Nobody Cares about TV and Film

bubblesort

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
535
If you somehow haven't seen the controversy surrounding Netflix's new film Cuties... basically it's a film about how sexy 11 year old girls are. You know, the kind of thing pedos love. I'm not interested in watching it, but the judges at Sundance seem to love it. They gave it an award for direction, and nominated it for a grand jury prize. To me, that reinforces the idea that it's a film made for pedos, since Sundance judges are generally Epstein-class pedo types, who like giving awards to people like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski.

This has caused #CancelNetflix to trend on Twitter, but for most of the week, Cuties has been in the top 10 watched list on Netflix, usually in the top 5, so it looks like outrage marketing is working. Yesterday, Netflix stopped showing me the top ten most watched list for some reason. I'm guessing it's because they are getting so much backlash for pushing this movie. I can't even find it in trending now. I have to search for it to find it.

The professional critics are circling the wagons on Cuties, which has created the biggest audience-critic gap I've ever seen on Rotten Tomatoes. Before this, I think the biggest gap I ever saw was probably during the first season of The Orville. That gap was in the opposite direction, though, and IIRC, I think the difference between audience and critics was approaching 80 percentage points back then (BTW, don't listen to the critics, The Orville is awesome).

So yeah... this is what it looks like when Netflix and the film industry work together to try to sell people on pedophilia...

 

Free

she/feline
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
13,555
Location
Underground in America
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
If you somehow haven't seen the controversy surrounding Netflix's new film Cuties... basically it's a film about how sexy 11 year old girls are. You know, the kind of thing pedos love. I'm not interested in watching it, but the judges at Sundance seem to love it. They gave it an award for direction, and nominated it for a grand jury prize. To me, that reinforces the idea that it's a film made for pedos, since Sundance judges are generally Epstein-class pedo types, who like giving awards to people like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski.

This has caused #CancelNetflix to trend on Twitter, but for most of the week, Cuties has been in the top 10 watched list on Netflix, usually in the top 5, so it looks like outrage marketing is working. Yesterday, Netflix stopped showing me the top ten most watched list for some reason. I'm guessing it's because they are getting so much backlash for pushing this movie. I can't even find it in trending now. I have to search for it to find it.

The professional critics are circling the wagons on Cuties, which has created the biggest audience-critic gap I've ever seen on Rotten Tomatoes. Before this, I think the biggest gap I ever saw was probably during the first season of The Orville. That gap was in the opposite direction, though, and IIRC, I think the difference between audience and critics was approaching 80 percentage points back then (BTW, don't listen to the critics, The Orville is awesome).

So yeah... this is what it looks like when Netflix and the film industry work together to try to sell people on pedophilia...

It's interesting how you so easily flip to alt-right/QAnon/conspiracy theorist mode when the mood suits.

When it comes to Rotten Tomatoes, their Audience Score has always been garbage for any film with controversies surrounding them. Even despite RT's last attempt to fix this (the so called "verified audience"), which doesn't work when the film doesn't sell tickets.

Personally I have a few problems with the film, but providing a resource for pedos is not one of them.

Now if you want to attack Netflix's marketing strategy, I'm fine with that. But I have a question for you: HAVE YOU SEEN THE FILM?
 
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Isabeau

bubblesort

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
535
It's interesting how you so easily flip to alt-right/QAnon/conspiracy theorist mode when the mood suits.

When it comes to Rotten Tomatoes, their Audience Score has always been garbage for any film with controversies surrounding them. Even despite RT's last attempt to fix this (the so called "verified audience"), which doesn't work when the film doesn't sell tickets.

Personally I have a few problems with the film, but providing a resource for pedos is not one of them.

Now if you want to attack Netflix's marketing strategy, I'm fine with that. But I have a question for you: HAVE YOU SEEN THE FILM?
No, I haven't seen it. I don't really want to, either. Sure, you can totally throw out my analysis of it for that, and I wouldn't blame you for it, but from what I've read about Cuties, it's just a disgusting film. I have better things to do with my time than watch it.

