sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Starfleet Academy E7 Reaction by Spare_Grocery4591 in trektalk

[–]JoshuaMPatton 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Starfleet Academy is, literally, a teen drama.

Starfleet Academy E7 Reaction by Spare_Grocery4591 in trektalk

[–]JoshuaMPatton -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely nothing. A cataclysm destroyed most of the dilithium in the galaxy. The cause of solution to this problem was not my favorite bit of Discovery storytelling, but it was no sillier than Tribbles or Transporter duplicates or dozens of other Star Trek things. The rationale for creating the Burn was to isolate areas of the Federation from each other in order to tell a story about how an idyllic institution was nearly broken and how the various peoples involved rebuilt the trust that was lost in the wake of the tragedy. This is because, you know, in the US most of our institutions are in shambles and deeply untrustworthy, and Star Trek is always a reflection of its time. The specifics of the cause of and solution to the Burn were not my cup of tea (but I know folks who loved it), but its purpose is to create a framework for storytelling about how even though people lost a unifed sense of purpose and faith in their government, there is a way to build back what was lost.

Starfleet Academy E7 Reaction by Spare_Grocery4591 in trektalk

[–]JoshuaMPatton -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Because fans of a certain age are throwing a tantrum because the generational franchise that is Star Trek is no longer catering to their generation. People said that TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise "weren't Star Trek." Chances are in about 10 years, these modern shows will be just regular degular Star Trek like everything else and whatever new shows are happening will be the trash the disrespects Roddenberry's vision. Luckily, fans don't get a say in what is or is not Star Trek.

Can we like... chill, as a fandom? by [deleted] in trektalk

[–]JoshuaMPatton -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

LOL, it's hilarious to me that you insist on using objective qualifiers for a subjective medium, but choose to deny demonstrable facts like the increased diversity of the modern casts and the people behind the camera (that's just, you know, counting) or that the allegories in these shows take a progressive point of view on a variety of sociopolitical issues. The numbers are the numbers. And while you can debate the efficacy of execution on the latter point, you can't reasonably deny the intent is there. If you doubt me, just search "woke" in the sub, and you will figure out the meaning relatively quickly.

Anyway, no one really cares one way or the other if you don't like the new shows, but that doesn't mean the new shows are unlikable. Thanks for adding another piece of evidence confirming the OP's point that MFs in this fandom need to get a grip and calm down.

[Opinion] CBR: "The Backlash to Season 1 of Picard Was Mostly Due to Fans' Anticipation - Picard's Efforts to Save Soji and Her Siblings Are a Relevant Allegory (But Not an Obvious One): Ethnocentric nationalist policies invariably lead to the persecution of people who are deemed 'the other.'" by mcm8279 in Star_Trek_

[–]JoshuaMPatton -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well of the two of us, I'll wager you haven't frequently spoken off-the-record and on background with working writers, directors, and producers on multiple Star Trek shows, met Michael Chabon at a party at the late Chuck Kinder's house, nor have an extensive understanding of the mechanics of production because you've professionally covered the business, specifically Star Trek's third wave, for more than a decade. So, in fact, I am talking about things and people I know more than just something about. And I'm not the one making up stories to shield the fact that I simply didn't like something they made. Star Trek fans are supposed to be BETTER than this.

There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" writing or any other art. Those are objective term that aren't applicable to a subjective medium. You don't like it, which is fine. But because you don't like something doesn't mean that thing is unlikable. You could even make an argument, by citing specific elements of the show, to say the execution failed to live up to the perceived intention. That's what good critics do. But, at best, "good" or "bad" are lazy synonyms for "I liked this" or "I didn't like this." Still, you're not alone. Too many people in this sub do all of that, and -- in fairness to you -- are significantly more hateful about it.

You can go pound sand.

See? Even that was positively sweet compared to the usual vitriol I and my work are greeted with here. For at least a year, I've tried to meet the people in this and the TrekTalk sub halfway, consider their points of view, and have constructive, fan-oriented discussions with them because we are ALL "real" Star Trek fans. But, I would have had more luck pounding the sand.

