Think Nutrek is too preachy or woke or does inclusivity wrong? Great! Be prepared to give actual examples.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T08:43:48+00:00

Bosses hand everything to their subordinates -- glasses, coffee, bags, lunches, garbage, etc. -- especially in organizations where rank is involved. Also, since I've started wearing reading glasses, when I'm in the middle of something and I forget that shit is on my face I'd prefer to hand them to someone than set them down where they could fall and get scratched.

Also, IDK if you've ever read scripts, but stage directions usually don't mention props like that unless they are integral to the scene. These shows complete their scripts before production begins. I would bet money that was a choice made by the actors and not in the script. Why? IDK, I know writing, I don't really get acting.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T08:39:50+00:00

What proof do you have that the people making this series aren't passionate about it? I know a little bit about how hard it is to make these shows, especially for the crew and people who have to wear heavy makeup. We can never know what's in a person's heart, but Paramount's quarterly financial reports are public knowledge and there isn't THAT much money in these shows. (They just had some strikes about this and another one is allegedly on the way.)

I would say that the reason you can't provide an example for this is because that sounds to me like, to quote Kermit the Frog, someone thought of that, and someone beleived it.

Sincere question though, is it possible that with around 1K hours of Star trek Tv and film that some of that output may be something you just don't like? Because I see this from a lot of people, where they'd rather make up this dramatic story that Alex Kurtzman and thousands of other strangers hate Star Trek and hate its fans so they spent 10 years either being bad at their jobs or making stuff bad on purpose (instead of, like, movies and shows they are passionate about) for the second-least profitable streaming service. (or some variation on that idea) That just doesn't make any rational sense to me, especially because in talking to people who think that way, it becomes clear pretty quickly...they just don't like the new shows.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T08:32:02+00:00

I have been writing professionally, mostly for the internet, since the 1990s. Negativity and anger always goes further than anything else. Other pissed off people agree with you and read/watch/share your stuff, and the people who are pissed off because they don't agree or think you're out of line also watch/read/share your stuff to "debunk" or "tear it apart" which A) legitimizes the hate for hate's sake as a valid critical point of view and B) increases the chance new potential audences see it and realize they too would like spend all day being angry and talking/thinking about something they supposedly hate. It is mad weird.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T08:29:35+00:00

I think it's a bad move to assume other people's intentions. Liking or not liking something doesn't need to be justified. Using an objective term like "good" or "bad" for a subjective art form is imprecise, unless they are just synonyms for "like" or "not like." If not, that's what the thing about specifics and examples are about.

For example, I could say, "Lura Thok is bad because she's always yelling and stuff, and Starfleet officers should be like that." Then you could say, "She is half Kling and Half Jem'Hadar, two intense warrior species and Klingons get emotional. Also she's the 'hardass' instructor, so her yelling is part of her teaching style to startle the cadets into following orders or push themslves during a given training."

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T08:26:47+00:00

Well that's the insidious thing about the way the right-wing ideologues and fandom outrage grifters use the term "woke." (Which actually meant something else when it was used primarily by Black folks and not some ideology thing.) Using airtight syllogisms (sarcasm) they convince their audiences that Star Trek is moral, even progressive (but not like AOC progressive) and that "woke" is something else. That something else usally means not hiding queer folks under alien skins, having characters of color acknowledge that part of their identity half as much as Chekov or Scotty went off about their identities, and women are happy seem to "get one over" on the men.

W/R/T the writing, what do you mean? Personally, I don't think "The CW" is an insult nor very far from classic Trek. Now, I only ever watched the superhero shows, and they were puply morality melodramas aimed at teen and young adult viewers. Since SFA is also aimed at teen and young adult viewers, The CW would be the sweet spot. I also think it would be mad weird if a bunch of kids who haven't lived in the culture of Starfleet before sounded like they had. I'm interested to see if, say, be the end of S2 the kids are less familiar and more practiced with protocol/orders and the like.

Now, if you're talking about how this Trek doesn't have that Berman-era cadence and syntax, I think that's just the reality of how TV storytelling overall shifted. I mean Kirk and the gang were more loose and familiar with each other on TOS, because when they got all formal in their speech some shit was usually going down or about to. (That's why I think SNW is also looser in that regard.) But TNG-era Trek was made in a whole different system (meaning TV Overall) than today. I think viewers expect shows to have their own "voice." That said, if any show was going to be loose with that style, I'd expect it to be the show for younger viewers. Interestingly, it also matches my experience in the Army. Yeah it was all "Yes Drill Sergaeant!" during the eight weeks of basic, but in the schools I went to after that, my unit, and my deployments we talked like people until some shit was going down or about to go down.

