Yeah, I meant all that in the idea of "people who can't deal with change." But that does clarify my point, thank you.
Breakdown of Midnight's Edge Roundtable About Alex Kurtzman
- Thread starter Qonundrum
- Start date
Yeah, I meant all that in the idea of "people who can't deal with change." But that does clarify my point, thank you.
Perfect, I wanna chip in.
They're both ludicrous fantasies, and there's not as much difference between the two as people pretend there is.
On their most basic levels there is a striking difference in expressed maturity. Star Wars is about rebelling against the Man and as such stars young adults for the most part. Star Trek is about being the Man and stars mature adults for the most part.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
The other day, someone over at the SF Debris forum complained that "know-it-all" Burnham is a Commander while "brilliant" Spock is only a LT.
Burnham is a know-it all while Spock is brilliant? That's not normal criticism. That's a dude who can't stand women at the center of something that used to cater to his power/competence fantasies.
Some weeks earlier, members in the same forum complained that the new She-Ra was "indoctrinating" young viewers because of She-Ra's thing with Katra. I like Chuck's reviews, but his forum has issues.
Burnham is a know-it all while Spock is brilliant? That's not normal criticism. That's a dude who can't stand women at the center of something that used to cater to his power/competence fantasies.
Some weeks earlier, members in the same forum complained that the new She-Ra was "indoctrinating" young viewers because of She-Ra's thing with Katra. I like Chuck's reviews, but his forum has issues.
Apparently some of them said he was too lenient on DSC lmao.
Better?
Not to get into a Star Trek vs. Star Wars thing, because those are stupid and I like both, but you're kind of stuck on the OT there in your description.
Episodes 1, 2, and 3 and The Clone Wars were about the Man (the Republic).
Episodes 4,5, and 6 and Rebels were about the Rebels.
Episodes 7 and 8 split the difference and had the Man (the New Republic) sit out the fighting for reasons, while two separate rebel factions (the Resistance and First Order) went after each other, although since the Resistance is fighting to preserve the New Republic and is financed by it on the side, and the First Order is attacking the New Republic.
Rogue One is about the Rebels and Solo is pre-Rebellion Empire.
Besides which, political rebellion is not like teenage rebellion and doesn't have anything to do with maturity, and governments can act with immaturity and capriciousness (especially autocratic ones).
Also, I'm not going to go around comparing everyone's ages, but there were plenty of mature adults in all incarnations of Star Wars, and especially the Prequels and Sequels.
Last edited:
I would posit that Lucas tried to make Star Wars more like Star Trek in the prequels, and there was much discussion of this at the time. (Midichlorians, anyone?) Episodes 7-9 as well as Rogue 1 reverted the series back to form. And while, yes, the adults are always there, its the younger characters who are the core players, while the older characters are there typically in support roles. Even in the prequels this is the case. Why do you think this is the case?
In a similar way, JJ Abrams moved Star Trek in a Star Wars direction with his trilogy., which many have noted, centering, again, around younger, more rebellious versions of the TOS crew. Its not just the effects that reminded people of Star Wars. And again, back to Discovery, the lessons of the series is how to be responsible adults, not how to overthrow the establishment. Again,back to form.
Midi-chlorians are as old as the franchise, they just didn't make it onscreen until TPM.
"It is said that certain creatures are born with a higher awareness of the Force than humans. Their brains are different; they have more midi-chlorians in their cells."
―George Lucas, establishing guidelines for the Expanded Universe in 1977
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Midi-chlorian
And just like Abrams was inspired by Star Wars, Star Trek was once of many sources of inspiration for George Lucas and helped pave the way for the OT to get made.
(taken at a Star Wars convention in 1987)
https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies...eorge-lucas-on-how-star-trek-helped-star-wars
Anyway, I think you're reading too much into this whole maturity angle, but to each their own.
Apparently there’s a foot note somewhere saying that the midichlorians were added later, it didn’t come from his original 1977 plans
I pointed out the same Midichlorian quote in the Star Wars subforum but someone corrected me there.
Last edited:
I don't care enough to go check, but apparently Lucas hinted that the midi-chlorians dated back to 1977 on the DVD commentary of The Phantom Menace, and then insisted on including that reference in 2007's Making of Star Wars you mention above. Of course, Lucas does play fast and loose with Star Wars production history sometimes, so maybe he was trying to be a revisionist historian.
That Lucas had planned the midi-chlorians as far back as 1977 was hinted at on the DVD commentary of The Phantom Menace, but the details would not be fully revealed for another eight years, coming to light in 2007's book The Making of Star Wars: The Definitive Story Behind the Original Film, the hardcover edition of which had, amongst its appendices, Lucas' notes for the Expanded Universe authors.
http://starwarsholocron.wikia.com/wiki/Midi-chlorian
"Some people can be very frightened of change." — Captain James T. Kirk, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
It’s funny how some people didn't want Chuck’s “opinionated” reviews (as he labels them) but rather simply hear their own opinions parroted back to them. I was relieved that though Chuck ultimately gave a negative review he was totally fair all the way through and spoke with honesty instead of playing to an audience like Midnight’s Edge.
Last edited:
Midnight's Edge and many other vloggers out there now are ONLY concerned about making money and getting your clicks........I don't even know if they believe the shit they spew out. They love riling people up and then walk away and count their ad revenue. As people have stated, they have no inside info, they just turn on a mike and bitch for hours...........
It doesn't matter how good Discovery is, Midnight's Edge will still hate it as it appeals to their viewers. They are using toxic fandom to make money.
Also, they create false rumours to support their negative viewpoints. For example, they said Discovery is a failure and in danger of cancellation before it even started airing its first season. Instead, evidence has shown that it's actually a success since Kurtzman was awarded a 5 year deal with CBS All Access to create a bunch more Star Trek shows.
Midnight's Edge is the Star Trek equivalent of fake news. The way Breitbart is to political journalism is Midnight's Edge to Star Trek
Midnight's Edge is the Star Trek equivalent of fake news. The way Breitbart is to political journalism is Midnight's Edge to Star Trek
