breezy1985 wrote: » They are afraid to do anything that doesnt involve a million call backs and Easter eggs and all that nonsense that generates memberberries and youtube traffic. All 3 current shows are about hey look its that guy from that thing from before wow but at least Lower Decks and PIC to a lesser extent are honest about it
Bobtheman wrote: » You lost me here. Could you explain? Call backs? Easter eggs??🙂
breezy1985 wrote: » If you don't know what they are I imagine Discovery and all these super hero movies are not your thing. A call back is simple enough it's just referencing previous Trek in the new show but can get annoying like having Spock in a show just for the sake of it instead of new characters so people get all fuzzy. Lower Decks is all callbacks basically but does it for laughs. An Easter egg is a hidden call back like having ships cammed Voyager-J and the Big in the background. You usually have to pause and recheck scenes to see them or watch YouTube breakdown shows
pixelburp wrote: » I disagree; show me a popular SciFi franchise of the last 20 years that doesn't inherently plough the furrow that amounts to "humanity are their own worst enemy". Babylon 5 maybe? Andromeda perhaps, but that's going back to the 90s - and sure B5 was just a rebadged DS9 :pac: </troll>
Nody wrote: » *Notes down that Pixelburp is the first to be shot once the Vorlons come back*
pixelburp wrote: » Heehee; hey never said that was a bad thing given to me DS9 is the pinnacle of Trek It's a deep shame a remaster of Babylon 5 will never come to be; the CGI is amazing for its time/budget but desperately needs a lick of paint now (for those not in the know, the FX were composited directly on the source video footage - so unlike TNG there's no "clean" version with the blue or green screens to remaster over)
Straczynski indicated that Paramount Television was aware of his concept as early as 1989,[117] when he attempted to sell the show to the studio, and provided them with the series bible, pilot script, artwork, lengthy character background histories, and plot synopses for 22 "or so planned episodes taken from the overall course of the planned series".[118][119] Paramount declined to produce Babylon 5, but later announced Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was in development, two months after Warner Bros. announced its plans for Babylon 5. Unlike previous Star Trek shows, Deep Space Nine was based on a space station, and had themes similar to those of Babylon 5, which drew some to compare it with Babylon 5. Straczynski stated that, even though he was confident that Deep Space Nine producer/creators Rick Berman and Michael Piller had not seen this material, he suspected that Paramount executives used his bible and scripts to steer development of Deep Space Nine.[120][121][122] Straczynski and Warner did not file suit against Paramount, largely because he believed it would negatively affect both TV series. He argued the same when confronted by claims that the lack of legal action was proof that his allegation was unfounded.[122] According to a 2017 interview with Patricia Tallman, there was a legal case and an out-of-court settlement with Paramount.[123]
pixelburp wrote: » My reckoning is simply that the story hasn't advanced because collectively, the social conscience isn't aligned to a franchise with a utopia as the status quo. We're far removed from the heady optimism of Treks birth in the futuristic styling of 60s pop culture: open a newspaper; it's full of environmental collapse, political division, pandemics, while social media acts as ideological poison. While the presence of a story set within a "perfect" futures seems like the obvious response to this as escapism, misery likes company. Fiction - especially sci-fi - often reflects the mood of the populous, hence we get all these post apocalyptic tales - and why Trek generally can't move forward with its timeline (at least, not without throwing a grease into the setting). Equally, this morose attitude leans into nostalgia for "better times", hence all the reverential callbacks, reboots, belated sequels etc. It's not without reason The Walking Dead is/was the ratings smash it has been. Culturally we're wallowing.
Banana Republic 1 wrote: » Wasn’t your one sinqua Martin Green in the walking dead
Nody wrote: » It's more to do which is the source of which :P I've actually own the DVD copies of all five seasons and one of the movies for BS5 and I'm rewatching it atm though I will admit I'm skipping certain episodes that annoy me (looking at you Zathras...).
Bobtheman wrote: » Never watched Babylon 5 ? Any good?. Too much TV is overtly dark now. Grim .
Nody wrote: » I've actually own the DVD copies of all five seasons and one of the movies for BS5 and I'm rewatching it atm though I will admit I'm skipping certain episodes that annoy me (looking at you Zathras...).
pixelburp wrote: » Never said they didn't, but the 50s & 60s (specifically in America) were seen as the zeneth of its status and technological superiority; and not without reason. IIRC the average American ate 50% more than the average European during the mid '50s - just to pull one point of comparison. After all, this is the time the MAGA crowd pine for. While in the zeitgeist and SciFi in general, it was forward-thinking and incredibly optimistic in nature. Not just Trek, but everything from penny dreadfuls, comics, to noted "proper" writers of the time. That was the era of the Space Race, and breathless editorials about how we were going to live on the moon in 20 years time. It's not without reason Khan was from the far-future of the 1990s - there was a lot of outward thinking in that respect that advances would accelerate. Can the same be said now? IMO there's no way Trek could have been born from any other cultural era than 1960s America because that was when that country (or rather, a very niche demographic within) believed the future was bright; the occasional Cuban Crisis notwithstanding. Vietnam put an end to SciFi as broadly optimistic, when you started to see this grubbier, more pessimistic tone creep in (see books like The Forever War for instance)
[Deleted User] wrote: » Thats a strong mis-reading of history. The future often looked bleak in the late 1960s to the mid 1980's although optimism had returned by the 90s. From city riots, increases in crime and drug use, to general Cold War paranoia the 70s and early 80s were a time of deep pessimism. Environmental pessimism too ( see the club of Rome) . Although I dont like them Thatcher and Reagan did in fact seem to increase confidence and the rise of Gorbachev and the collapse of the Soviet Union accelerated it. So TNG reflected the zeitgeist, but TOS rebelled against it.
