We've had Enterprise and Discovery covering The Federation's beginnings.
Methinks the author was simply tired of prequels.
Spoilers Picard 1x1, "Remembrance"
- Thread starter The Old Mixer
- Start date
We've had Enterprise and Discovery covering The Federation's beginnings.
Methinks the author was simply tired of prequels.
Like I was saying.. TMP made the most.. in terms of raw numbers. never mind that it COST the most as well, and Paramount did not consider it a win. But there are many other factors that play into popularityAsking someone to provide proof of what the claim to be an objective fact is being redefined as "trolling." Both hilarious and sad at the same time. So we now can say with certainty you apparently do not know what "objective" or "trolling" means. Good day.
Spending page upon page and paragraph upon paragraph on a single handful of words that was only a small part of the original post and rejecting simple logic to the point of obtuseness is trolling. At least that's the only word I can use to describe it that won't get me banned.Asking someone to provide proof of what the claim to be an objective fact is being defined as "trolling." Both hilarious and sad at the same time. Good day.
You want proof? Go look at any poll or ranking of the films. I'm not going to do your research for you. You clearly care more about the topic than anyone else.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. In fact, I definitely agree with Sturgeon's Law. Though to expect folks to cycle their television viewing habits is a bit unrealistic, in my view, though eventually we will get some consolidation. The other thing is who has the time to watch it all and the ones that get great word of mouth also tend to get cancelled (The Watchmen for example). I guess it's the modern sci-fi fan's burden.
Hey, if I can make the transition from being a weekly watcher to making my own schedule of viewing, and even do it long before streaming and binging became a thing other people can. We've been able to do this since the invention of VCRs. I don't see any real difference between waiting til September to start watching a new show because that's what the networks tell me to vs. waiting til September to start my Disney+ or Quibi subscription because i'm trying to save some money and/or waiting until they have enough new content to justify the expenditure. As for the inconvenience of cancelling and starting up a new monthly subscription, well, some of us are old enough to remember a time before TV remotes, when it could take as long to get up and change the channel.
The time to watch it all can be a struggle, since there is so much, but I'll take the choice not to watch, say, Avenue 5 or Britannia, both show's I've dumped because they aren't to my liking as there are so many other genre choices, over feeling compelled to watch them because there are no other new genre series on the TV at all.
Last edited:
Mine fell out, about 2.5 decades ago.
Lucky you. I ended up in a place where all the cats have three names I have to remember.
Yeah, that's just strange to me. The complaints I read about Discovery is that it is "too dark" and doesn't embrace the optimism of TOS. OK, fair, I suppose. But, TOS was never a "utopian" style future in its optimism. It never portrayed humanity as being conflictless, or even free of things we still struggle with now (i.e. bigotry, bias, destructive impulsiveness), but not perfect.
In my opinion, regardless, of what one thinks about DSC's execution exploring darker themes was absolutely fine, and appropriate for the time frame. Just like Picard is doing.
We can start by saying it is conceivable. We could even say it's conceivable other Trek films are more popular than TMP. You can't claim it as objective fact without proof or support. That is where you are way ahead of the other guy. Box office is but one metric. You invoke TV ratings which is valid and a matter of record (another metric). Word of mouth (magazine articles, influence on other films, etc.). Blu Ray and DVD sales. You are supporting your thesis with evidence - all I was saying and asking for (IOW, you are showing your math).
Again, AgentCoop wasn't delving into any of that (in fact he outright rejected the very notion) therefore what he was asserting was not "objective" ... it was unsupported hokum.
As you still don't seem to be able to tell the Discovery and Picard sections of the fora apart, I'll humour you. Darkness in Discovery often was not nuanced, it was puerile and cartoony. Cannibal space nazis, Klingon tits in a rape scene; so edgy! And this ties to larger problem with Discovery, which was that the 'dark' elements really were not part of any coherent themes, as there was no coherent theme. Both seasons were logically and thematically utter mess (granted, the second marginally less so.) This is what I really hope Picard avoids, even if they would tell a story I don't like. What I find encouraging is that Chabon actually seems to have a plan.
