Indeed.
Missed a Trick
- Thread starter Bry_Sinclair
- Start date
Indeed.
It already is. Just like TOS.
Depends on what you're after. I like solid storytelling using great characters; YMMV. Admittedly, some elements of each in SNW were lacking. The alternatives, though, are kiddie shows and propaganda, and those hold no interest for me at all. If SNW decides to go either of those routes, I'll drop it in a heartbeat, and P+ at the same time.
I have watched many kiddie shows with great characters and stories. So, the categorical dismissal is odd to me.
Also, TOS had some genuinely ridiculous stories. They were not all great. They were silly, or stupid too. So, I guess I see room in Trek for the silly.
I'm glad you have encountered such. I have not. In fact, a lot of what fandom considers adult, I do not. I consider Doctor Who to be a kiddie show. I've watched 6 episodes over the course of my life. I got nothing from them at all, in terms of a story to which an adult could relate. They're meant to be entertaining fluff. Obviously they have succeeded wildly at being entertaining fluff, and good for them that they have an audience and supply a want. It's not my want, and I won't put any more time into it.
I concur with this. I cannot watch "A Piece of the Action" without cringing. But overall there was more than enough to keep me watching TOS. Perhaps one reason why is that TOS had far more episodes per season, and the episodes were conceived outside of a central staff. That can go either way, but in terms of TOS it resulted in a higher ratio of winners to clunkers; I'd put that number at around 50%, with another 40% of episodeswhich were at least watchable and entertaining. With the exception of the first season of SNW, I'd put streaming Trek at about 10%, far too low.
*shudders* that's horrifying. I would not let my kids watch Who until 17. There are some deeply troubling stories in it. As an adult I still do not find it enjoyable.
I guess that's what mileage will vary truly means. I guess I'm too simple to appreciate adult entertainment.
Propaganda? What propaganda?
Lower Decks is not a kids show. I wouldn't let anyone under the age of 13 to watch that. Prodigy is also not a show I think you should leave kids unattended to watch, it's even rated PG in Canada.
I also agree with Fireproof on Doctor Who, that is also not a kids show.
Last edited:
Yeah, it might have worked for a minor character. Like, imagine, if they'd cast Paul Wesley as Kirk's brother and we're meant to assume it's his only role.
Then he's Kirk-Kirk!
From only 6 episodes, that doesn't surprise me. It often is intended to be entertaining family-friendly fluff, as its UK timeslot reflects, but the flexibility of its format has allowed for much deeper stories across its six-decade history. It's a difficult show to recommend to a new viewer because it does take a bit of watching to get a sense of the cross-section of stories available. In the 2000s, it had two spin-offs, one explicitly a children's show broadcast at 4pm and the other a 9pm show with violence, profanity and sex scenes, and neither tonally too out of step with their parent show, which held the middle ground with appeal to all ages. It's not for everyone, but considering it solely a kiddie show is like judging Star Trek on "A Piece of the Action" and "I, Mudd".
I don't doubt you. I just figure that I gave it 6 tries, over the course of, probably a decade, and I saw nothing that made me want to see any more. I may be wrong, but it just doesn't seem to be for me. There are several other successful shows which didn't work for me: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lost in Space...never cared for St. Elsewhere or Seinfeld.
Does that make it a "kiddie show?"
Though, this speech is one that feels imminently adult, addressing very key needs in adults:
Though, this speech is one that feels imminently adult, addressing very key needs in adults:
Not necessarily. It means that it's never shown me that it intends to be anything else, however.
Fascinating
Similar threads