I don't know what you are talking about regarding Q anon, but it's pretty clear that the artsy film festival awards people have always been way more tolerant with the sexualization of minors, and with sex criminals, than the average movie goer. IDK if they are actually diddling kids, but they do look awfully suspicious to me.

When it comes to audience vs critic scores on Rotten tomatoes, I almost always side with the audience. GoT season 8 is a great example of that. During the season, the critics were gushing about how great it was, while the audience recognized crap when they saw it. I also agree with the audience score on Captain Marvel, but that has nothing to do with the culture wars around it. I'm kind of surprised Captain Marvel elicited strong reactions at all. It just seemed bland to me. Culture wars are weird.

I actually ran some numbers on a bunch of shows a year or two ago, because I was bored. I came up with my own metric called the fake quality rating (or FQ), which is my own measure of marketing vs quality. I assume critics give good ratings to bad shows for people who pay them for it, in one way or another, which is why I call it a measure of fake quality. To get the FQ, I subtract the audience rating from the critic rating. If it's negative, it's probably something I'll like. If it's positive, it's probably garbage. There are some exceptions, like Bandersnatch, which I love. I think if the magnitude of FQ is less than 10 points, give or take, FQ doesn't matter that much.

Here's what that looks like when I ran these numbers a year or two ago:

ShowCritic RatingAudience RatingFQ (Fake Quality rating)
Twilight Zone 2019766214
Twilight Zone 19598092-12
Star Trek: Discovery834835
Star Trek: TOS8087-7
The Orville season 13194-63
Black Mirror: Bandersnatch71665
Doctor Who series 11922171
Love, Death + Robots7590-15
Mr Robot9396-3

Of course, you are totally free do disagree with me on this, because quality is a subjective thing. I personally think the original Twilight Zone is better than Star Trek Discovery, but you know... if you disagree with me, there are apparently a bunch of professional critics out there who disagree with me on that point, for some reason or another. I hate to put on a tin foil hat, but I can't think of any reason why a critic would like Discovery if they aren't getting paid to like Discovery.
 

Free

she/feline
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
13,555
Location
Underground in America
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
No, I haven't seen it. I don't really want to, either. Sure, you can totally throw out my analysis of it for that, and I wouldn't blame you for it, but from what I've read about Cuties, it's just a disgusting film. I have better things to do with my time than watch it.
You certainly didn't have better things to do when it came to slandering the people who made it.

I don't know what you are talking about regarding Q anon
Here's a little of what I've "read about" it:


but it's pretty clear that the artsy film festival awards people have always been way more tolerant with the sexualization of minors, and with sex criminals, than the average movie goer. IDK if they are actually diddling kids, but they do look awfully suspicious to me.
Fine, you have an opinion about the typical film festival goer. People who continue to review films by Woody Allen and Roman Polanski bother me to no end.

The rest of your reply is mostly anecdotal cherry picking on RT. I could probably find a similar set of TV series where the numbers are flipped. And though it wouldn't really prove me right to any serious degree, it would go to show that RT's aggregate #s system, whether for reviewers or audience goers, is commonly garbage and should never be used as a major deciding factor on what to watch.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Ryanna Enfield

Bartholomew Gallacher

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
2,526
SL Rez
2002
It's a French movie made for a French audience. French cinema has been more provocative, sophisticated and risk taking than Hollywood by a long shot since ages. So of course it must offend Americans, especially after Netflix did not introduce it very well to their domestic audience.
 
  • 1Agree
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Free and bubblesort

bubblesort

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
535
You certainly didn't have better things to do when it came to slandering the people who made it.

Here's a little of what I've "read about" it:


Fine, you have an opinion about the typical film festival goer. People who continue to review films by Woody Allen and Roman Polanski bother me to no end.
Oh yeah, you probably do have Qanon types calling Cuties garbage. You have people from all over the place calling cuties garbage. It's not just Trump and his weirdos. Throwing out criticisms of the film because a few assholes criticize it is a heckler's veto, which, in 2020, is not just a critical thinking issue. The reasoning behind the heckler's veto is getting BLM protesters killed all over the country, so now is probably a good time to really think about if you want to pursue that kind of reasoning. I mean, about movies? The stakes are pretty low here. I worry about when the heckler's veto reasoning is applied elsewhere.