Last edited:
The Reign of Queen Elizabeth the first, to when Star Trek was made. From the perspective of an Elizabethan, was our 1980s in anyway a utopia? Because that’s the distance between when TNG was made and when it’s set.
TOS? You are looking at the late seventeenth century, thereabouts..so the twentieth century would be easier to understand a little perhaps, but would still seem like a utopia.
I think the decision to have Burnham initially sentenced to hard labor was a big mistake in terms of established continuity, because Dr Tristan Adams began his theraputic practices well before the Vulcan Hello, meaning prison in the UFP was supposed to be set aside for only the most hardcore criminally-insane individuals.
Of course, by the 24th century, things had changed again, considering Ensign Ro was serving a multi-year sentence following her court martial. But she was not doing hard labor.
Absolutely. There are many factors and things to define such as context … "popular" with whom, for example, among fans? the general public? One film could be more popular with fans while another found to be more popular amongst the public at large. Today's films get a much wider release today than 10, 20, 30 years ago and that could skew things. Lots of factors. Lots of ways to order things.
First you say you can go all day. Then you say you're done. Now you're back to it.
You've been many things but "logical" ain't been one of them. You haven't even been consistent! Now you're throwing a tantrum demanding others come up with the cash to cover the checks you've written … that's most illogical!
Thanks!
The other factor is that the first generations of fans are literally dying off. Not enough new fans have replaced them. But the new fans that arr created might gi as far back as 09 in terma of their fandom.. and some might even go to TWOK simply because of word of mouth and YouTube. You can't really measure it with precise numbers at that point but you can say that the cultural footprint of the Wrath of Khan is greater than the motion picture but some of the evidence you have to use is not precise
You think that the noir detective boilerplate that Chabon offered up to start this story is nuance? OK. Not immediately obvious to those with no exposure to the mystery genre, sure, but given it provides its plot devices that are now seen as cliche, such as the young mysterious woman who hires the detective dies to get him moving, nuanced? No.
No, that description is cartoony and childish. That was not what was portrayed on screen.
If that was the intent then it failed miserably.
Darkness is a willingness to explore the negative aspects of human behavior. DSC was inconsistent in its themes and application but calling it childish isn't accurate either.
This is true. I saw it on opening night, along with pretty much my entire college SF club.
That being said, I can testify from personal experience that the jokes about "The Motionless Picture" and "Where Nomad Went Before" started almost immediately. That the movie provoked mixed reactions from us fans from the start is not hindsight or revisionism. Heck, I remember Harlan Ellison ripping the movie to shreds in STARLOG right after it opened.
We were indeed thrilled to have STAR TREK back, but we were not unaware of TMP's flaws.
Last edited:
Absolutely. There are many factors and things to define such as context … "popular" with whom, for example, among fans? the general public? One film could be more popular with fans while another found to be more popular amongst the public at large. Today's films get a much wider release today than 10, 20, 30 years ago and that could skew things. Lots of factors. Lots of ways to order things.
First you say you can go all day. Then you say you're done. Now you're back to it.
You've been many things but "logical" ain't been one of them. You haven't even been consistent! Now you're throwing a tantrum demanding others come up with the cash to cover the checks you've written … that's most illogical!
Oh, for the sake of Kahless will you give it a rest?
Literally the only thing I stated was that TMP isn't as popular as other Trek films. AND IT ISN'T.
You yourself placed it in the middle of the pack. You don't even agree with your own argument.
First, I believe the root of Discovery's biggest flaws stem from the behind the scenes turner in terms of showrunners and writers. I mean two seasons and 3 showrunners and God knows how many writers.
As for the complaints … they have really been varied. Still reading a lot misogynistic comments regarding Burnham. In terms of it's being too "dark," well, it is darker than the most Trek, however, I am in the "that's a good thing" camp. Still, as others have said, not as "dark" as Deep Space Nine. I disagree it doesn't embrace ST's optimism. It's chalk full of optimism - sometimes it appears to gag on it!
TMP is still my favorite Trek movie. Fight me. 
Saying it's not as popular as other Trek films can be read a bunch of different ways though.
Is it less popular than say TWOK? Sure. But it's also much more popular than TFF I'd say.