Which is "YOUR" Star Trek?

[fireproof78]

You may not have heard the phrase, but you’re certainly familiar with the its rampant practice. Cultural vandalism is a natural outgrowth of iconoclasm. Cultural vandal is a noun, and refers to those who practice cultural vandalism.

It’s a touchy subject, so I won’t pursue it any further in this forum, but there are readily available definitions for all of this stuff if one is so inclined to learn more.

Yes, but what is being destroyed here? The statement is that recent Trek producers, Abrams in the past, Kurtzman presently, are engaging in cultural vandalism. How so? What are they destroying when the original are still available and readily consumed?

 

[Richard S. Ta]

JarJar Abrams and Bad Reboot are nothing but cultural vandals.

Nonsense, espoused by a parrot. You don’t even know the meaning of the words you type.

For vandalism to have occurred, something must have been destroyed. Last I checked, every episode of Star Trek ever is intact.

 

[Farscape One]

You may not have heard the phrase, but you’re certainly familiar with the its rampant practice. Cultural vandalism is a natural outgrowth of iconoclasm. Cultural vandal is a noun, and refers to those who practice cultural vandalism.

It’s a touchy subject, so I won’t pursue it any further in this forum, but there are readily available definitions for all of this stuff if one is so inclined to learn more.

From what I understand of the term, I'm not sure that's a fair assessment of the Kurtzman era.

While I agree there are multiple aspects of the current era I don't like (too much commitment to a season long arc that doesn't require the entire season, some aesthetic changes that I'm not fond of, a few other things), I don't think the Kurtzman era has vandalized the franchise. There have been a LOT of callbacks to previous shows, particularly with LD and some easter eggs in PIC recently, that indicate to me they like the source material they are expanding on. And while I'm not fond of how DISCO tries to get their point across, the spirit of the franchise is there. That seems more like honoring than vandalizing.

Believe me, the era you like is definitely my space (DS9, specifically), so I am definitely in agreement there. But I can't agree on calling the current era of shows being vandals, cultural or otherwise.


(However, I will call the design of the Abrams Enterprise atrocious, and insulting to the spirit of her.)

 

[fireproof78]

(However, I will call the design of the Abrams Enterprise atrocious, and insulting to the spirit of her.

I feel like this will end up a personal agree to disagree type moment, so I'll regret asking it but How? How does one insult the spirit of an inanimate object? Atrocious, ok, I can grant. I don't agree but the nacelles are too ample, if you'll pardon the engineering parlance. But, insulting?

 

[Farscape One]

Allow me to elaborate.

The Enterprise was sleek and beautiful in her simplicity. Form and function melded perfectly. She looked like a real representation of the mission of exploring new worlds, which is the spirit of the Enterprise. That was the whole point of the show... to explore strange new worlds.

The Abrams one looked like a damned hot rod in space, not a ship designed for exploration. To me, that insults the spirit of what she was designed to be.

 

[fireproof78]

Allow me to elaborate.

The Enterprise was sleek and beautiful in her simplicity. Form and function melded perfectly. She looked like a real representation of the mission of exploring new worlds, which is the spirit of the Enterprise. That was the whole point of the show... to explore strange new worlds.

The Abrams one looked like a damned hot rod in space, not a ship designed for exploration. To me, that insults the spirit of what she was designed to be.

I appreciate the elaboration. I disagree but I think you explained it quite well.

 

[CoveTom]

The concept of cultural vandalism has to do with destruction of objects of cultural/historical significance. Apparently the term has been co-opted in recent years to refer to an entertainment property being taken by new production staff in any direction that the individual using the term does not personally like.
...Which doesn't make any sense whatsoever because the original works are still intact.

But anyway, TOS is my Star Trek for many reasons. The remote 'frontier' feel that later Trek never quite nailed down, the sleek minimalist aesthetic, the heart and the characters, the fascinating themes that were explored. Then there was its relation to the literary science fiction of the time. To me, the best literary SF was from the 50s to the early 70s. Also as something of a cinematography enthusiast, I find the filmic look of TOS to be quite gorgeous. And perhaps the thing that draws me to TOS most is the fact that it's a product from before my time, which automatically makes it much, much more compelling than the vast majority of the slop from my generation.

