If you don't believe all personal attacks are unacceptable then that is an answer to my question. Thank you.
Sigh. Did you actually listen these reviews? If you didn't than yeah this conversation might as well end because I have no idea what was said. If I ever decide to listen to reviews and find something ill let you know.
I mean foul play as in derailing civil discourse or honest debate, with troll tactics such as rage baiting, deliberate hyperbole, divisive or provoking language and whatnot.
Point being, I don't think honestly debating the subject matter is their goal.
Last edited:
Foul play does not just mean murder. It also refers to bad faith actions of dishonesty and what not.
Pretending not to know what the person you're talking with means, when in reality, you know it very well, is also such a foul play tactic.
Maybe it's a language barrier thing, but I assumed it means "deliberately breaking the rules of a game for your own advantage".
Guess that's the wisdom behind the rule "don't feed the troll". But it's hard to ignore them when the troll king sits in the government.
Thanks for the explanation!
I apologize for the misunderstanding, I had a sports metaphor in mind ... foul play like in football.
Of course I don't think these internet grifters actually murder people (or if they happen to do so, it's unrelated to their grifting).
Last edited:
Not everyone is a native English speaker, and Sim is having an honest debate, because foul play does have more than one meaning than its usage to describe murder in America. It also means dishonest behavior.
It has both a legal and sports definition in US English as well. Here the sports foul play occurs in basketball, what we call soccer, and baseball.
Last edited:
The only time Ive ever heard it used to mean murder has been in American tv shows. If we use it in that context over here then it's quite uncommon.
We use it in sport ball or to describe shady shenans.
Sim's context, I feel, was perfectly obvious.
We use it in sport ball or to describe shady shenans.
Sim's context, I feel, was perfectly obvious.
I have no idea if these grifters have significant influence on shaping the general reception of the shows or movies they are attacking, but no matter if they have, I find this phenomenon disgusting.
It's a major reason why I hardly use social media ... too much negativity and dishonesty -- and dishonest negativity -- on there.
Yup. The show just did bad. There are lots of reviews that were positive. Written and on youtube. You're right the peoole who loved the show are looking for someone to blame. Why didn't more people show up? Is the whole country just full bad people? Of course not. The obvious explanation is the show wasn't really that good. It was placed in a century no one liked. It was placed in a school with kids. It focused on their romances and trauma. First only Caleb had trauma and by the end of the season they all did. Trauma actually because a popular abd frankly annoying word on the show. The tech for the 32nd century wasn't impressive. They were still using padds that were no more impressive than our tablets today. They could put fores put on the bridge when they were easily doing that in the 23rd cebtury. The bridge itself looked just the kurtzmsn 23rd century and 25th century bridges in design style and lighting. Poorly conceived show with terrible story. The doctor was the best character and they waited until the end to give hom something good to do. Lots of reasons why it failed.
And not a single one that anyone would be able to definitively identify with any sort of confidence or evidence as the one decisive reason at this point.
Some people think there was a concerted effort to “review bomb” it and run a “hate campaign”, which played a part in viewers not giving it a chance. Others think some of the more cosmetic aspects of the show, like the setting, the props, the sets or even just the kind of stories they were doing were to blame. The former theory has the benefit of actually being grounded in at least some form of evidence, even though no-one’s really able to tell how much those campaigns played a role in keeping viewers from watching. The latter theory though doesn’t seem to come with any sort of evidentiary basis. Some viewers complaining about these things doesn’t make them a majority, nor would we be able to say whether those aspects were the thing that kept viewers away.
Me personally, I don’t think it was just any one of these things but a combination of several factors. To quote myself from earlier in the thread, I think the reasons include: (1.) Accumulated fan frustration with recent Trek shows led to people preemptively rejecting the show or being skeptical about it. (2.) Then there’s the platform limitations of Paramount+, with a smaller subscriber base and weaker visibility compared to larger platforms it limited the show’s reach from the start. (3.) But also, viewers are overwhelmed with choices, so anything without strong buzz or urgency is easily ignored. Every streaming platform is chasing rare breakout hits, aiming to create a flagship series that captures massive attention, which is just not realistic to expect from every Trek show. (4.) Additionally, Paramount’s more conservative strategic direction following its merger with Skydance likely contributed to the cancellation, as new leadership often favors a clean slate, ending existing productions so future successes can be attributed to their own strategy rather than inherited projects like Starfleet Academy and Strange New Worlds.
I’m not claiming to know what ultimately brought about the disappointing viewership numbers, but I would be surprised to learn it’s just one thing alone that’s to blame.
But also, I can't really say I care too much. As far as I’m concerned it’s a done deal and the show is cancelled. There isn’t anything to change about it now that would keep it alive for more seasons. And that’s assuming there even is something that could be done with the show that would have made any sort of difference. I loved the first season and I’m looking forward to the second one, hoping it will be as good. At the end of the day as a viewer and as a fan I don’t really care how many other people watched it.
Exactly. The reasons it failed are uninteresting to me. That's like knowing why a restaurant closed even though I liked eating there. The reasons are rather irrelevant and feels like piling on rather than moving on, especially since the reasons for the failure seem to prompt celebration rather than reflection.
Its necessary to know why it failed. If we want a new star trek show. If we get lucky tptb will greenlight united or legacy. Two shows that many fans seem to want. More adult themed shows. No more classrooms.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