I haven't seen you defend the actual content of the film yet. So far I've seen people say these 11 year old girls are simulating oral sex and posting pedo porn on social media. Did I get bad information, or is that actually in the film?

This is clearly outrage marketing, and I can't think of a single good film that used outrage marketing. Culture wars are stupid, and if you release something that triggers engages the culture wars, deliberately, then you probably made a bad film, because a good film would have more selling points than pure outrage.

The rest of your reply is mostly anecdotal cherry picking on RT. I could probably find a similar set of TV series where the numbers are flipped. And though it wouldn't really prove me right to any serious degree, it would go to show that RT's aggregate #s system, whether for reviewers or audience goers, is commonly garbage and should never be used as a major deciding factor on what to watch.
Go ahead, do it. Seriously, I'm genuinely not being argumentative, it's actually fun. My list is a bunch of shows that I care about, but your list would probably be totally different, and you might get totally different results. Maybe you agree with me about how valuable critic vs audience ratings are, or maybe your tastes do line up with critic's opinions more than mine do. Either way, you know how much weight to give different ratings when you see them.

The difference between critic and audience scores is a pretty deep topic. There are lots of lists out there like mine. Here are a few:

USA Today

The Guardian

A super annoying listicle site

Some guy made a site called good movies ninja, where it looks like he got his data from a web scraper, then put together lists of films audiences love but critics hate, and films critics hate but audiences love, and a few other things (check the menu button in the top left).
 

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,755
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
No, I haven't seen it. I don't really want to, either. Sure, you can totally throw out my analysis of it for that, and I wouldn't blame you for it, but from what I've read about Cuties, it's just a disgusting film. I have better things to do with my time than watch it.

I don't know what you are talking about regarding Q anon, but it's pretty clear that the artsy film festival awards people have always been way more tolerant with the sexualization of minors, and with sex criminals, than the average movie goer. IDK if they are actually diddling kids, but they do look awfully suspicious to me.

When it comes to audience vs critic scores on Rotten tomatoes, I almost always side with the audience. GoT season 8 is a great example of that. During the season, the critics were gushing about how great it was, while the audience recognized crap when they saw it. I also agree with the audience score on Captain Marvel, but that has nothing to do with the culture wars around it. I'm kind of surprised Captain Marvel elicited strong reactions at all. It just seemed bland to me. Culture wars are weird.

I actually ran some numbers on a bunch of shows a year or two ago, because I was bored. I came up with my own metric called the fake quality rating (or FQ), which is my own measure of marketing vs quality. I assume critics give good ratings to bad shows for people who pay them for it, in one way or another, which is why I call it a measure of fake quality. To get the FQ, I subtract the audience rating from the critic rating. If it's negative, it's probably something I'll like. If it's positive, it's probably garbage. There are some exceptions, like Bandersnatch, which I love. I think if the magnitude of FQ is less than 10 points, give or take, FQ doesn't matter that much.

Here's what that looks like when I ran these numbers a year or two ago:

ShowCritic RatingAudience RatingFQ (Fake Quality rating)
Twilight Zone 2019766214
Twilight Zone 19598092-12
Star Trek: Discovery834835
Star Trek: TOS8087-7
The Orville season 13194-63
Black Mirror: Bandersnatch71665
Doctor Who series 11922171
Love, Death + Robots7590-15
Mr Robot9396-3

