DIS - Through the Valley of the Shadow

[Deledrius]

I don't think CBS or anyone working on Star Trek is deliberately trying to divide the fandom, in-fact going by Lower Decks and green lighting a Captain Pike series, as well as trying new things like with Discovery going into the future, they want to broaden the audience of the franchise, if anything I'd say those that spread misinformation like those that make click-bait videos or Reddit posted about rumours do more harm to the fandom, its ok if you don't like something, its another to get everyone else worked up because you didn't like something.

You're right, and I worded that poorly. I don't think they intended this to be the result. No one sets out to ruin something, but it can happen (it's not like bad business decisions are never made). I do think it's obvious they intended to create a new audience through the JJ films (and again with these soft-reboot shows), and they clearly cared more about that than maintaining their existing fanbase. As you point out, you can see that they've been attempting to repair that mistake, too, with some of the changes in the last year or so of material. But at this point they have a split fanbase, and I don't just mean those YouTubers who want everything to go down in flames (those guys aren't helping anyone).

The problem as I see it was that they didn't broaden the audience, they made works that were thematically incompatible, giving themselves a fanbase that is largely separate circles on the Venn diagram (but not entirely; there are fans who enjoy all of it). Instead of broadening and branching out, they struck out into a completely different tone and setting and are now trying to soften the space between and make a bridge. That's a decision they made, intentional or not, and now they're working to repair it. What I'm seeing with Picard and Lower Decks is a group of folks attempting to make that bridge but still not quite understanding the material they're bridging to. They get the form, but not the function.

But hey, there are a lot of people enjoying the new stuff anyway. Is it more or less than it might have been? I have no idea, we don't have the numbers. It just seems like a costlier mistake, to me, than growing the existing property from the inside out. Hopefully it'll all come together again and make sense at some point.

[Link8909]

I don't think CBS or anyone working on Star Trek is deliberately trying to divide the fandom, in-fact going by Lower Decks and green lighting a Captain Pike series, as well as trying new things like with Discovery going into the future, they want to broaden the audience of the franchise, if anything I'd say those that spread misinformation like those that make click-bait videos or Reddit posted about rumours do more harm to the fandom, its ok if you don't like something, its another to get everyone else worked up because you didn't like something.

You're right, and I worded that poorly. I don't think they intended this to be the result. No one sets out to ruin something, but it can happen (it's not like bad business decisions are never made). I do think it's obvious they intended to create a new audience through the JJ films (and again with these soft-reboot shows), and they clearly cared more about that than maintaining their existing fanbase. As you point out, you can see that they've been attempting to repair that mistake, too, with some of the changes in the last year or so of material. But at this point they have a split fanbase, and I don't just mean those YouTubers who want everything to go down in flames (those guys aren't helping anyone).

The problem as I see it was that they didn't broaden the audience, they made works that were thematically incompatible, giving themselves a fanbase that is largely separate circles on the Venn diagram (but not entirely; there are fans who enjoy all of it). Instead of broadening and branching out, they struck out into a completely different tone and setting and are now trying to soften the space between and make a bridge. That's a decision they made, intentional or not, and now they're working to repair it. What I'm seeing with Picard and Lower Decks is a group of folks attempting to make that bridge but still not quite understanding the material they're bridging to. They get the form, but not the function.

But hey, there are a lot of people enjoying the new stuff anyway. Is it more or less than it might have been? I have no idea, we don't have the numbers. It just seems like a costlier mistake, to me, than growing the existing property from the inside out. Hopefully it'll all come together again and make sense at some point.

I definitely agree.

I think with the benefit of hindsight, Discovery first season could have played it safe and just been about a regular ship exploring unknown space in an episodic format, even if it was set in Captain Kirk's era and had a small sub-plot running in the background that gets paid off in the end of the season similar to when Doctor Who relaunched, and then introduce newer elements next season, and while I do like the first season of Discovery, it is a complete one-eighty to what fans are used to Star Trek being.

But I do think the direction Star Trek is going is really good, having multiple series going that vary differently from each other, one thing I love about Star Trek as a franchise is that because it's about exploring both the unknown and the human condition, that one can tell any kind of story in any way in this universe, and this direction reflects that, it's saying that there's more than one way to tell a Star Trek story and we're going to do so.

