Spoilers The Bastardization of Star Trek

[Guy Gardener]

Storm Troopers are supposed to be Maori.

 

[fireproof78]

One thing I don’t get, and this was true when it came to George Lucas and Star Wars as well, but ascribing intent to media you don’t like. Like there’s someone out there making awful content on purpose as part of an agenda.

I have significant criticisms of Discovery and some of the choices made in Strange New Worlds, but when people and YouTube critics start talking about “trials” for “crimes against pop culture,” what they’re really saying is that they think the people making Star Trek care more about diversity, representation, and other “woke” talking points than putting out a good story. And that’s just a bunch of bullshit. You can criticize those shows or episodes from those shows for being dull. You can criticize them for making bad story decisions. But I’ve never felt it was a situation where someone in the writers’ room is consciously going, we need to have Burnham or Ortega be the hero this week for girl power!

Agreed on all these points. I recall all the vile rhetoric around Lucas and how various childhoods had been damaged. The rhetoric does nothing for the discussion. It polarizes because something doesn't fit in to preconceived notions. It's deliberately obfuscating because if you defend the decisions you are defending "criminal" behavior. So, instead of debating the merits of the work it's instead debating the hyperbole around the negative reaction.

It's deeply frustrating.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I recall the female led Ghostbusters film apparently went around 'raping people's childhoods'.

I've still never seen that. I haven't seen Afterlife either.

 

[herofhyrule]

The kind of people who say stuff like that are the kind of people who take it all far too seriously. They really need to get a life.

 

[Lord Garth]

I recall the female led Ghostbusters film apparently went around 'raping people's childhoods'.

I've still never seen that. I haven't seen Afterlife either.

Neither have I. Only because I'm not a Diehard Ghostbusters Fan. I saw the first two movies when I was kid, that was that, and I didn't think about it afterwards.

Then there's the freaking out about the live-action Little Mermaid. And the criticisms from, what I can tell, guys in their 40s. People my age. And what I say to them is, "What do you care? You're not the target audience! Or do you just not want your kids to see a black Little Mermaid?"

 

[fireproof78]

I recall the female led Ghostbusters film apparently went around 'raping people's childhoods'.

I've still never seen that. I haven't seen Afterlife either.

I've only seen the first Ghostbusters. It lacked anything to bring me back as a child, beyond the curious use of Sumerian architecture. I really liked that. But, it's a deeply unsettling, unpleasant movie and then they do the whole cartoon thing. It's like, no.

The phrase "raped my childhood" is one that stands out as egregious hyperbole that warrants quickly being ignored. Say with "crimes against pop culture."

 

[Nerys Myk]

These types of livestreams frequently reach more people than a BBS does.

Many of the likely contributors have interviewed / engaged with people active in various Star Trek productions. So, yes, while the idea of putting Star Trek on trial is a bit of a gaff, it can't be completely dismissed.

Oh it most definitely can.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

But, it's a deeply unsettling, unpleasant movie and then they do the whole cartoon thing.

It is unsettling in places. It's a great film IMO though. I've never heard it described as unpleasant before?

 

[fireproof78]

It is unsettling in places. It's a great film IMO though. I've never heard it described as unpleasant before?

It's a great film in that it is well made, and does what it sets out to do.

And unpleasant. The treatment of the secondary and background characters is not enjoyable.

 

[Mudd]

The female-led Ghostbusters was a bit of okay. I enjoyed it. Kate McKinnon and Chris Hemsworth were, as always, worth the price of admittance. And seeing the original actors pop up in ways that were not telegraphed in advance (like, say, the climax of Afterlife was) was entertaining, too.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

The treatment of the secondary and background characters is not enjoyable.

You mean the parts Rick Moranis and Sigourney Weaver play?

 

[JoseNoodles]

The female-led Ghostbusters was a bit of okay. I enjoyed it. Kate McKinnon and Chris Hemsworth were, as always, worth the price of admittance. And seeing the original actors pop up in ways that were not telegraphed in advance (like, say, the climax of Afterlife was) was entertaining, too.

I feel it squandered the talents of the lead actors with bad slapstick humor. I'm not exactly interested in Afterlife, either.

 

[Farscape One]

I recall the female led Ghostbusters film apparently went around 'raping people's childhoods'.

I've still never seen that. I haven't seen Afterlife either.

I didn't watch the female led GHOSTBUSTERS movie, but I did watch AFTERLIFE. I thought it was pretty good, and was a nice tribute to Harold Ramis and his character.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

I didn't watch the female led GHOSTBUSTERS movie, but I did watch AFTERLIFE. I thought it was pretty good, and was a nice tribute to Harold Ramis and his character.

I watched the clip of the old gang coming back at the end of the movie on Youtube... It didn't appeal to me.

It was impressive how they brought Ramis back though. How did they do that? It's good CGI if so.

I like the first movie. I've rewatched it a few times, but I don't think I've even seen Ghostbusters II since I was a kid in the 1980s.

 

[fireproof78]

You mean the parts Rick Moranis and Sigourney Weaver play?

Yes.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Yes.

Hectored, lonely nerd who’s there only to be laughed at and female sex object?

I can see your objections, even if I don’t necessarily agree.

 

[fireproof78]

Hectored, lonely nerd who’s there only to be laughed at and female sex object?

I can see your objections, even if I don’t necessarily agree.

As well as completely ignored when in distress.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

As well as completely ignored when in distress.

Moranis?

I feel you're somewhat guarded here, maybe in fear of a Ghostbuster-fan pile on.

I'd be interested to continue to discuss in DM if you want to avoid a ruckus. I'm always interested in what you have to say.

 

[fireproof78]

Moranis?

I feel you're somewhat guarded here, maybe in fear of a Ghostbuster-fan pile on.

I'd be interested to continue to discuss in DM if you want to avoid a ruckus. I'm always interested in what you have to say.

Nah, it's not that. It's more it's completely uncomfortable and disquieting to me to even recall that scene. I remember watching it at 8 or 9, and it's incredibly well done because damn it pulls my heart strings so hard. It's painful for me, really.

I doubt many would consider that in terms of a movie's rewatchability but that's still not comfortable for me. And that's nearly 30 years ago I saw the movie.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Nah, it's not that. It's more it's completely uncomfortable and disquieting to me to even recall that scene. I remember watching it at 8 or 9, and it's incredibly well done because damn it pulls my heart strings so hard. It's painful for me, really.

I doubt many would consider that in terms of a movie's rewatchability but that's still not comfortable for me. And that's nearly 30 years ago I saw the movie.

So, I'll drop it after this (because you've expressed discomfort) but I still find I'm unsure what 'that scene' is? Is this Moranis being chased by demon dogs through NYC and no-one gives a damn? When he's banging on the restaurant window?