This comment is SO much better purely that due to the fact that Trekbbs doesn't show 2nd degree quotes, the comment you quoted purely says "urgh, argh, ick, oof, right" now
Spoilers First Reviews
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
Anyone knows who's the directors of these 6 episodes ? I know Kurtzman directed 1 & 2 but was unable to find anything about these other ones...
Normally I wouldn't do this, but I'm going to hold off on having a stance on SFA until at least after I've seen the fifth episode. I think that would make the most sense under the circumstances.
I assume this place is going to be in the thick of Full Circus Mode by then. Actually, it'll be like that within 24 hours of the first episode dropping. "No, it won't!" someone might say. I've been here since 1999, yes it will.
- I think this establishes that at least to Starfleet's knowledge, he's not come back. Maybe SAM's episode is her trying to prove otherwise.
I mean, if it was you and you could, you would, wouldn't you. I think what you mention is highly likely, and also from a costing point of view, probably a good way of getting a protagonist for more screentime than engaging another legacy actor.
I rather like that the episode will feature one Brooks trying to find our the fate of another Brooks.
I have to say, it would be a sweet close if SAM investigates the "mystery" and finds a hidden holo-recording at the end of Sisko's daughter saying that he came back, was a good dad, and lived a quiet life on Bejor without telling anyone about it. Because Ben had been through enough shit and deserved to have a fucking happy ending.
SFA will likely prove to be far more about the reaction, meta-reaction, and meta-meta-reaction than the actual series itself... an effective inversion of the who / whom distinction.
SFA more than anything in the last decade in the franchise is truly Kurtzman's baby. It's also a throwback to the height of the streaming boom where series were granted far higher budgets than their prospects on paper would otherwise suggest. Plus, like said streaming boom series, it's likely to be perceived along a political valence (no stranger to NuTrek, but in this case more concentrated and more visible).
The entertainment industry has by and large moved beyond the days of genre series like Ironheart, The Acolyte, and Batwoman. The kind that polarize fanbases and provide easy YouTube content. Well, into this slow news day steps SFA. Very easy clippable fodder to fill up a three hour livestream.
Couple this with Paramount being under new ownership and Kurtzman's deal being up for renewal... Makes for interesting times...
Notice something those series all have in common? Female leads. It's pretty much always female leads - and usually nonwhite ones too. The "polarization" only matters if a woman is at the top, and then they're like "No one wants this!" and "Who is this for?"
I think it was very much by design that they've set up the main character of SFA in marketing as Caleb, who's a dude and very traditionally masculine (albeit racially ambiguous). Sure, the cast is pretty gender balanced, but it doesn't seem female forward to me in particular.
Maybe I’ve missed someone mentioning this elsewhere, but this review, by the way, reveals what we’ve been wondering about earlier: Jay-Den is described as “queer” (which of course might not mean he’s gay; could also be bi, pan, ace or non-binary, I guess). You just know that certain parts of the fandom will explode with bigotry upon learning this, but I think it’s cool that the show is doing it. I don’t envy the people who’ll have to manage online spaces where these kind of bigots will spew their hatred.
Wait!
Maybe I’ve missed someone mentioning this elsewhere, but this review, by the way, reveals what we’ve been wondering about earlier: Jay-Den is described as “queer” (which of course might not mean he’s gay; could also be bi, pan, ace or non-binary, I guess). You just know that certain parts of the fandom will explode with bigotry upon learning this, but I think it’s cool that the show is doing it. I don’t envy the people who’ll have to manage online spaces where these kind of bigots will spew their hatred.
Wait!
I don't think they're going to go this route, but it would seem 100% keeping with what we knew about the Klingons for queerness to be kinda a default. Lots of uber-masculine warrior cultures have a ton of homoeroticism and situational gay relationships, in part because men are spending so much time with one another.
Indeed, we know relatively little about the sexuality of any Klingons historically other than Worf, Kang, and Gowron. I guess that female Klingons seem ready to bone at the drop of a hat, but the men decidedly do not seem horny most of the time.
I’m excited!!! Just a bit nervous from what we’ve seen about the characters so far (a Klingon named Jay’den??) but I’m hopeful nonetheless
Early Review: ‘Starfleet Academy’ Season 1 Deftly Balances Strong Characters, Star Trek Lore, And Different Tones
Read our spoiler-free review.trekmovie.com
STAR TREK: STARFLEET ACADEMY’s First Class Has a Promising Start — Our Spoiler-Free Review
The first classes at STAR TREK: STARFLEET ACADEMY begin next Thursday, and here’s our spoiler-free review of the upcoming season!blog.trekcore.com
60 years later, Star Trek puts a fresh spin on the franchise by embracing an unlikely trope
Starfleet Academy combined tributes to Deep Space Nine and Voyager with Animal House-style anticswww.polygon.com
^ Welcome to the board, @Bajoran Orb of Stupidity! Love yer name.