Personally I would like Star Trek to try new things and challenge itself, its why I love Star Trek Picard and Short Treks, even Star Trek Lower Decks while heavily referencing and immersing itself in the lore and being episodic, is far different from any Star Trek series before it, and while Star Trek Strange New Worlds is set to return to the classic format, I do hope it lives up to its name and gives us some really creative planets, cultures, and ideas, while still having the traditional planet of the week episodic format.

[Freeverse]

Right, and basically my point is that whether something fits or not is subjective.[...]

Honestly this whole thing seems to be missing my point, whether deliberately or accidentally. Neither possibility particularly pleases me.

As I understand it, you were saying that just because a creator includes something doesn't make it a good fit for the work they're making, and the things they include that aren't a good fit make the work worse.

If I missed your point, then I guess I misunderstood something. But if that's the case, then I don't know what it is I'm not getting.

[Enterprising]

I have no idea, we don't have the numbers.

We have some now with "The Vulcan Hello" being broadcasted by CBS last week, and it just about won out in viewers and ratings against a Pen & Teller re-run. Love Island, Family Feud, and a few other game/reality show re-runs all had more viewers & higher ratings in the target demographic.

A limited sample so far granted, still doesn't paint a good picture, especially as a series opener should normally give a show's best achievable numbers.

[CrashGordon94]

As I understand it, you were saying that just because a creator includes something doesn't make it a good fit for the work they're making, and the things they include that aren't a good fit make the work worse.

I was pointing out that they should make things fit, and that it's possible to put in things that don't (as we all know) so you can't say it fits simply because it's present.

Brushing it all off with "It's subjective!" is either missing the point or being deliberately obtuse.

[TGLS]

I have no idea, we don't have the numbers.

We have some now with "The Vulcan Hello" being broadcasted by CBS last week, and it just about won out in viewers and ratings against a Pen & Teller re-run. Love Island, Family Feud, and a few other game/reality show re-runs all had more viewers & higher ratings in the target demographic.

A limited sample so far granted, still doesn't paint a good picture, especially as a series opener should normally give a show's best achievable numbers.

Well, it is a three years ago season opener. When it was broadcast 3 years ago it was the most popular thing that night after Football and 60 Minutes.

[Freeverse]

As I understand it, you were saying that just because a creator includes something doesn't make it a good fit for the work they're making, and the things they include that aren't a good fit make the work worse.

I was pointing out that they should make things fit, and that it's possible to put in things that don't (as we all know) so you can't say it fits simply because it's present.

Brushing it all off with "It's subjective!" is either missing the point or being deliberately obtuse.

I think I get the point - I just disagree with it. And the reason I disagree is because it's assuming that there's an objective measure of when something doesn't fit. But I don't think there's an objective method to make that determination. It's something that each person is going to make their own decision on, based on how they interpret the text.

I think it's a good practice for writers to consider the implications of anything they include in their work, but ultimately they can't control how someone will take it. Even if they try to make everything fit, some people are going to feel like some things don't. Which is why in critical analysis, you have to actually make your case for why something doesn't fit.

So, it's very true that the mere presence of something says nothing about how well it fits, but that's because how well something fits isn't some inherent quality that can be factually proven.

[CrashGordon94]

I think I get the point - I just disagree with it. And the reason I disagree is because it's assuming that there's an objective measure of when something doesn't fit. But I don't think there's an objective method to make that determination. It's something that each person is going to make their own decision on, based on how they interpret the text.

That seems to loop around to what people have said before in criticising your point, to have it just be meaningless "anything goes".

I think it's a good practice for writers to consider the implications of anything they include in their work, but ultimately they can't control how someone will take it.

I'm not talking about "how someone will take it", that has nothing to do with anything.

So, it's very true that the mere presence of something says nothing about how well it fits, but that's because how well something fits isn't some inherent quality that can be factually proven.

If there's a straight-up contradiction, people can spot it and point it out. And such things can drag down a work.