Kor

I agree totally on the "frontier" feel. TNG's first two seasons, for all their flaws, captured that occasionally, but still not like TOS did.

One of the reasons I am so fond of TMP, in spite of all its failings, is that it really has a sense of wonder, exploration, and discovery of the unknown that I don't really think any Trek project since has captured.

 

[Farscape One]

I appreciate the elaboration. I disagree but I think you explained it quite well.

Thank you. I tried to articulate my feelings in a way that made sense.

Side note, I am one of those people who do consider ships themselves to be characters. So my views might be colored by that.

 

[fireproof78]

Thank you. I tried to articulate my feelings in a way that made sense.

Side note, I am one of those people who do consider ships themselves to be characters. So my views might be colored by that.

That is also fair, which would explain the use of the term insult. I am not one who finds ships to be characters, though they have character.

But, more to the point, I don't think the two Enterprises are actually 100% comparable. The original Constitutions were designed for exploration, yes, but the Abrams one was designed in light of a massive Romulan attack. While technically inspired by the same idea, in universe their purposes were quite different.

 

[JN2849]

Nonsense, espoused by a parrot. You don’t even know the meaning of the words you type.

For vandalism to have occurred, something must have been destroyed. Last I checked, every episode of Star Trek ever is intact.

Vandalism doesn’t require destruction.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/vandalism

Damage or defacement, not destruction, is the textbook definition. This is why graffiti on public property is classified as vandalism.

Neither the textbook definition nor the legal definition of vandalism stipulates destruction.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/vandalism.html

Destruction of cultural relics (such as toppling statues or burning down churches) could certainly qualify as cultural vandalism, but it’s not limited to these things.

Defacing or damaging cultural relics (such as spray painting them or pelting them with garbage) is also an act of cultural vandalism.

For entertainment properties, one doesn’t have to physically destroy film rolls or burn books in order to be guilty of cultural vandalism. In most cases it takes the form of partisan ideologies in charge of mammoth corporations taking culturally significant entertainment properties (movies, books, tv shows, music, etc…) they had no hand in creating, and turning them into poorly made agitprop.

Star Trek is not the first nor the last property to get subjected to such vandalism. It isn’t even the only property to be vandalized by JarJar Abrams, Alex Klutzman, and their henchmen at Bad Reboot.

Of course, there will be those who nominally disagree that Star Trek is being vandalized. In reality, however, most of them are aware of what is happening, and believe that using entertainment to deliver agitprop is not only justifiable, but right.

 

[fireproof78]

Damage or defacement, not destruction, is the textbook definition. This is why graffiti on public property is classified as vandalism.

So what has been damaged? How has Star Trek been damaged?

It isn’t even the only property to be vandalized by JarJar Abrams, Alex Klutzman, and their henchmen at Bad Reboot.

Couple of things:
1: Kurtzman does not work for Bad Robot.
2. Calling them by such names undermines any argument substantially because it isn't made in good faith. Insults are not good faith argumentation.

Never mind the request of the ridiculous notion they have somehow vandalized Star Trek or any other property.

 

[JN2849]

So what has been damaged? How has Star Trek been damaged?

Have you seen the audience scores for Discovery? Merchandisers won’t touch this stuff with a ten foot pole.

When they put STD season 1 on CBS for free during a pandemic when people were literally trapped in their homes with nowhere to go, it couldn’t even beat out reruns of the Masked Singer.

The brand damage Klutzman has done is impressive. And again, it’s not just Star Trek, look at what he did with Universal’s Dark Universe, or Clarice. Where are those franchises now?

Couple of things:
1: Kurtzman does not work for Bad Robot.

Not now. He did, but JarJar Abrams and Bad Reboot were at least smart enough to step away from the mess they created. Klutzman wasn’t.