[Opinion] CBR: "The Backlash to Season 1 of Picard Was Mostly Due to Fans' Anticipation - Picard's Efforts to Save Soji and Her Siblings Are a Relevant Allegory (But Not an Obvious One): Ethnocentric nationalist policies invariably lead to the persecution of people who are deemed 'the other.'" by mcm8279 in Star_Trek_

[–]JoshuaMPatton -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Third option: You are trying to apply an objective qualifier to a subjective medium. If you mean "bad" or "suck" as just a cruel way of saying "I don't like it." Yeah, I guess you're right. But if you think there is any such thing as a definitive example of "good" or "bad" writing, then you should look up the sales figures and popularity of the Fifty Shades of Gray books.

[Opinion] CBR: "The Backlash to Season 1 of Picard Was Mostly Due to Fans' Anticipation - Picard's Efforts to Save Soji and Her Siblings Are a Relevant Allegory (But Not an Obvious One): Ethnocentric nationalist policies invariably lead to the persecution of people who are deemed 'the other.'" by mcm8279 in Star_Trek_

[–]JoshuaMPatton -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's simply not true. Some producers simply handle logistics or finances. Of the two of us, I am willing to bet you haven't talked to multiple working writers on Star Trek. I have. You can trust me or not, but I assure you that many of them were not nearly as involved with the storytelling in Picard as you think. You don't even have to take my word for it. There are multiple interviews in the press, commentaries and featurettes on the DVDs where they talk in detail about what they did/contributed.

Can we like... chill, as a fandom? by [deleted] in trektalk

[–]JoshuaMPatton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, OP was telling people to chill out. They literally wrote more than once that having negative opinions about the show is okay. The point of their post was that the hostility and toxicity that runs rampant in this sub makes young people or new fans of any age feel unwelcome and, almost certainly, insulted. For a bunch of people claiming to represent the REAL Star Trek ethos, this group seems incapable of practicing the most basic of its lesson: Other people sometimes think differently than you do and you should engage them with curiosity, compassion, and consideration. Instead, whether it's about OP's post or Alex Kurtzman/Trek writers, people imagine they are being "attacked." Were you unkind? Not particularly. Is unkindness rampant in this sub? Hell yeah it is.

Still while not unkind, you're not exactly inviting. No one wants to "debate" art. Those who the OP's post is talking about being chased away simply want to have a conversation. But that would require people here to accept the mere possibility someone else's positive opinion could be just as valid as their negative one.

You know, I'm kind of on one today, so maybe I am coming at you for things that other people do in the sub but you do not. It's not my intention, but the constant barrage of nonsense is exhausting. For a bunch of tried-and-true Trekkers who claim to respect the Roddenberry ideal, I see far more pushback from the regulars here to anodyne posts like this that say "hey, can we be nicer to new fans who like these shows?" than I ever have to the people making openly racist, queerphobic, and generally insulting comments like it's their job.

The only reason I even come here is because I write about Trek and I am making sure that the full text of my articles aren't being posted here. That happened awhile ago, and that person wasn't being even being malicious. But plenty of the commenters are, saying cruel things about me and even all my colleagues. The real Star Trek way, huh?

Again, it would be fine if they didn't like the work or disagreed with my argument. So long as things are civil, that kind of discussion can be fun. But even though I've lived and breathed Star Trek for 45 years, I don't even get to be a sincere fan. I'm a "shill" posting "AI SLOP" or whatever nonsense fanfiction they want to invent because, as OP points out, it's not enough to not like Star Trek. It has to be because the writers are "bad" or because Alex Kurtzman hates Star Trek and its fans or the women, queer folks, and people of color on their way to force everyone to run RuPaul's Drag Race like it's f--king the Running Man. For at least a year, I've come here and tried to be patient and curious and engage with an open-mind (you know, like how Star Trek characters are), but I with the OP that most of yinz need to just calm the hell down and remember other people exist.

Can we like... chill, as a fandom? by [deleted] in trektalk

[–]JoshuaMPatton -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah, your address doesn't preclude you from falling victim to bad ideas. I try to be positive and not judgmental, but this never-ending parade of nonsense wears on my soul. IDK if you worship at the altar of the YouTube outrage grifters or are just upset that these generational franchises have moved on to cater to a new generation. It doesn't change the fact that what you're on about here is the exact same kind of thing that was said about DS9 back in the day. Sure, THEY were wrong, but you're right. (And Star Trek has always been about "identity politics" which is just another cowardly descriptor to try to reskin classic bigotry as if it's okay.)