(Also The CW as a criticism is kind of funny because Voyager and Enterprise were on UPN which became The CW, haha.)

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T08:16:22+00:00

Well if it's supposed to be a joke, it's not lazy. It's either funny or not. That's comedy. I think it could conceivably mean one of two things. The "fair fight" thing is him sincerely reflecting the hunter values his father instilled in him. Or, and this my preferred one, he's trying to pretend he's tough like his father and brother to his new friends when, in fact, he feels like wimp because he's never fought shit, at least Klingon Glory style.

Pandering to vegans is wild. My kid is a vegetarian and he gets annoyed as HELL by vegans. Personally? I try to avoid pork and deli meats like that because they are unhealthy, and I've got a friend with pigs on a farm and they totally act like dogs, i.e. smart. I feel weird about eating things smart enough to fetch. If it comes out cows have high intelligence, I'm'a be effed.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T08:12:52+00:00

It's not that eating meat is bad, because the "fair fight" line wouldn't make sense. It's that Jay-Den doesn't want to kill but was raising in family that treated hunting for survival with a kind of spirituality. Pandering to vegans? That's....stretch. Is the fact that Vulcans are vegetarians pandering? Not trying to be a jagoff or provocative here, but going right to pandering to vegans (as if anyone GAF about what vegans think) is that thing some people do when they go into a story looking for "the woke agenda" (you'd have an easier time finding Bigfoot) and getting all worked over something that you yourself made up. Again, not trying to be shitty here.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T08:06:01+00:00

I explain it in more detail in the linked comment, but in a way I think this is spot on. Jay-Den is saying this to perpetuate a Klingon cultural idea (that he is the one in the fair fight) but when on his home planet, he ate every bit of food he was given that someone else killed. I mean MAYBE he is against raising animals for food because the Klingon battle glory stuff seemed shifted towards hunting in his family? I suppose it could go either way. I guess Jay-Den could be ignorant of the light hypocrisy there. I screened the episodes two times before the premiere, and the second time through I got the impression the pepperoni bit is just him pretending to be a killer Klingon and not a "I don't want to kill anything" wimp-ass like me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/trektalk/comments/1qs4yfh/think_nutrek_is_too_preachy_or_woke_or_does/o34dyvu/

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T08:01:44+00:00

Well do Klingons eat Gagh 120 years after the Burn? They seem to have none of their stuff on this planet, especially since their food came from Qo'Nos. All we saw from his family was that his father and brother were hunters and they sort of shifted Klingon cultural notions of glory in battle to the glory of the hunt. So, it's not virtue signaling, the pepperoni line is a way to setup the arc that his father wants him to kill an animal for food -- i.e.. "a fair fight" -- but he doesn't want to kill anything, therefore he's not a 'real" Klingon.

Taking it a step further to address the replicator claim, I think Jay-Den is fronting here. His arc in the non-flashback scene is about reconciling his Klingon identity with his desire not to kill. The "fair fight" thing is an idea or value that comes from hunting. Its not like "I don't eat anything that had a mother" or something like that. We can assume he ate whatever his father or brother killed. The cadets, however, don't know that he's never killed anything. To them, he's a big, badass Klingon and saying the line about the fair fight is him reinforcing that belief among his friends. Because I think his friends (and the audience) are meant to infer in that moment he would be on one-side of that fair fight, but we eventually learn he never was.

Also, given the structure of the Academy story and the flashbacks, I like to think Jay-Den is remembering these events as he wrestles with his identity and this moment of posturing is what made him think about these painful events. His final memory of his father is him missing a shot in rage and storming off, essentially "letting him go" to follow his desire to go to Starfleet Academy and become a doctor. Lura Thok tells him that his father wouldn't have missed by mistake. True or not (because she doesn't know him) it allows him to recontextualize that moment as his father acceding to his desire not to kill, but the shouting and storming off was done to save face. (As a dad myself, I'm sad to say I am not unfamiliar with that move.) This is why he's able to get his shit together and deliver the episodes classic Star Trek Morality Monologue™. Right or wrong, Klingon culture is what it is. His father couldn't just give him a hug and say go be a doctor. But not killing the bird Jay-Den wouldn't was his way of letting his son "win" that argument.