Of course, you are totally free do disagree with me on this, because quality is a subjective thing. I personally think the original Twilight Zone is better than Star Trek Discovery, but you know... if you disagree with me, there are apparently a bunch of professional critics out there who disagree with me on that point, for some reason or another. I hate to put on a tin foil hat, but I can't think of any reason why a critic would like Discovery if they aren't getting paid to like Discovery.
I see fairly high to high positive numbers on both Dicsocery and Doctor Who (the switch to female year). Now, if you go with your premise of avoiding high positive numbers you may well miss out. I could easily attribute the difference between critic and audience scores to the fact that Discovery has gay characters, which some folks would give a negative review on for nothing but that, and for Doctor Who, butthurt people who didn't like the switch to a female doctor. I see nothing wrong with Discovery so far and Doctor Who quality did slip a bit when they put in the female lead, but I think it's because they didn't write very good stories for her. Instead of a arch outline per year of story, with callbacks to previous episodes, they made it more episodic, with one-off stories that went nowhere. While that is quite common with sci-fi and even older Doctor Who's, I don't think it has been for the rebooted series.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: Free

Free

she/feline
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
13,555
Location
Underground in America
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
Oh yeah, you probably do have Qanon types calling Cuties garbage.
Not probably, definitely. And like you, none of them have seen the film - they're reacting to the reactions of others which are reactions of others, etc.

I haven't seen you defend the actual content of the film yet. So far I've seen people say these 11 year old girls are simulating oral sex and posting pedo porn on social media. Did I get bad information, or is that actually in the film?
It's important to put the film in context. It's about a young girl from a Senegalese and Muslim immigrant family, pulled between the traditional views of her heritage and the 'modern' - and yes highly sexualized - mores of Western society.

Most of the outrage you bring up relates to the "Cuties" dance troupe - a bunch of 11-year-olds twerking and performing adult moves and showing far more skin than kids should show (I don't recall any simulated oral sex, but I could have missed it). The point is, it's not played as something OK for 11-year-olds to be doing. As the following article points out, it's "like if the finale of “Little Miss Sunshine” had been played for horror instead of laughs."


Go ahead, do it. Seriously, I'm genuinely not being argumentative, it's actually fun.
I think I'll go with the "I have better things to do" defense on this one.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: Ryanna Enfield

bubblesort

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
535
I see fairly high to high positive numbers on both Dicsocery and Doctor Who (the switch to female year). Now, if you go with your premise of avoiding high positive numbers you may well miss out. I could easily attribute the difference between critic and audience scores to the fact that Discovery has gay characters, which some folks would give a negative review on for nothing but that, and for Doctor Who, butthurt people who didn't like the switch to a female doctor. I see nothing wrong with Discovery so far and Doctor Who quality did slip a bit when they put in the female lead, but I think it's because they didn't write very good stories for her. Instead of a arch outline per year of story, with callbacks to previous episodes, they made it more episodic, with one-off stories that went nowhere. While that is quite common with sci-fi and even older Doctor Who's, I don't think it has been for the rebooted series.
Yeah, the Dr Who thing... I watched the first couple episodes of season 11 and then tuned out. It's not because of gender, I just thought it wasn't very well written. A female doctor is really the only selling point for me, and that novelty wears off fast.

Discovery is just crazy to me. I don't understand the appeal of that show at all. I think CBS just wanted to make Star Trek for people who hate Star Trek.

I might miss something good that critics like and the audience hates, but so far I can't think of anything like that. As I type this I'm in the middle of Netflix's Capital in the 21st Century, based on Pinketty's book, and I love it so far, even though the critics rate it 8 points higher than the audience. Less than 10 points really doesn't mean too much to me, though.
 

Bartholomew Gallacher

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
2,526
SL Rez
2002
I see fairly high to high positive numbers on both Dicsocery and Doctor Who (the switch to female year). Now, if you go with your premise of avoiding high positive numbers you may well miss out. I could easily attribute the difference between critic and audience scores to the fact that Discovery has gay characters, which some folks would give a negative review on for nothing but that, and for Doctor Who, butthurt people who didn't like the switch to a female doctor.
Star Trek in the past did never shy away from being controversial up to the breaking point, you've just got to remember that the first interracial kiss ever being shown on American TV screens back then in the 60s was William Shatner kissing Michelle Nichols - so Kirk kissing Uhura. This was far more risky and controversial compared to putting nowadays an openly gay couple on the ship were the reaction of most is not "WTF?" but "Finally they did it!"