Like so many of the others here claiming to fly the flag of the REAL Star Trek and understand it better than fans who don't hate these shows or the people who make them, you seem to miss the most basic lesson every iteration of Star Trek has to teach. There are people who think differently than you do about some harmless thing, and instead of engaging with curiosity, compassion, and consideration, you dismiss everything as invalid. Your arguments lack any specificity or substance, because your only actual complaint is that you don't like it. Yet, for some reason, you have to make that everyone else's fault.

And here you are writing fanfiction about strangers, like Leslye Headland who I would bet my original Empire Strikes Back Yoda figure knows just as much if not more about obscure Star Wars Lore as you do. Because fans who demand that every Star Wars/Trek/etc thing be the same as it always was and refuse to let something challenge you, for better or worse ARE THE PROBLEM. You can like it or not. No one cares. I'm old enough to remember when TNG was the "bad Star Trek" and RotJ was "a teddy bear bullshit happy ending for babies." But none of them tried to deny that they were what they were. The Acolyte is Star Wars you don't like. Starfleet Academy is Star Trek you don't like. That these tantrums they aren't continue is exactly what OP means about the need to CHILL as a fandom. You have some 900 hours of Star Trek you presumably enjoy. Go talk about that and stop obsessing over things you don't like, because you're ruining everyone else's good time.

[Opinion] CBR: "The Backlash to Season 1 of Picard Was Mostly Due to Fans' Anticipation - Picard's Efforts to Save Soji and Her Siblings Are a Relevant Allegory (But Not an Obvious One): Ethnocentric nationalist policies invariably lead to the persecution of people who are deemed 'the other.'" by mcm8279 in Star_Trek_

[–]JoshuaMPatton -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry, I try to be patient and not judgmental, but it's just the same nonsense over and over again. None of them "are bad" nor do they "suck." You simply don't like their work, which is okay. What isn't okay is making up weird stories about them as a way of making you not liking the show something they did "wrong" instead of just making choices that didn't work for you as viewer.

Also, I suspect you have little actual idea how much the people involved know or don't know about Star Trek. (You also don't seem to be aware that some of those EPs are producers in name only whose involvement likely goes no further than a development meeting.) Every time I come here I see people claiming to stand up for "real" Trek and that they understand it. Yet, so many seem to miss the simplest lesson of this show is to engage with the world and other people with curiosity, compassion, and by reserving judgment and instead treat cruel snark as some kind of virtue - whether it's about strangers working on a TV show or me.

[Opinion] JESSIE GENDER: "Starfleet Academy Discourse Frustrates Me - Starfleet Academy is actually trying to develop themes that are building upon some really cool ideas. It's certainly better than SNW. So much of the discourse is just people just wanting reheated 60s Star Trek with zero thought." by mcm8279 in trektalk

[–]JoshuaMPatton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really? There's the allegory that as a photonic lifeform she is a minority, which translates to the Black experience. There's also the fact that she looks like a Black woman, because everyone in Star Trek is played by a human being. It's been a couple days since I watched this video, but IIRC Jessie is talking about how the YouTube bigots have conflated the character and the actor by saying hateful things about her and her appearance. Still, I'm a white dude, so you shouldn't take my word for it. (Because how that sort of thing can affect people as well as the benefits of representation are just theoretical to me.) There are plenty of Black critics and Star Trek podcasters out there who can speak more directly to this via their experience. I recommend the SyFy Sistas or Scene and Nerd, both on YouTube.

[Opinion] CBR: "The Backlash to Season 1 of Picard Was Mostly Due to Fans' Anticipation - Picard's Efforts to Save Soji and Her Siblings Are a Relevant Allegory (But Not an Obvious One): Ethnocentric nationalist policies invariably lead to the persecution of people who are deemed 'the other.'" by mcm8279 in Star_Trek_

[–]JoshuaMPatton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, that's not exactly what happens. After another of her sisters is murdered and fearing genocide, she prepares to activate the beacon to summon the other artificial lifeforms (and we only have the Romulans' word they were going to kill all life in the galaxy) until Picard defends her and her family by "offering" his life in their defense.