2. Calling them by such names undermines any argument substantially because it isn't made in good faith. Insults are not good faith argumentation.

It doesn’t undermine anything. Calling flat earthers stupid doesn’t suddenly make the earth flat.

Never mind the request of the ridiculous notion they have somehow vandalized Star Trek or any other property.

They absolutely have. Some people look at graffiti and call it street art. Others watch statues get torn down or books get burned and call it progress.

The rest of us call it vandalism. Cultural vandalism, to be exact.

 

[1001001]

And some of us call “cultural vandalism” a right-wing dog whistle for diversity and inclusion, so there are various opinions on the matter…

In any event the idea that Star Trek has been “damaged” or “defaced” by DSC or the other new shows is simply histrionics from the “get off my lawn” crowd.

Your repeated use of those oh so clever nicknames is tiresome and childish.

DSC has been renewed for a 5th season and is the most watched show on the network. You don’t like it, that’s fine. But the obvious subtext of what you’re saying is not relevant to the topic of this thread, so knock it off.

 

[BillJ]

JarJar Abrams and Bad Reboot are nothing but cultural vandals.

That isn't what this thread is about. The way I read it, it is supposed to be about one's positive experiences with the franchise.

The Abrams one looked like a damned hot rod in space, not a ship designed for exploration. To me, that insults the spirit of what she was designed to be.

In an infinite multi-verse, a hot rod version of the ship is fine.

 

[fireproof78]

Have you seen the audience scores for Discovery? Merchandisers won’t touch this stuff with a ten foot pole.

One, I see merchandise just fine. Two, I don't care about audience scores. That's not damage. Unless you are going to use the same rhetoric to say Berman and Braga damaged Star Trek with Voyager and Enterprise.

It doesn’t undermine anything.

It does. It means I do not take these arguments seriously because they cannot be articulated without flinging insults.

 

[Campe]

Have you seen the audience scores for Discovery? Merchandisers won’t touch this stuff with a ten foot pole.

When they put STD season 1 on CBS for free during a pandemic when people were literally trapped in their homes with nowhere to go, it couldn’t even beat out reruns of the Masked Singer.

The brand damage Klutzman has done is impressive. And again, it’s not just Star Trek, look at what he did with Universal’s Dark Universe, or Clarice. Where are those franchises now?



Not now. He did, but JarJar Abrams and Bad Reboot were at least smart enough to step away from the mess they created. Klutzman wasn’t.



It doesn’t undermine anything. Calling flat earthers stupid doesn’t suddenly make the earth flat.



They absolutely have. Some people look at graffiti and call it street art. Others watch statues get torn down or books get burned and call it progress.

The rest of us call it vandalism. Cultural vandalism, to be exact.

These are all familiar talking points we’ve heard before. Next you’re going to say all of the P+ Trek shows have been canceled and decanonized, Kurtzman has been fired (for the umpteenth billionth time) breaking FIFTY TV sets on the way out(!!!) and new Trek will air on CBS created by Seth McFarlane (teh one tru keeper of teh CANNON!!!111!one!!!)

Right?

 

[BillJ]

Have you seen the audience scores for Discovery? Merchandisers won’t touch this stuff with a ten foot pole.

Funny I have all the badges for Discovery, made by QMx, in my living room. Obviously some merchandisers are touching this stuff.

And, before you call me some kind of sycophant, people here know how much I love DSC.

 

[BillJ]

The rest of us call it vandalism. Cultural vandalism, to be exact.

I don't think you can call it any kind of vandalism when the original, complete work exists and is available to be viewed...

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think you can call it any kind of vandalism when the original, complete work exists and is available to be viewed...

And still regarded positively in the present rather than lamented over like some lost art.

 

[Farscape One]

And some of us call “cultural vandalism” a right-wing dog whistle for diversity and inclusion, so there are various opinions on the matter…

I thought we were supposed to keep politics out of this thread and be used in the appropriate forum...