It's not so much about suddenly having the first openly gay pair ever, but more about that for many people the attention of having a diverse cast and telling about it had become a tad too much, while neglecting the story at the same time. The cast of TOS back then was also diverse for its time, having black and white Americans and Russians peacefully on a star ship, exploring space together. You've got to remember this was the peak of the cold war back then, so the idea of having a Russian crew member was nothing short but revolutionary.

A series thrives on acting and story telling, so its cast, character development and stage design. The sexual preferences/gender identity of their roles is for many series a nice addon, but not the main focus which does thrive a series. You can have a successful series on a very tight budget, if the cast is acting quite well and the story telling is on par with that, and also the stages do look convincing enough for the purpose of that series. A stage does not necessarily be the fanciest thing to look at ever, if it is convincing enough and gets the job done.

A prime example of such a series for me is "Babylon 5" or, much younger, "Money Heist" from Spain. Money Heist season ond and two has a great cast, good story and good enough stages, although it showed that this was not the biggest budget production around and so the best they managed to do on that budget. It didn't matter, because cast and story carried the whole series. The same applies to Babylon 5 - graphics effects and stages were clearly on a budget, but it had an amazing cast and story.

Now let's move over to "Star Trek: Discovery." First problem is that is bears the name Star Trek, and Star Trek has a very dedicated hard core generation spanning fan base. Granddads passed it over to dads, which passed it over to childrens. Gene Roddenberry had a very optimistic and quite detailed vision of the future, which is something in such apocalyptic times we are living in right now many people do indeed enjoy for entertainment. And this is what the old fans the franchise do expect from Star Trek: a united, somewhat peaceful, humble and honest man kind, which was able to overcome the old obstacles of the pass, now the glue of the known galaxy.

And this is where Discovery differs a lot from the earlier series: it clearly shows a struggling, desperate mankind which is not above from genocide in order to ensure its own survival. It is a far darker, less optimistic more pessismistic view of the possible future, with a nittier, gritter man kind. This is the first bitter pill die hard fans had to swallow, turning Roddenberry's vision around 180 degress and many didn't like that pill.

The next thing which alienated many people is that the authors seem to have been quite a long time more focused on communicating everybody how diverse their cast is instead of telling a good story. The main focus should be a good story, if this carries well enough you can also have a very much diverse cast and not many would subject at all. But having the most diverse cast ever doesn't automatically make a good story, and telling everybody how much diverse your cast is while having only a mediocre story is a recipe for trouble, where the friendlier people will just tell you to get your priorities right again, and the naster ones will move on to far deeper obscenities. That's the problem.

Star Trek was never known for the most logical stories, it always was suffering from technobabble and deus ex machina events. But it had some great stories anyway, like "Chain of command" in TNG. Also most Star Trek series were on a tight budget.

Discovery on the other hand has an enormous budget, and it shows - the show just oozes visual effects every where, the location shots and stages are doing the rest. But the story is severely lacking, it has logical plot holes of such gigantic proportions that even most hard core fans, which normally are willing to overlook these, really cannot do that any longer. And Discovery feels more like action trek like Star Trek most of the time as well, also quite unlikeable main characters (not actors), like Michael Burnham.

And this is what pissed many people off - the re-invention of Star Trek in a very much non-Roddenberry type of way. That's the worst thing you can possibly do when you got such a generation spanning hard core fan base like Star Trek has. You might win new fans with that type of approach, while pissing off the old ones which kept the franchise running for a long time and making lots of money.

Much of this can as well be applied to the new Picard series, the whole main plot is just really, really bad and disappointing.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Winner
Reactions: bubblesort

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,755
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
Star Trek in the past did never shy away from being controversial up to the breaking point, you've just got to remember that the first interracial kiss ever being shown on American TV screens back then in the 60s was William Shatner kissing Michelle Nichols - so Kirk kissing Uhura. This was far more risky and controversial compared to putting nowadays an openly gay couple on the ship were the reaction of most is not "WTF?" but "Finally they did it!"