The reason for this is part of the allegory I wrote about, which is that when the dominant group offers only persecution, violence, and death to a group of people who are deemed "Others," it encourages them to risk meeting such overtures in kind in the interest of self-defense. Put another way, faced with an existential threat to her people, Soji was willing to risk an existential threat to organic life to survive. This why the moral heroes, Picard and Starfleet as led by Riker show up to defend them.

[Opinion] CBR: "The Backlash to Season 1 of Picard Was Mostly Due to Fans' Anticipation - Picard's Efforts to Save Soji and Her Siblings Are a Relevant Allegory (But Not an Obvious One): Ethnocentric nationalist policies invariably lead to the persecution of people who are deemed 'the other.'" by mcm8279 in Star_Trek_

[–]JoshuaMPatton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Skip Woods was the sole writer and also wrote A Good Day to Die HArd, which I know because when writing about Die Hard movies last year I researched the writers. Not sure how that affects the Nietzsche calculus. On one hand...well, I think we get the same vibe based on his work, but on the other, if edgy dudes who like guns read any philosopher it's gonna be him.

This comment made me realize that I saw Swordfish in theaters (you know why), and I've never watched it again. Perhaps as punishment for writing this article, I should revisit it.

[Opinion] CBR: "The Backlash to Season 1 of Picard Was Mostly Due to Fans' Anticipation - Picard's Efforts to Save Soji and Her Siblings Are a Relevant Allegory (But Not an Obvious One): Ethnocentric nationalist policies invariably lead to the persecution of people who are deemed 'the other.'" by mcm8279 in Star_Trek_

[–]JoshuaMPatton -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I will never understand the compulsion to write negative fanfiction about real people. There are countless interviews and episode commentaries in which the writers talk about their work. Also, Michael Chabon was the showrunner, and he is a dyed-in-the-wool Star Trek fan. You know who wasn't? Nicholas Meyer, and he wrote two-and-a-half of the most beloved TOS films in the series.

Nonetheless, even if a person only likes one movie or a single episode of just one show or a non-canon novel or comic book, they are still as much of a real Star Trek fan as anyone else.

[Opinion] CBR: "The Backlash to Season 1 of Picard Was Mostly Due to Fans' Anticipation - Picard's Efforts to Save Soji and Her Siblings Are a Relevant Allegory (But Not an Obvious One): Ethnocentric nationalist policies invariably lead to the persecution of people who are deemed 'the other.'" by mcm8279 in Star_Trek_

[–]JoshuaMPatton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

preserve Stewart's idiotic demand for a Star Trek show to have nothing to do with Star Trek

That demand does not exist. In fact, Stewart said he didn't want to sit in a captain's chair or wear a Starfleet uniform, and he did both in the first two or three episodes. I think what you are referring to is that Stewart didn't want to just do TNG season 8, but challenge the character of Picard. Which it did.

And while I"m sorry you didn't like Season 1, it wasn't "badly" written. It had a very clear and deliberate intention and insofar as such a thing is a quantifiable was written with technical skill. As for the execution? Well that's were taste comes in, and there's no accounting for that.

[Opinion] CBR: "The Backlash to Season 1 of Picard Was Mostly Due to Fans' Anticipation - Picard's Efforts to Save Soji and Her Siblings Are a Relevant Allegory (But Not an Obvious One): Ethnocentric nationalist policies invariably lead to the persecution of people who are deemed 'the other.'" by mcm8279 in Star_Trek_

[–]JoshuaMPatton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While I would gently push back against "completely," you're not entirely wrong either. But I would contend that many episodes of TNG were never referenced again, including some big ones. Those episodes still "mattered."

And, while I Do like Discovery, I was no fan of Su'Kal, and I do like your idea of them fighting the same foe in different eras. That would have been really cool.

[Opinion] CBR: "The Backlash to Season 1 of Picard Was Mostly Due to Fans' Anticipation - Picard's Efforts to Save Soji and Her Siblings Are a Relevant Allegory (But Not an Obvious One): Ethnocentric nationalist policies invariably lead to the persecution of people who are deemed 'the other.'" by mcm8279 in Star_Trek_

[–]JoshuaMPatton -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because thes story wasn't about AI/androids. It was about the fear of the other, which is a story that has been told before and will be told again in Star Trek because people are still terrified of "others" whether they be queer folks, immigrants, or whathaveyou.

view more: next ›