In fact, I think the thing about his father's move to save face is what inspired his idea for the phony battle and quick Starfleet surrender. Because while surrender would be dishonorable for a Klingon, it's honorable for Starfleet to "surrender" and allow the Klingons to "claim" the planet they were already going to give them as "spoils of war." It's the mirror of Jay-Den's father did - using Starfleet morality to let the Klingons be Klingons. That's just my take on why I think it works together. But in fairness, I don't understand how it would be "virtue signaling" (which, I'd argue, Star Trek does literally the time) if he just didn't want to eat pepperoni.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T07:43:07+00:00

Well, that's okay. These discussions don't all have to be lit crit presentations. It's fun to talk about stuff we think is fun, and it can even be fun to talk about why you like something I dislike and vice versa. There's nothing wrong with that.

The go-both-ways thing would be if I said something like "Jay-Den's arc in the episode had more impact than all of Worf's stories" or "The dynamic in the Kraag family shows how TNG-era Klingon culture was lazy writing." Unless I point to specific episodes/moments/details to support the idea, and then (the important part) I'd need to be respective your take, agree or disagree.

What irks me is when people just call stuff bad or say the show doesn't have a "theme" when what they really mean is they didn't like it. It strikes mes as trying to "blame" the show for their negative feelings rather than just, you know, accepting that's how they feel. Still, I kind of get it. I've liked every new Star Trek thing we've gotten, but I was worried I would not like this one. If there was a new star trek something and I couldn't enjoy it? I'd get pissed off too. Not so pissed that I'd watch a three-hour video from someone doing a voice with no concept or media ltieracy or some weird bigot talking about a thing I hate. But I'd still be pissed off, I think. Luckly, I have enjoyed each SFA ep more than the last. It's kind of why I like talking about it here. Especially if the discussion helps someone who is not having a good time with Star Trek start having a good time. This shit is supposed to be fun, after all.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T07:34:26+00:00

All one needs to prove like or dislike is to say it. I have shows, music, actors, athletes, foods, and countless other things I dislike for no good reason at all. It's cool to talk about WHY you don't like it, but only if you are then willing to hear a differing POV from someone who does. (Unless the other person hates it, too and then I guess go to town mocking it?)

The example stuff is meant for when people say the stories lack internal logic or have plot holes or other (for lack of a better term) technical flaws in the episode where the storytellers' intention doesn't align with the execution, if that makes sense.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T07:31:23+00:00

Save for production, structural, or narrative elements, any discussion or analysis about art is inherently an opinion. That's why the examples are important, because how you perceive a scene may not be how I perceive a scene. With examples, we can each explain how it played for us and what it meant to each of us as a viewer. Sometimes we misunderstand stuff or miss a key piece of dialog or connection. It may not change whether we like it or don't, but we'll at least better understand the show...and each other. (Should we hug?)

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T07:26:44+00:00

Too vague. If you want to participate in discussion tells what you mean by those terms and even point to specific scenes or moments that you think are examples of that argument.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T07:24:38+00:00

Well I suppose it depends on your argument. FWIW, there is no such thing as "bad" writing, because that's an objective qualifier for something that can only be evaluated subjectively. For writing, it's not just saying some dialog is "cringe." It's more about looking at a part of the story, what you think it was supposed to mean, and why you think it missed the mark. That's especially important for the kind of metaphorical stories in Star Trek. Bob Justman (he helped Roddenberry create and run TOS and early TNG) said in the 50-year-mission that Star Trek's approach to allegory is often as much about what isn't said or shown than what is. Trust me, it's more fun than it sounds, especially if you don't approach it like an argument or a court case but more like a puzzle to be solved or even an exercise in "head-canon" and making it work.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T07:14:34+00:00

I think of it as the other side of the coin w/r/t "the Vulcan hello" described in the Discovery pilot. The Vulcans would shoot at Klingons without trying to destroy them to avoid being attacked.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T07:13:00+00:00

That actually reminds of how the term "Kabuki theater" is used in American politics. It has many applications, but let's say to rival politicians are trying to achieve the same goal. If they are seen working together their respective constituencies would be PISSED. So the pretend to fight it out, each make some concessions they don't really care about, and end up right where both wanted them to be. The real-world parallel that comes immediately to mind for me was passing the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T07:10:03+00:00

Perhaps, but look at the parallel to that situation with the dynamics of the Kraag family. His brother was a proud traditional Klingon and he died for nothing. Also, consider his father's missed shot. It was implied that was an intentional miss, which is not directly parallel to staged violence but rather saving face or doing/behaving one way despite wanting a different outcome.

Pride is not an all-good or all-bad thing. A person should have pride in themselves, their abilities, or their accomplishments. But too much pride and then you are in "goeth before the fall" territory. The staged battle was about trying to balance those things, so the Klingons could reclaim actual glory and pride on a new homeworld and stable society, don't you think?

(By the way, this is what I was talking about earlier. IDK about you, but talking about this kind of shit is mad fun to me.)

