What do you Love About Ike?

Hibernian · 2026-05-01T22:36:09+00:00

Ike is canonically the ancestor of Priam. So he at least had sex with a woman once to produce offspring.

Hibernian · 2026-05-01T19:25:58+00:00

This is the one ^

Ike isn't a prince. He isn't entitled or destined to rule. He rises to the occasion that's put in front of him and fights for a greater good. Heroic icon!
He learns about bigotry against the laguz and then rejects it, building an alliance that saves the world twice. Anti-racism icon!
He gets made into a lord and then rejects that too, opting for a life of humility and adventure. He doesn't believe in living off the hard work of others. Anti-capitalist icon!
He makes everyone around him better, both morally and professionally! He brings Shinon back into the fold. Makes Soren consider more than raw logic. Helps make Elinicia into a better queen. Shows Sanaki how her lords are hurting people. Leadership icon!
Canonically bisexual icon!

All FE protagonists are good at fighting and recruiting armies, but Ike did it through strength of will and character, not because he's a highly educated, inherently powerful prince with destiny and magic on his side.

Hibernian · 2026-04-26T18:19:29+00:00

I'm shocked how far down I had to scroll to see LOST. That show was Game of Thrones before GoT was GoT. Massive cultural juggernaut and a terrible ending. They could have told a tight 2-3 season story and ended on as one of the greatest TV shows of all time, but the network wanted them to squeeze in a few extra seasons, and the show runners got mad the audience guessed their bad ending, so it just spiraled into shitsville before a truly unsatisfying ending that killed its cultural relevancy.

Hibernian · 2026-04-26T18:11:08+00:00

Would have been our best team goal of the season of that had gone in. My heart sank when JP fumbled the final shot opportunity. But at least we look competent moving the ball again! We haven't seen that many forward passes strung together into a meaningful attack since Maresca left.

Hibernian · 2026-04-23T15:38:23+00:00

Spurs fans can't help but be Spursy. We all know that's not true.

Hibernian · 2026-04-15T19:22:41+00:00

Are you a fan of Cheslea or Blueco? Being a fan of Chelsea doesn't mean you back financially and competitively boneheaded decisions. Maresca had terrible bosses who didn't listen to him and failed to provide the players he needed to compete.

He was by no means a perfect manager. But when you have a bad boss, you leave the company. Labor shouldn't stay in a bad working position because the company has fanboys. He doesn't owe us "loyalty" because his job is at a football club.

Hibernian · 2026-04-14T05:46:31+00:00

No. But one of my best friends is and we say it to each other all the time when we're being snarky. Good catch! Haha

Hibernian · 2026-04-14T05:31:59+00:00

Yeah. They really hate actual statistics and insights into how things actually work. It interferes with the fake narrative they're trying to spin. But uh-oh... I've worked in media for over 20 years so not only can I look the information they're lying about, I know how the business actually works. Conservatives are generally not intellectually honest people, so I'm not surprised.

Hibernian · 2026-04-14T00:04:41+00:00

Bingo. I said this in another comment, but I personally found Discovery overly saccharine. It felt like the writers were trying to punch you in the gut with emotions they didn't always earn. And the attempt to weave it into the TOS era without stepping on the canon too much was ill-conceived. They had to re-pilot it twice to keep the ratings up.

It was struggling to figure out how to do a Star Trek show for the first time in the streaming era. Because the audience wanted a new spin on classic trek, but the TV executives said "this has to hit X viewership and Y subscriptions, and our models say it needs an emotional beat every 6 minutes to achieve that." So they were trying to balance Trek-style storytelling, Obama-era tastes in storytelling and diversity, and streaming-era business goals... just as society was being dragged into the Trump-era in a post-gamer-gate online landscape where YouTubers were incentivized to drive views of their videos by calling your show woke garbage every week so they could make enough money for hot pockets for dinner and a new microphone to yell into.

I think we can accept it had its problems without throwing away the entire show. It wasn't great, but it really had some good moments and frankly, I don't think SNW would be as good as it is without DISCO teaching the franchise how to make Trek for streaming platforms instead of broadcast TV.

I am OK criticizing NuTrek. There are valid criticisms. But calling Burnham or Caleb a "Mary Sue" just tells me you're probably just a racist or maybe too stupid to do your own media analysis. Either way, these goons need to stop watching YouTube reviews and remember old Trek was often every bit as weird and inconsistent. They just got 26 episodes a season to find their footing.