It's not so much about suddenly having the first openly gay pair ever, but more about that for many people the attention of having a diverse cast and telling about it had become a tad too much, while neglecting the story at the same time. The cast of TOS back then was also diverse for its time, having black and white Americans and Russians peacefully on a star ship, exploring space together. You've got to remember this was the peak of the cold war back then, so the idea of having a Russian crew member was nothing short but revolutionary.

A series thrives on acting and story telling, so its cast, character development and stage design. The sexual preferences/gender identity of their roles is for many series a nice addon, but not the main focus which does thrive a series. You can have a successful series on a very tight budget, if the cast is acting quite well and the story telling is on par with that, and also the stages do look convincing enough for the purpose of that series. A stage does not necessarily be the fanciest thing to look at ever, if it is convincing enough and gets the job done.

A prime example of such a series for me is "Babylon 5" or, much younger, "Money Heist" from Spain. Money Heist season ond and two has a great cast, good story and good enough stages, although it showed that this was not the biggest budget production around and so the best they managed to do on that budget. It didn't matter, because cast and story carried the whole series. The same applies to Babylon 5 - graphics effects and stages were clearly on a budget, but it had an amazing cast and story.

Now let's move over to "Star Trek: Discovery." First problem is that is bears the name Star Trek, and Star Trek has a very dedicated hard core generation spanning fan base. Granddads passed it over to dads, which passed it over to childrens. Gene Roddenberry had a very optimistic and quite detailed vision of the future, which is something in such apocalyptic times we are living in right now many people do indeed enjoy for entertainment. And this is what the old fans the franchise do expect from Star Trek: a united, somewhat peaceful, humble and honest man kind, which was able to overcome the old obstacles of the pass, now the glue of the known galaxy.

And this is where Discovery differs a lot from the earlier series: it clearly shows a struggling, desperate mankind which is not above from genocide in order to ensure its own survival. It is a far darker, less optimistic more pessismistic view of the possible future, with a nittier, gritter man kind. This is the first bitter pill die hard fans had to swallow, turning Roddenberry's vision around 180 degress and many didn't like that pill.

The next thing which alienated many people is that the authors seem to have been quite a long time more focused on communicating everybody how diverse their cast is instead of telling a good story. The main focus should be a good story, if this carries well enough you can also have a very much diverse cast and not many would subject at all. But having the most diverse cast ever doesn't automatically make a good story, and telling everybody how much diverse your cast is while having only a mediocre story is a recipe for trouble, where the friendlier people will just tell you to get your priorities right again, and the naster ones will move on to far deeper obscenities. That's the problem.

Star Trek was never known for the most logical stories, it always was suffering from technobabble and deus ex machina events. But it had some great stories anyway, like "Chain of command" in TNG. Also most Star Trek series were on a tight budget.

Discovery on the other hand has an enormous budget, and it shows - the show just oozes visual effects every where, the location shots and stages are doing the rest. But the story is severely lacking, it has logical plot holes of such gigantic proportions that even most hard core fans, which normally are willing to overlook these, really cannot do that any longer. And Discovery feels more like action trek like Star Trek most of the time as well, also quite unlikeable main characters (not actors), like Michael Burnham.

And this is what pissed many people off - the re-invention of Star Trek in a very much non-Roddenberry type of way. That's the worst thing you can possibly do when you got such a generation spanning hard core fan base like Star Trek has. You might win new fans with that type of approach, while pissing off the old ones which kept the franchise running for a long time and making lots of money.

Much of this can as well be applied to the new Picard series, the whole main plot is just really, really bad and disappointing.
To answer this rant about Discovery, I shall say that yes, indeed Star Trek has always been known for being progressive and pushing the limits in that sense. It's now, when the diversity is front and center as in the Captain (same issue came up with Janeway) and not just as supportive roles that, for some damn reason, a subset of fans have decided that it's just too much, too in their face, etc, etc, etc... Some of it is most definitely coming from right wingers, no doubt about it; the same people (men, largely) that are screaming about Marvel female leads creeping into their comics, females and gay people creeping into games (aka Gamergate and it's no coincidence that the loudest complainers are in all of the above groups), blah, blah, blah. Of course, it's ALWAYS some other reason, according to them.