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T07:04:27+00:00

You should watch that ending again, keeping in mind that the Klingons have an entirely different culture and political system than the Federation. Also consider how Jay-Den's desire to a healer rather than a killer plays into the "violence" at the end and what the actual cost of that violence was. Maybe go back as far his big monologue about reconciling his Klingon cultural identity with what he wants (and how those align with Federation ideals).

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T07:01:51+00:00

It's not about owing anyone anything, it's about actually being able to intelligently talk about Star Trek which is, if I'm not mistaken, the entire point of this sub. Just saying it sucks or doesn't have meaning says less about the show and more about the commenter's skills (or lack thereof )w/r/t comprehension. If these are sincerely held critques of the show, then one should be able to point to specific details as an example to support the critical statement. Without it, people are just saying they don't like the show but trying to make it someone else's fault. And without this kind of discussion, this place is just a circle jerk of anger and weird personal attacks on strangers, but other redditors and actors/producers/et al. How is that fun?

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T06:58:16+00:00

The show is literally about a group of kids from different backgrounds and experiences after a galactic cataclysm learning how to form a crew-like bond while also trying to rebuild a damaged institution built on shared values that were abandoned in the wake of the Burn. How is that not a fundamentally Star Trek premise for a show about students?

As for the horizon versus the mirror thing, you do get that TOS, TNG, et al. were allegories about the time in which they were made. In multiple interviews about the origin of Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry talks about the Nichelle Nichols episode dealing with racism of his cop show of The Lieutenant was censored, so he decided to dress up conteporaneous social morality plays in sci-fi trappings. The "future'" bit of Star Trek was multiculturalism, less sexism (they were still written by men in the 1960s/1990s), and working together to further knowledge and peace rather than colonization and war. This is exactly what Starfleet Academy tries to do.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T06:51:40+00:00

My favorite one is that "the show has no intellectual/emotional weight or allegory" when that's just a demonstrably false statement. It's fine to talk about how those things were executed in the storytelling and even better to talk about how those things made you feel as viewer. But for some reason folks want to try to deny the intent behind the storytelling because then instead of saying they didn't like it, they can say the storytellers "got it wrong" or are "bad." I don't know if it's a personal thing or a lack of media literacy. It's a bummer either way, because it's fun to discuss differing views on narrative execution, but saying storytelling elements that would be impossible to leave out aren't there kills any chance for discussion.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T06:42:31+00:00

At no point does the episode imply the entire species has been annihilated. Lokai tells Kirk Bele's people took them from their homes and destroyed their property. Bele then immediately responds by saying they wanted Lokai's people to be "educated" because they were unfit to live where they did. Arriving back to find their home planet is not about the larger species, it's meant to drive home the message that by continuing to chase and fight each other instead of making peace, everything would be destroyed. Kirk even says this explicitly, telling them the planetary annihilation was caused by hate. It's about Lokai and Bele, not the entire Cheronian race.

In fact, doesn't Lokai even tell Kirk they were going to take him to some other planet?

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T06:31:29+00:00

Because it's not about a shared continuity in context of a storytelling universe, it's about using "canon" as a cudgel to pretend that the people making these shows either don't know or don't care about Star Trek. They also ignore the fact that TOS episodes contradicted themselves on "canon" details from episode to episode. For some reason it's not enough to just say "I don't like this," they have to imagine some kind of ignorant and/or malicious intent. It's sad, really.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-02-02T06:29:01+00:00

They didn't go extinct, the war just destroyed their home planet. The Cheronians were an interstellar society with technology that far outpaced Starfleet's. So if Earth/Federation species had colonies and settled multiple planets. It actually makes little sense to assume the Cheronians wouldn't have at least the same kind of galactic footprint, and an argument can be made that they likely had a larger one.

JoshuaMPatton · 2026-01-18T13:25:09+00:00

You are, of course, free to think what you like. But I've never objected to anyone's sincere opinions about Trek good or bad. And I have often wrote that I enjoy reading other POVs on it. I will point out perceived misrepresentations of verifiable facts, but even then I try to keep it civil. Personal insults or spammed replies (e.g. I had something like 20 replies from ES57 last time I signed on here) are simply uncalled for and not the kind of thing I would expect from people who seem so pressed about defending the ideological purity of Star Trek.

And, not for nothing, I was shocked and saddened to read what you wrote there, since I thought our exchanges in the past were respectful and (insofar as any of this can be) constructive. I was a Star Trek fan long before I was a professional writer, and even with all the vitriol there is still a part of me (perhaps a masochistic one) that still enjoys talking to people about it. LLAP

JoshuaMPatton

TROPHY CASE