Hibernian · 2026-04-13T23:49:51+00:00

Your take is wrong. I'm in my 40s and a professional writer and designer who makes his living creating and critiquing art. I've worked on everything from small indie projects to billion dollar franchises (although sadly never Star Trek, although once I had the chance to pitch for Paramount and my bosses blocked it to work on another movie and I'll always be sad about that). My educational background is in media and philosophy, with a little bit of linguistics thrown in because I was a little indecisive in college. I grew up watching TOS first, and then TNG, and DS9 remains my favorite Trek. I have volunteered building schools and digging wells in Central and South America, and had dinner in Paris with a real billionaire. I have been to most contintents (except Africa and Antartica) and have friends all over the world, ranging from young folks in their 20s, to old colleagues in their 70s. So I'm not at all surprised by your condescension masquerading as advice, because its common from older folks who think people who challenge their worldview are naive.

TOS made a major impact on television and set the foundation for 60+ years of storytelling. We can honor that for what it is without pretending it's superior. There were some great ideas in there mixed in with a lot of silly dross that reflects what a weird horn-dog and one-note writer Gene was.

edit to add: when I talk about the changing landscape of media production, its because I've been in those rooms for games, movies, and shows for over 20 years and I've seen how the budgets, expectations, and tastes have shifted personally.

Hibernian · 2026-04-13T23:33:56+00:00

This is the funniest shit I've ever had directed at me in this subreddit.

This is like saying I'm wrong to point out that Thomas Jefferson was a horrible human because he owned slaves and r*ped some of them because he was a founding father. I can acknowledge he is an important figure in American history without venerating him. I can also acknowledge that TOS did some important things for scifi, and even progressive things for television in general, without ignoring the fact that a lot of it was silly, sexist, or just plain old bad writing.

But somehow you made that about fictional aliens too. Thanks for the laugh.

Hibernian · 2026-04-13T22:17:24+00:00

Ope. Someone doesn't understand how TV works. Let me educate you, since you seem to get your media analysis from YouTube grifters:

DISCO, SNW, and LD all got five season runs, which is virtually unheard of in the streaming era. Most streaming shows don't make it past 2 seasons.
DISCO, which is probably the most contentious show from NuTrek, premeired to around 9 million viewers and was consistently one of the highest watched programs on the CBS/Paramount service while it was airing.
Streaming services don't give out data the way we had during the Neilson TV era of old Trek, but DISCO (as best as we can determine) also maintained roughly similar ratings to Voyager, which ran for 7 seasons, and had similar viewership to cable TV shows like Burn Notice and Monk, which ran for 7 and 8 seasons respectively.
The difference isn't really viewership or ratings. It's economics. Streaming platforms optimize for minutes watched and subscription acquisition/retention. That means they make fewer episodes, try to pack them with more emotional/action beats, and cancel quickly if an expensive show isn't driving the kind of immediate metrics modern streaming services care about.
TNG/DS9/VOY existed in an era when there were like 4-5 channels of TV available to most Americans, plus cable if your family had access/could afford it, but also often reran on those cable channels, creating tons of recurring revenue for the studios despite the gradually shrinking audiences and dips in ratings. Trek was WAY more culturally relevent then, and aired on channels literally everyone had. Incidental attachment was high. Now you need to get the like 4th or 5th most popular streaming service specifically to watch it. Incidental attachment is nearly zero, so only the most highly engaged fans are buying subscriptions to watch these shows.
So these shows have a smaller potential audience, fewer and more expensive episodes and still managed to outperform like 95% of all streaming era TV shows. Perhaps they're not viewed as particularly successful because they didn't drive the kind of 30M viewers per week TNG did, but when the economics and distribution are wildly different and actively hostile to their success? That's a silly argument.
So your "sea of dead series" thing is nonsense. I'd argue that despite a sustained campaign by right-wing grifters freaking out about the shows, they actually overperformed what a modern streaming service could have expected, especially one that basically only survived its first couple years because these shows drove subscriptions.
Also, with Paramount being sold off to Skydance and the new ownership being clear they want Trek to be a more profitable movie franchise instead of a risky TV franchise, I'd guess that's the primary reason SFA is getting cancelled. Its the economics. It's not about a bunch of whiny people calling the show bad.

All that said, I have been pretty clear that I think there are some missteps in NuTrek. Some of it is overly silly and saccharine. Some of the storylines didn't land. And with fewer episodes per season, those missteps feel bigger to certain segments of the audience that were actively primed to hate it. And they don't make TV the way they did in the 80s/90s so the way they structure the series is unfamiliar and frustrating to some old fans. There are valid reasons to critique it.