Frankly, I see no value or merit in the point you're making or why you're even holding onto it. To accept it would be to torpedo all criticism of any form, such as the video series this forum is about for one!

[Freeverse]

I think I get the point - I just disagree with it. And the reason I disagree is because it's assuming that there's an objective measure of when something doesn't fit. But I don't think there's an objective method to make that determination. It's something that each person is going to make their own decision on, based on how they interpret the text.

That seems to loop around to what people have said before in criticising your point, to have it just be meaningless "anything goes".

It's not meaningless, it's allowing for the existence of more than one meaning.

I think it's a good practice for writers to consider the implications of anything they include in their work, but ultimately they can't control how someone will take it.

I'm not talking about "how someone will take it", that has nothing to do with anything.
[/quote]

I would argue that how we interpret a work is extremely relevant at any time we are evaluating its merit.

So, it's very true that the mere presence of something says nothing about how well it fits, but that's because how well something fits isn't some inherent quality that can be factually proven.

If there's a straight-up contradiction, people can spot it and point it out. And such things can drag down a work.

Frankly, I see no value or merit in the point you're making or why you're even holding onto it. To accept it would be to torpedo all criticism of any form, such as the video series this forum is about for one!
[/quote]

Contradictions are possible, and the work suffering for them is possible. But neither of these cases are indisputable. There are many, many examples of so-called contradictions that I have heard of, which I do not consider to actually be contradictory. I avoided using examples because it seemed like you wanted to speak more generally and I'm trying to meet you where you are at to get my point across. But it would be really easy for me to provide a great many examples if you're curious.

In general, there are many times when the contradiction in question can be easily explained away. Usually, people who like the work are willing to provide that explanation, and people who don't, aren't. There are also many times where the contradiction comes not directly from the text, but from inferences that people made about the text, and generally assumed to be true, and weren't willing to be proven wrong about those assumptions when the text contradicted them. There are some cases where one piece of a story can't overlap with another, but in that case, how do you determine which piece is the more offensive? Should it be purely chronological? Should it be whichever story is stronger? The former seems arbitrary and unhelpful, and the latter is... well, subjective, right?

I would argue that contradictions very rarely make much of a difference in the overall quality of a work, since continuity may be quite a bit of fun to keep track of, but that it pales in comparison to a myriad of other important factors in what makes a good story. Other people don't feel the same way as I do, and that's fine. For some, a contradiction is a direct mark against whatever story it occurs in, and the more egregious the contradiction the worse the story is.

All of that is opinion, though. Neither position is more correct than the other. They're just different ways of appreciating story-telling. I mean, this is just how critique works. You can't have objective critique other than saying "This is what is in the text. This is also in the text. Here's some more things that are in the text." and that's certainly fine, if someone wants to do that. I don't think I would want to read that, but to each their own, right?

I mean, we're not on a forum for "fact-based scientific reviews". We're talking about the "Opinionated Episode Guide". Because criticism is opinion-based. Here's a show, and this is what I think about it, and here's why. Now that we've heard someone else's opinion and arguments, we can bring our own opinions and arguments into the discussion. We can learn more about the art we're discussing by considering other people's views on it. We may not agree, but it is still valuable to consider other angles and why someone else may see it differently. Subjectivity is the beginning of criticism, not the end.

[CrashGordon94]

It's not meaningless, it's allowing for the existence of more than one meaning.

No, it allows for the existences of zero meanings to anything.

I would argue that how we interpret a work is extremely relevant at any time we are evaluating its merit.

Cool. Completely irrelevant to the point being made though, so no point to even saying that.

Contradictions are possible, and the work suffering for them is possible.

Your previous arguments would rule that out, saying that nothing can ever because "it's all subjective maaaan!" and "they wrote it into the work".

In general, there are many times when the contradiction in question can be easily explained away.

Cool, but I'm not talking about those so it's irrelevant.

I mean, we're not on a forum for "fact-based scientific reviews". We're talking about the "Opinionated Episode Guide".

And while you were zeroing in on the title, I was listening to what Chuck actually said and a lot of the time it was pointing out these kinds of contradictions and how they harm the story, either in the individual episode.

All of which your idea would kill.