GreeBo wrote: » If you have reached utopia, what other story/timeline advancement can you really do though? It's always going to be either standalone episodes with some distant overall arc, or something about dealing with "the enemy" who haven't reached your enlightened state of utopia. I really don't see what else they can do to further anything, know it's really just about stuff that happens in that universe, the universe had been built for decades. Arguably the burn is a novel device to advance the universe by removing one of the things that gave them utopia. They could have done similar by removing transporters or replicators, but if everyone has everything they could ever need at their fingertips, well the world just won't be that interesting for an outsider to observe.
Deleted User wrote: » Thats a strong mis-reading of history. The future often looked bleak in the late 1960s to the mid 1980's although optimism had returned by the 90s. From city riots, increases in crime and drug use, to general Cold War paranoia the 70s and early 80s were a time of deep pessimism. Environmental pessimism too ( see the club of Rome) . Although I dont like them Thatcher and Reagan did in fact seem to increase confidence and the rise of Gorbachev and the collapse of the Soviet Union accelerated it. So TNG reflected the zeitgeist, but TOS rebelled against it.
Rawr wrote: » The Earth / Federation Utopia of the TNG-era was something that was referenced a lot, but rarely explained too well. They painted a very warm picture of a society where racism, sexism, and other societal ills are mostly gone, and that the only failings of humanity were individual to each person. I had always wondered how this cash-less society worked and how ordinary civilians were motivated to work at all, given that almost all needs were given for free.
breezy1985 wrote: » Except for wherever Yar grew up spending her life running from rape gangs.
Rawr wrote: » Wasn't Turkana IV an old United Earth colony that somehow descended into civil war and then declared independence from the Federation? I feel they were using that as a bit of a juxtaposition to compare how great things were in the Federation, to how badly things could go if you let them. Would have been interesting to see what actually led to things getting so bad on pre-Independence Turkana IV.
pah wrote: » Indeed, something to aspire to for the young female viewers.
FunLover18 wrote: » https://twitter.com/sarahisnothere/status/1332455919700078592?s=19 This applies to the shows they watch as well, representation is important and it doesn't have to be about aspiration. And let's not forget that obesity and body shape isn't always a choice, genetics and metabolism come into it as well.
Originally Posted by Rawr View Post The Earth / Federation Utopia of the TNG-era was something that was referenced a lot, but rarely explained too well. They painted a very warm picture of a society where racism, sexism, and other societal ills are mostly gone, and that the only failings of humanity were individual to each person. I had always wondered how this cash-less society worked and how ordinary civilians were motivated to work at all, given that almost all needs were given for free.
Banana Republic 1 wrote: » I often wondered how the starlet people paid quark for the drinks and stuff
Rawr wrote: » The Earth / Federation Utopia of the TNG-era was something that was referenced a lot, but rarely explained too well. They painted a very warm picture of a society where racism, sexism, and other societal ills are mostly gone, and that the only failings of humanity were individual to each person. I had always wondered how this cash-less society worked and how ordinary civilians were motivated to work at all, given that almost all needs were given for free. The main point though, is that TNG-era Federation worlds were wonderful & safe and that any conflict with the Borg or Dominion could have been seen as an effort to defend that way of life from a cold and unforgiving Galaxy. There was a slight sense of that being lost when Betazed fell to the Dominion. We never see anything of that occupation (beyond expanded universe novels) but the idea that the brutal oppression of Dominion control was brought close to "home" in that way, made the likes of the Dominion War felt like a despite fight to hold onto a brighter future. As dark as DS9 got, I felt that Star Trek's usual optimism was still in the background and that much of the effort of the characters there was to try and bring that optimism to a war-torn part of the galaxy, while showing us how hard it can be to be optimistic in those kinds of situations. I would agree that there are only so many different ways to do the TOS/TNG format before you end up repeating yourself. DS9 and VOY were interesting ways to re-imagine that and ENT was essentiually a re-skin of the older concept. Discovery is a different concept too, as is Picard. Both on their own are actually pretty good ideas on paper, and may have actually made for excellent Trek if they hadn't been produced by talent-less hacks.
breezy1985 wrote: » What annoyed me about Tilly was the show tried to bask in the glory of having a character Tillys size but then wrote her as insecure and unfit. If you want to show you don't need to be stick thin to be in starfleet then show the bigger characters as just as fit and strong as everyone else and not having he rout of breath all the time. I hate when people assume I am not as fit and strong as my tall skinny friends but all Tilly does is reinforces that stereotype
Bobtheman wrote: » I dont fully agree. Most of the Discovery Characters display doubt and insecurity in some shape or form. I actually think it makes her way more credible. Way more human and to me that is attractive. But being 60 (me)-any woman below 40 is de facto attractive!!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/87962ff026856470eacf12f9c3179c90.svg)
