Incredibly disingenuous and bad faith argument there, given there is more than enough evidence that has been discussed here throughout YouTube and other social media platforms regarding a hit campaign.
Spoilers Starfleet Academy General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
and your point being?
Hit campaign? You mean negative youtube videos or reviews? Thats not going to stop popple from watching. People will either like it or not.This back and forth between youtube channels and ridiculous politics is their thing. People will watch the show. If they dont like it they wont watch it anymore. If they like it theyll continue to watch.
Last edited:
And it has been proven wrong by other post including mine that have not been disproven.
You case is very hard to prove, even proving its a campaign is very difficult thing to prove. Let alone proving people did not watch "X" because of something.
Nice attempt but try again.
Last edited:
Nah, I know better than to engage in a bad faith argument.
Well back to discussing star trek. So is it just me or has very little changed in starfleet beyond the officers abd cadets talking 21st cebtury slang. Humans and technology. If SNW Kirk traveled 900 years in the future he would feel very comfortable in the future. Everything's more or less the same as in snw. Yeah.
I'm guessing it's set in the post-Burn era largely to prevent it being hamstrung by 23rd/24th century stuff and so the writers have a clean slate, which I think is a great idea; the cadets don't have to act in any particular way since they're essentially disconnected from all prior Star Trek.
Though I am starting to slightly worry it is actually just gonna squander that and devolve into a Memory Alpha connect-the-dots game regardless, like most other Kurtzman-era Star Trek.
Though I am starting to slightly worry it is actually just gonna squander that and devolve into a Memory Alpha connect-the-dots game regardless, like most other Kurtzman-era Star Trek.
Probably the latter because that's what the loudest voices insist is wanted.
Nope, it's set in the 32nd century because Kurtzman wanted it to be for his kids.
The reply I expected. I'll keep waiting for that argument that will never come.
Well I for one am glad for its setting since I wasn't ready to say goodbye to it after Discovery's untimely demise. And I am most certainly not related to Kurzman, though maybe he made it for me because we share a birthday.
He really wanted his own mark on star trek. That's why he changed it so much. But he'll never outdo tos or any of the Berman era. Hos shows and the writing just seem to be inferior. Only 10 episodes need to be written in a season. You would think they would have stellar stories.
He shouldn't be competing with TOS or Berman. It's his thing.
^Agreed, though I think one of the main creative problems of this era is the way all these shows are so often about Star Trek, rather than just being Star Trek. Obsessed with the franchise as a property, obsessed with its cultural legacy, obsessed with a handful of ideas Gene Coon came up with to serve single stories in 1966, but totally unwilling to show the same creativity and freshness themselves.
SFA's possibly my favourite Kurtzman show so far because it's largely escaped that; it's truly a breath of fresh air how the usual fourth-wall leaning reverence for "lore" and past Star Trek series is almost totally absent, and it seems genuinely interested in its own new characters and setting as something totally distinct and separate from TOS through ENT. I suspect this week's episode is gonna be a kick in the balls for me in that regard, but we'll see.
SFA's possibly my favourite Kurtzman show so far because it's largely escaped that; it's truly a breath of fresh air how the usual fourth-wall leaning reverence for "lore" and past Star Trek series is almost totally absent, and it seems genuinely interested in its own new characters and setting as something totally distinct and separate from TOS through ENT. I suspect this week's episode is gonna be a kick in the balls for me in that regard, but we'll see.
I dont understand this need some people have to pit the shows in competition insread of viewing them as complimentary to each other. It's all Star Trek and I enjoy almost all of it.
To my mind it's largely happened when Trek became a movement, not a show. I liken it to when I work with interns or newer counselors and they feel like they must "do the therapies" and have their check box of things to touch on rather than telling a story. Star Trek has become more about being Star Trek than telling stories about people. It strikes me as being closer to the Lucas style with Star Wars, were the people are not what Star Trek is interested in but the tech and the world building.
Same and I'm not anywhere close to the most competitive person. I find competition fine in sports, but largely that is it. It's use to create these artificial competitions and insist one must rise above the other.
With art, that simply doesn't work. Art is not a competition. I shouldn't be looking at Avatar: Fire and Ash and go, "Yeah, it's an ok film but it's no Star Wars." That's absurdity on its face because now art doesn't exist to be enjoyed but to be a show pony grandstanding for a blue ribbon.
Not being twitter is a massive benefit though
Similar threads
- Poll
- Sticky
