely to be received because some likes, dislikes, and opinions are more commonly shared than others, but that's all.

Another mistake though would be to use all of that to let crap off the hook - it won't stop me ripping something to pieces if I think it deserves it. After all some people like being thoroughly vile to others, if we push things to the extreme.