As to the show itself, well, I'm hoping it finds its footing. I thought season two was better than season one. I haven't seen the first episode of season 3 yet. Remember that Next Gen wasn't even expected to last a year or two. It is very common for fans to hate the first couple seasons of different Star Trek variations. Some people had fits when Next Gen came out. Some had fits about DS9 being darker, in more ways than one. Some people had fits about Janeway. It's par for the course. However, the nature of it now, like society itself, seems to be more about culture wars and stamping of feet, and yes those folks are loud and love to put negative reviews on assorted things that offend their sensibilities, which was my point all along.
 

bubblesort

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
535
Gene Roddenberry had a very optimistic and quite detailed vision of the future, which is something in such apocalyptic times we are living in right now many people do indeed enjoy for entertainment. And this is what the old fans the franchise do expect from Star Trek: a united, somewhat peaceful, humble and honest man kind, which was able to overcome the old obstacles of the pass, now the glue of the known galaxy.
I love your post, but this part made me smile. I have this old filk song book... not folk but filk, which is like nerd folk music, kinda... anyway, it's an ancient compendium of arcane nerd music, took me forever to find it. It's called The Filksong Manual. It has a song in it called The Bradbury Hate Song, which was originally published in 1960, before Bradburry made Star Trek. It's set to the tune of the battle hymn of the republic, and it's all about how Bradbury's gritty pre-Star Trek sci fi sucks because he's too pessimistic. I was just learning that song when you posted this.

Just goes to show, everybody evolves.

Discovery just evolved waaay too much for me.
 

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,755
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
In addition: Regarding the sunny outlook of Star Trek, have people forgotten that DS9 had genocide, ffs? There were more than a few very dark episodes in Next Gen as well, which is considered to be one of the more rosy spins and was still under the control of Roddenberry, for the first few years anyway.

I believe he presented a rosy outlook for humanity, in a way that, perhaps, he hoped we would live up to, in a time when we most certainly were not living up to it. However, that doesn't mean he shied away at all from darker subject territory.

In addition, where's the credit to Gene Coon for having produced and written some of the most iconic Star Trek episodes as it relates to this subject?
 
Last edited:
  • 2Agree
Reactions: Lexxi and Isabeau

Bartholomew Gallacher

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
2,526
SL Rez
2002
To answer this rant about Discovery, I shall say that yes, indeed Star Trek has always been known for being progressive and pushing the limits in that sense. It's now, when the diversity is front and center as in the Captain (same issue came up with Janeway) and not just as supportive roles that, for some damn reason, a subset of fans have decided that it's just too much, too in their face, etc, etc, etc... Some of it is most definitely coming from right wingers, no doubt about it; the same people (men, largely) that are screaming about Marvel female leads creeping into their comics, females and gay people creeping into games (aka Gamergate and it's no coincidence that the loudest complainers are in all of the above groups), blah, blah, blah. Of course, it's ALWAYS some other reason, according to them.
I do agree to the point that the cast in terms of gender identities and sexual orientations for sure pissed off fans especially in America. Then again in TOS it was the white Captain kissing his black officer in the 60s.

But as laid out that's not the main reason for its mixed reception; the main reason is that on the outside Discovery is looking bombastic, like the juiciest piece of steak you've ever seen. Your mouth waters, wanting to get the first bite into that glorious thing, then you dig in and find it out is has been cooked to death, it's been severely overcooked. Discovery has a very fancy packaging and a quite mediocre content. That the show had tough problems with its showrunners in the first season clearly shows, the second season was only somewhat better to a certain degree. Discovery is basically most of the time about "Burnham saves the day again", which really tends to get boring to watch over time.

One thing most Trek series had are great re-watchability, especially when dealing with philosophical/society themes. Discovery on the other hand does not have this feature much; it's nice to watch this once, you've just got to free your mind about old Star Trek and view it as it is - Action Trek - but then you're mostly done with it.
 