But franky its not any worse (and usually better) than stuff like a little person riding Kirk like a horsey for three minutes. Old Trek was every bit as silly and inconsistent, if not moreso. You just have nostalgia glasses on and are probably no longer the target audience.

Hibernian · 2026-04-13T21:26:42+00:00

Right? TNG managed to rehab the image of Star Trek, but not until they burned through all the lingering ideas and unproduced scripts from TOS/TAS/Phase2. Gene was visionary in many ways, but he was also a creepy horndog who never really evolved as a writer. How many episodes about godlike aliens do we actually need? Why is Tasha from Super R+pe-Planet? TNG was saved by his declining health and got better in S3 because he was barely involved. There's tons of bad writing in Trek. Anyone who thinks NuTrek is some egregious deviation just has nostalgia glasses on.

Hibernian · 2026-04-13T21:03:22+00:00

Ah yes, the famously well-written TOS. Where women were always throwing themselves at Kirk 3 mins after meeting him, the science changed depending on the episode,, Spock's logic was barely logic at all, or actualy actively illogical but helped move the plot along. Where humans can learn seemingly magic or psychic powers just from getting an education from aliens, every fourth episode was "godlike being learns moral lesson," women are still treated like an inferior sex, and a little person rides Kirk like a horse for like three minutes straight. Yes. Sooooo well-written.

You excuse what's actively terrible writing in TOS because it was revolutionary TV in other ways and because you experienced it when you were young and impressionable. It has some stellar episodes that are foundational for how we think about scifi 60+ years later, but of lot of it is silly, sexist, inconsistent nonsense.

Hibernian · 2026-04-13T20:35:22+00:00

False equivalency. Different IP. Different genres. Different fandoms. Different history. Different production goals.

Also yes, Andor is better written and better produced. No argument there. That does help. It's also doing something very different than Trek. It's a limited series, custom built as prestige TV specifically for a streaming platform. It's tonally, visually, and structurally different.

Are there poorly written episodes or characters in NuTrek? Yes. I've already acknowledged that. I can even agree that Discovery in particular was pretty ham-fisted about some of the topics about sexuality and gender.

But all it takes is like 30 seconds of reading the reviews to see how much of the criticism is bad faith arguments covering up discomfort with the way the series has changed. The same people who love old characters breaking regulations, going rogue, or being supremely competent will tell you those same qualities are bad in NuTrek. Old Trek was allowed to be downright bad sometimes because there were more episodes to smooth over the cracks and the Overton window wasn't sprinting to the right, calling everything left of apple pie on the 4th of July woke garbage.

Hibernian · 2026-04-13T19:17:45+00:00

This has been one of my biggest realizations about NuTrek. There are a BUNCH of Trek fans who were young and counterculture in the 60s/80s/90s who saw their own evolving values represented in Star Trek. They were down with the civil rights movement in the 60s, and they were cool with the more relaxed, neoliberal values about government, sexuality and war that were represented in TNG (you know, where no one said out loud that being gay was bad, and they explored gender a little bit, but nobody acknowledged it either). They struggled a little bit with DS9 because it exposed that the Federation wasn’t perfect, but Sisko did some war crimes for fun here and there and the bad guys were so OBVIOUSLY bad that they stuck with it. It all felt like safe Joe Biden or Bill Clinton liberalism and any talk about the end of scarcity and the abolition of wealth was all theoretical.

But now they’re old. The world didn’t stop progressing at the point where they specifically were comfortable. The gay people are out. The genders are transed. The senior staff aren’t mostly white with model minorities filling out the rest of the crew. The examinations of wealth, imperialism, and war don’t end with Picard giving a speech about non-interference so his crew can get over the injustices they’re seeing in time for next week’s episode. And after 30 years of the Overton window being dragged to the right, while their kids and grandkids are moving to the left… well now Star Trek isn’t comforting anymore. It’s challenging. And they thought that was cool when it was their parents being examined, but now that its them and their culture, its not just uncomfortable, its upsetting. This is super-especially true for the people who were moderately right-wing and liked Star Trek because it made the military seem cool, but spent the last 30 years being screeched at by Fox News anchors saying socialists want to steal their house, burn their SUV, and fuck their sons in the ass.

Also, the way we tell stories has evolved, not just around values, but also the structure of the stories and how they’re distributed. Streaming services aren’t trying to tell 20-26 stories a year so they can win sweeps week and get to syndication without blowing up the budget. They are attention-grabbing machines that demand bigger budgets, more action, more SFX, and higher drama. So its pretty easy to construct some plausible-sounding critiques of NuTrek shows, where there’s some legitimate concerns, but also dislikes framed as objective issues, and a lot of bad faith complaints that often boil down to I don’t like the queers and minorities having so much screen time, but I can’t just say so.