I’ve noticed several people mentioning they are low-key bothered by the name “Jay-Den”, and before looking into it I had no idea there was such a (negative) stereotype associated with the name “Jaden”/“Jayden”. It’s really not a name that exists in Europe, I think, so it’s probably only something that English speakers (or people from the US?) pick up on. I’ve learned there also can be a racist element to the stereotype, because apparently it’s mostly a name associated with black kids. Of course I know of “Chad” and “Karen”, but I don’t think I ever noticed any “Jaden” bias before.
Do you think they deliberately gave the character a name with that stereotypical connotation (not the racist one, but the one about being “a socially unsophisticated, unruly or entitled suburban youth”)?
I’ve noticed several people mentioning they are low-key bothered by the name “Jay-Den”, and before looking into it I had no idea there was such a (negative) stereotype associated with the name “Jaden”/“Jayden”. It’s really not a name that exists in Europe, I think, so it’s probably only something that English speakers (or people from the US?) pick up on. I’ve learned there also can be a racist element to the stereotype, because apparently it’s mostly a name associated with black kids. Of course I know of “Chad” and “Karen”, but I don’t think I ever noticed any “Jaden” bias before.
Do you think they deliberately gave the character a name with that stereotypical connotation (not the racist one, but the one about being “a socially unsophisticated, unruly or entitled suburban youth”)?
I hope it wasn’t written with any stereotypes behind it but I understand how people may believe that or see stereotypes. My main problem is it’s just awkward especially for Americans to see a Klingon with a name that’s often associated with children. It feels very blunt and uncreative at first glance but i think it might grow on me^ Welcome to the board, @Bajoran Orb of Stupidity! Love yer name.
I’ve noticed several people mentioning they are low-key bothered by the name “Jay-Den”, and before looking into it I had no idea there was such a (negative) stereotype associated with the name “Jaden”/“Jayden”. It’s really not a name that exists in Europe, I think, so it’s probably only something that English speakers (or people from the US?) pick up on. I’ve learned there also can be a racist element to the stereotype, because apparently it’s mostly a name associated with black kids. Of course I know of “Chad” and “Karen”, but I don’t think I ever noticed any “Jaden” bias before.
Do you think they deliberately gave the character a name with that stereotypical connotation (not the racist one, but the one about being “a socially unsophisticated, unruly or entitled suburban youth”)?
^ Welcome to the board, @Bajoran Orb of Stupidity! Love yer name.
I’ve noticed several people mentioning they are low-key bothered by the name “Jay-Den”, and before looking into it I had no idea there was such a (negative) stereotype associated with the name “Jaden”/“Jayden”. It’s really not a name that exists in Europe, I think, so it’s probably only something that English speakers (or people from the US?) pick up on. I’ve learned there also can be a racist element to the stereotype, because apparently it’s mostly a name associated with black kids. Of course I know of “Chad” and “Karen”, but I don’t think I ever noticed any “Jaden” bias before.
Do you think they deliberately gave the character a name with that stereotypical connotation (not the racist one, but the one about being “a socially unsophisticated, unruly or entitled suburban youth”)?
I think it's kind of lame and uncreative, unless there's some within-universe explanation, like the Andorian named Jennifer that Mariner dated.
If a Klingon must be named Jay-Den, make it canonical his parents picked a human name for him, signifying the cultural shift by the 32nd century.
I mean, yes, but those series also have something far more important in common.
Horrible writing.
Batwoman never even came out, so we don't know if the writing is horrible.
That said, there are plenty of shows with "bad writing" that didn't get the scorn of the chuds. Secret Invasion was the worst MCU show by far (certainly from a writing perspectiive), and they didn't give a fuck about it that. OTOH, She-Hulk was fine, and they attacked it based upon the opening trailer alone.
I was hitting more on easy targets for YouTube clickbait, but this probably does deserve some greater focus.
The CW model imploded when the Netflix output deal went away, and their series had to actually break even. Only one CW show is left -- and in its final season.
Two of the aforementioned series were very high budget streaming series that failed out of the gate. I never saw Ironheart, but The Acolyte only had 10% of its budget on screen, and suffered from nonsensical writing and editing. They might have succeeded with lower budgets and better writing.
SFA makes sense abstractly on paper... at ~$3 million an episode. Had they repurposed other Toronto sets, hired promising upcoming unknowns, gone less "CW"... it might have easily broken even, served a niche, and brought some new people in.
Instead it's throwing ~$10 million an episode at a format that has a history of repeated failure even at lower budget levels.
The ceiling on this thing starting out is likely 275 million watch minutes... and that's assuming peak DISCOVERY season 5 numbers and what SNW season 3 likely leveled off on.
If Kurtzman is especially lucky, it'll be a slow week for streaming, so they'll trend even with low numbers, a la S31.
I meant the CW series, not the pulped film.
I'm a little confused what the CW has to do with anything. Are you comparing Star Trek to the Arrowverse or something?
Several of the SFA writers come from CW shows like Nancy Drew and Tom Swift.
It depends on what you mean by "failed". Triggered the trollish haters? Then yes.
Such as?