Last edited:

Jolene Benoir

Hello World
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
1,755
Location
Minnesnowta
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
Dec 2010
I do agree to the point that the cast in terms of gender identities and sexual orientations for sure pissed off fans especially in America. Then again in TOS it was the white Captain kissing his black officer in the 60s.

But as laid out that's not the main reason for its mixed reception; the main reason is that on the outside Discovery is looking bombastic, like the juiciest piece of steak you've ever seen. Your mouth waters, wanting to get the first bite into that glorious thing, then you dig in and find it out is has been cooked to death, it's been severely overcooked. Discovery has a very fancy packaging and a quite mediocre content. That the show had tough problems with its showrunners in the first season clearly shows, the second season was only somewhat better to a certain degree. Discovery is basically most of the time about "Burnham saves the day again", which really tends to get boring to watch over time.

One thing most Trek series had are great re-watchability, especially when dealing with philosophical/society themes. Discovery on the other hand does not have this feature much; it's nice to watch this once, you've just got to free your mind about old Star Trek and view it as it is - Action Trek - but then you're mostly done with it.
I agree largely that it leans toward flash rather than content, however keep in mind that it was over a decade since Star Trek had been serialized in a tv format. In that time we had the Abrams movies, which were all flash. I, personally, did not like them, at all. In light of those movies and modern television, of course they were going to go with flash, and yes to a degree it detracts from the series, but it also is probably what viewers expect now. Enterprise took flak for going in the opposite direction and initially trying to stay true to its timeline. of which Discovery doesn't make much effort to do.

The Orville, which was mentioned previously, does a good job of avoiding the flash and attempting to do a Next Gen reiteration, basically., which is Seth MacFarlane's goal I believe. It's comfort food for those who love that series.

As to "Burnham saving the day", well it IS Star Trek and if I recall Mr. Kirk frequently saved the day. Why is it an issue for her?
 
Last edited:

CronoCloud Creeggan

Redheaded
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 26, 2018
Messages
471
Location
Central Illinois
SL Rez
2006
Joined SLU
07-25-2012
SLU Posts
278
It's called The Filksong Manual. It has a song in it called The Bradbury Hate Song, which was originally published in 1960, before Bradburry made Star Trek. It's set to the tune of the battle hymn of the republic, and it's all about how Bradbury's gritty pre-Star Trek sci fi sucks because he's too pessimistic.
You are confusing Ray Bradbury the sci-fi author, who the song is about, to Gene Roddenberry, the Star Trek Creator, who didn't do any sci-fi before Trek.
Dude, are you even a Trekkie? You need to get out of the libertarian-alt-right echo chamber that you seem to have picked up too many ideas from.
 
  • 1Thanks
Reactions: bubblesort

bubblesort

Active member
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
535
You are confusing Ray Bradbury the sci-fi author, who the song is about, to Gene Roddenberry, the Star Trek Creator, who didn't do any sci-fi before Trek.
Dude, are you even a Trekkie? You need to get out of the libertarian-alt-right echo chamber that you seem to have picked up too many ideas from.
Crap! That's embarrassing, LOL

Yeah, I'm not really a trekkie, that's true. I do love Star Trek, but I never got hugely into it like others have. I still say Discovery is poorly written, but calling me alt-right or libertarian for that is just crazy. I don't even understand the thought process that would result in me being conservative or libertarian.
 

Free

she/feline
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 22, 2018
Messages
13,555
Location
Underground in America
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
2009
SLU Posts
55565
Roddenberry was a womanizing lech who would never have made it past today's #MeToo culture.

Does that sound libertarian?
 

danielravennest

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
2,203
SLU Posts
9073
Roddenberry was a womanizing lech who would never have made it past today's #MeToo culture.

Does that sound libertarian?
Also, the Federation was mostly a socialist utopia. They had got rid of money. The species that was capitalist to the point of parody (the Ferengi) were cast as mostly bad guys.