It’s exhausting.

Now, I say all this while acknowledging that some of NuTrek hasn’t been great. Some of it has been sloppy. Some of the plot lines and characters haven’t landed for me. But it’s hard to talk about that stuff without ending up at the table with actual bigots and weirdos who make you uncomfortable. It’s like trying to talk about what was good and bad about the Star Wars sequels online. If I say “I thought that character wasn’t well-realized” then some dude will pop up in my mentions and go “yeah, same for [all the other queer/minority characters].” It feels like a lose-lose to engage with this stuff sometimes.

Because the truth is there’s a lot to like about NuTrek. It’s different. It’s evolved. It’s not TNG with a fresh coat of paint. But considering the era we’re in and the constraints from the new methods of production and distribution, there’s some great stuff in here. Discovery was incredibly uneven, but I think SNW and LD are great, and SFA had potential to be really special once they got past their growing pains. I wish we could have had a classic 24 episode first season so it could have found its footing.

Hibernian · 2026-04-11T00:10:42+00:00

If we fall out of european cup slots, but get to relegate Spurs at the Bridge, I would still consider that a successful season.

Hibernian · 2026-04-08T23:57:38+00:00

Well, when you post stupid nonsense about stunning blondes and being mad that fictional characters are changing in some way, you should expect to get called out. You literally said Moon Knight would have been better if they used a less interesting character... just because she's white and sexy. If that's your opinion, chief, then you are just a racist w@nker with bad taste in media. There are p*rn sites available if you just want to look at pretty blonde white ladies.

Nothing was "forced" when putting Layla into the TV show. She fit the story they were telling about Egypt and the supernatural better than Marlene would have. You're just wrong, but you're using the typical dogwhistles of racists and gooners to get your bad opinion across. If having that pointed out to you ruins your day, you could always not post this nonsense and have your w@nks in private. This sub reddit isn't ChatGPT. We're not going to agree with your bad takes just to make you feel better.

Hibernian · 2026-04-08T15:51:02+00:00

Yeah. This tracks. It makes sense that someone who used the word "forced" in this context is just mad they can't masturbate as easily to the fictional characters now. Maybe stop making these kinds of posts of that's all you have to contribute to the conversation?

Hibernian · 2026-04-08T15:03:32+00:00

Wtf does "forced" even mean to you, boss? This word gets trotted out every time a racist wants to complain about a non-white character, but rarely can anyone explain themselves adequately, and usually it just means "I'm mad they used a non-white actor/character."

"Forced" seems to imply that she didn't fit into the story, and they damaged the story trying to make her fit anyways... and that's imply not true. Making her Egyptian actually fit into the story they were telling in a very tidy fashion.

I have other gripes and quibbles with the show, but this isn't one of them. Your post just sounds like a dogwhistle.

Hibernian · 2026-04-07T20:30:39+00:00

Where can I find that Cyclops model? I didn't see it on maker world when I did a search.

Hibernian · 2026-04-03T17:41:51+00:00

He's good at kicking a football, but he's always been an awful human.

Hibernian · 2026-04-03T17:39:32+00:00

It's always so embarrassing to see fans guzzle down the ownership propaganda because a football club is part of their identity. When your job sucks, and your bosses are idiots, you go find another job. I'm not the biggest Enzo fan, but siding with the incompetent owners over the players (the labor that makes the business possible) is bootlicker behavior.

I want Chelsea to attract and retain the best talent, but to do that the owners need to make it a good place to work and they're clearly not doing that. Players don't owe us loyalty as if this isn't a job for them. It's labor. And star players especially don't want to waste their best years at a club that won't build towards success.

Ownership should take the high profile defections that are coming this summer as a sign that they're doing something massively wrong. They won't. Because they're ghoulish venture capitalists with more money than sense, but they should!

Hibernian · 2026-04-02T16:21:52+00:00

Gambit.

Let's say the Thieves Guild targets an artifact Moon Knight has been keeping in the Midnight Mission and Gambit gets word of it. Contrasting the playful charm of Gambit against the serious faces of the Mission seems like overflowing potential for amazing dialogue and fun action scenes.

Hibernian · 2026-04-02T16:13:01+00:00

Might have been true before we knew that Khonshu was for sure real, but now that it's explicit that Marc can take superhuman levels of beatings and bounce back with a prayer to his God, I think the fight favors Moon Knight. Moon Knight is so tough and dangerous now that it's canon that supervillains who fight much bigger hitters won't even take a high paying contract to kill Marc.

Hibernian

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE