I don't like this news about SNW season 3 from Screen Rant

[HotRod]

The Trouble WIth Tribbles

I can already guess how some fans would react:

-It's too fun and cutsie.

-Officers wouldn't get in a bar fight.

-it makes a mockery of the Klingons.

-kirk was irresponsible in letting the Tribbles onboard the Enterprise.

-a super important grain shipment has been poisoned, why are they LAUGHING!?

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

It's okay, they were under the influence of a parallel dimension where everyone allows pets on board and punches Klingons.

 

[fireproof78]

I can already guess how some fans would react:

-It's too fun and cutsie.

-Officers wouldn't get in a bar fight.

-it makes a mockery of the Klingons.

-kirk was irresponsible in letting the Tribbles onboard the Enterprise.

-a super important grain shipment has been poisoned, why are they LAUGHING!?

Don't forget completely unprofessional.

 

[HotRod]

Don't forget completely unprofessional.

Of course.

I still find it amusing that people will give SNW shit for being "too quipy" and unprofessional. Usually pointing their ire towards Ortegas, all while giving McCoy a pass.

I wonder what's the difference....

 

[BillJ]

I wonder what's the difference....

I think one unmentioned difference is that people are far bigger sticks in the mud than they used to be. People back then largely treated entertainment as entertainment, people now want it to be a treatise on morality and military etiquette.

What you're alluding to is also a problem, but only part of the issue.

 

[HotRod]

What you're alluding to is also a problem, but only part of the issue.

Well, yeah. These people I'm alluding to are this same people that complain about "too many chicks on the Enterprise." Sadly, these fans do exist.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I still find it amusing that people will give SNW shit for being "too quipy" and unprofessional. Usually pointing their ire towards Ortegas, all while giving McCoy a pass.

I wonder what's the difference....

The difference for me is that McCoy was a bit of an outlier, who made the rest of the crew seem more professional by comparison. He was Kirk's friend, and he knew he could get away with a bit more than the others. In fact, Kirk actually had to yell at him a few times to stop messing around and do his job (though he apologised afterwards).

If I was going to compare another Trek character to him, it'd be Dax.

 

[BillJ]

These people I'm alluding to are this same people that complain about "too many chicks on the Enterprise."

I absolutely love intelligent, kickass women. The more the better.

 

[fireproof78]

I think one unmentioned difference is that people are far bigger sticks in the mud than they used to be. People back then largely treated entertainment as entertainment, people now want it to be a treatise on morality and military etiquette.

What you're alluding to is also a problem, but only part of the issue.

Indeed, yes. It is a longing for the "good old days" of entertainment that was moral and good and talked down to us.

And people say I'm conservative...

 

[Dukhat]

Usually pointing their ire towards Ortegas, all while giving McCoy a pass.

I wonder what's the difference....

At least for me, it’s because Ortegas has gotten zero character development other than ‘I’m a smartass and I fly the ship.’ Perhaps if the writers gave her as much to do as they’ve given all the other characters, maybe I’d feel different. Tom Paris was a wiseass too, but he was very likeable because he was written well and was utilized better.

 

[BillJ]

It is a longing for the "good old days" of entertainment that was moral and good and talked down to us.

I never felt the original Star Trek talked down to me. It had layers that meant more to me at different points in my life.

 

[fireproof78]

I never felt the original Star Trek talked down to me. It had layers that meant more to me at different points in my life.

It depends on the episode but I wasn't just referring to TOS. It's the old song of how bad TV is nowadays because it's somehow less moral, as though a TV show was to be our standard of morality.

 

[BillJ]

It depends on the episode but I wasn't just referring to TOS. It's the old song of how bad TV is nowadays because it's somehow less moral, as though a TV show was to be our standard of morality.

I'd just say that our morality is evolving. We learn more, we adjust accordingly.

 

[fireproof78]

I'd just say that our morality is evolving. We learn more, we adjust accordingly.

I don't necessarily disagree. I think we are better served by drawing from the past while learning more. The past was never as certain as we believed, nor the future as demonstrably immoral as fear would have us a think.

 

[BillJ]

I don't necessarily disagree. I think we are better served by drawing from the past while learning more. The past was never as certain as we believed, nor the future as demonstrably immoral as fear would have us a think.

Well, ideally, we should never forget the lessons of the past. It unfortunately seems that we constantly do have to relearn those lessons.

Putting folks in pens because they are different should have been forever off the table after the Japanese internment camps of World War II, though it seems like we are going to be repeating that mistake in the near future.

 

[HotRod]

Tom Paris was a wiseass too, but he was very likeable because he was written well and was utilized better.

He was likeable? Written well? Of that we'll have to disagree. I'll take Erica Ortegas over Tom Paris any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[BillJ]

He was likeable? Written well? Of that we'll have to disagree. I'll take Erica Ortegas over Tom Paris any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I've only seen the first season, Ortegas never really made an impression on me. She is almost as generic as TOS Sulu.*

*From what I've seen.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, ideally, we should never forget the lessons of the past. It unfortunately seems that we constantly do have to relearn those lessons.

Putting folks in pens because they are different should have been forever off the table after the Japanese internment camps of World War II, though it seems like we are going to be repeating that mistake in the near future.

Probably because nuance of context is needed. It is easy to look in the past and say, "oh, they should have..." But we were not there, not did we learn the lesson the hard way.

But context makes a difference. It might even be for kings.

 

[BillJ]

Probably because nuance of context is needed. It is easy to look in the past and say, "oh, they should have..." But we were not there, not did we learn the lesson the hard way.

But context makes a difference. It might even be for kings.

EDIT: Sorry. This isn't the place to have this particular discussion.

 

[fireproof78]

Not in this instance. We should be against putting people who have done nothing wrong in internment camps.

Generally speaking I am.

But this is outside the scope of this thread unless screen rant is talking internment camps.