The only actual Utopia in Trek was a shipyard, and it just got blown up.
Spoilers Picard 1x1, "Remembrance"
- Thread starter The Old Mixer
- Start date
Here's the thing with the good old days when you got 1 or two scifi shows a year. It wasn't often a treat. S2 of Buck Rogers and Galactica 1980? V and Colin Baker Doctor Who? S2 of Space 1999 or Starlost? Not a Treat. S1&2 of TNG and nothing else? Not treats. A tootsie roll for the starving at best.
Today we have brilliance: The Expanse, Star Trek's Discovery and Picard, For All Mankind, the Lost in Space Reboot on at the same time, each of which is far better than what we got in the good old days. Plus 5 other ongoing shows which are just as good. And that's just space scifi. Then there's another 40+ ongoing scifi series most of which are better than anything we got in the 20th century (and more coming!). I never imagined such a cornucopia. We should all be grateful and pleased.
Sure, a toostie roll once in a while is a treat when you are otherwise on a starvation diet. But compared to a daily feast, every day, year in year out? I know my preference.
Now if only someone would greenlight a Spider, Master of Men series...
Last edited:
The only actual Utopia in Trek was a shipyard, and it just got blown up.
Isn't that's what's supposed to happen to Utopias in Star Trek? That's what I was taught by Gene in TOS.
Yeah, sure chief. I've "nullified" nothing because that was not remotely the main point of my original post. Again, you've zeroed in on this one minor thing and are trying to twist it into... what, exactly? I honestly don't see the point of why you are arguing this so vehemently.Apparently you do not know what "objective" means as you keep using it incorrectly. As for standing by your statement, well, many stood upon the deck of Titanic as it sunk beneath the frigid waters. As for your retconned statement that "TMP objectively less popular than other Trek films" again your use of "objective" is unsubstantiated as well as now being so general and vague as to be meaningless. Way to nullify your own point!
And you do realize that you've basically argued yourself into the position that TMP is the most popular Trek film, right? Because you're insisting that it's not factual to state that other Trek films are objectively more popular. And that argument is false.
Objectively.
I can do this all day. I don't want to, but I can.
That, and the Martian plain it was named after, which is apparently still on fire a decade later. Utopias aren't what they used to be nowadays.The only actual Utopia in Trek was a shipyard, and it just got blown up.
I don't know. Not all we have in this new age has been brilliant. We also have to pay through the nose to try and get it. Between cable and streaming services … it's like Jane Jetson getting money from her husband, George. Spoiler: she takes damn near all of it! (
). Nowadays there isn't even an objective standard of success (Netflix seemingly cancels shows on a whim as we no idea of viewership, metrics used, etc. …), and they are not alone. These are, in many ways, much more nebulous times.
One of Sci-Fi's most tried-and-true clichés is the idea that there is no such thing as "utopia," and there's always a horrific price to pay somewhere.
Now, if you'll excuse me, my lifeclock is blinking, and I need to go find Sanctuary.
I would like some of what you're smoking as it must be some really great s**t to provide such a HUGE BREAK from reality. We HAVE NEVER had - and I don't think you can find a single person (who is sane) that would respond to your claim that there was EVER a real sense of Utopia in any society in the world.
Less f**ked up in the past <> "Utopia".
Can we not call people's sanity in to question within a debate? @jaime was clear that it was all about perspective.
I don't know. Not all we have in this new age has been brilliant. We also have to pay through the nose to try and get it. Between cable and streaming services … it's like Jane Jetson getting money from her husband, George. Spoiler: she takes damn near all of it! (
Following Surgeon's Law, which remains pretty accurate I think, 10%, 5% or 1% of 2 offers a whole lot less brilliance than when that 2 is increased to 50. Hell, there used to be so few scifi series that the objective standard for success of a scifi series was that it even made it to air!
And even to get all this, one merely *needs* to buy the services of 1 streaming service per month to watch all these shows over the course of a year, so the overall cost isn't really more than what 1 month of premium cable costs. You'll have an argument there when streaming services stop allowing people to buy by the month. So we're looking at Jane taking her budget for the year with that single cash grab.
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that it's more important for the genre to be successful than any one show like Picard or one franchise like Star Trek. And 50 concurrent scifi shows with new seasons every year looks hella objectively like overwhelming success to me for the genre, and for Star Trek's signature concept, IDIC.
Last edited:
Key difference between TNG S1 and PIC: Picard's views are much easier to swallow when they're just his and aren't intended to represent Starfleet and the Federation as a whole. In TNG, it's "supposed to be" Utopia. In PIC, Picard is just fighting for the Federation to be better than it's become. That's what makes all the difference.
Wow, I broke your brain. Didn't mean to, but cool!
If it is "objective" then show your math? It's that simple. You don't because you can't therefore not objective. You even reject objective data points such as box office. You make a claim a that goes beyond yourself therefore it is incumbent upon you to provide support. Again, you don't because you can't. Objectively illustrate and prove that the majority find which franchise Trek film more popular than TMP? And define who finds which Trek more popular than another, Trek fans? General audiences? Shriners?
Subjectively, say whatever you want. Objectively, PROVE it.
I think we could all use a nice "Captain America" tangent right about now.
It's actually an awesome metaphor that the show uses where Picard's starting point is having Utopia (Planitia) be literally blown to bits.
"Thank God, it's not a prequel"
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2020/01/picard-review-cbs-all-access-star-trek.html
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2020/01/picard-review-cbs-all-access-star-trek.html
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.
So the problem with Discovery was not at all that it was dark, as many have claimed, but just that it wasn't set far enough into the future for such darkness to be plausible?
"With Star Trek: Picard, CBS All Access Delivers a Wonderfully Mysterious, Darker Future."
Yeah, at this point you're just trolling and I'm bored. Have a great day.
Even if the motion Picture made the most money I think we can all agree that it's cultural footprint was minimal compared to the sequels. It's referred to as the boring one". Also the pure Box Office numbers does not take into account that many people have seen TWOK on ABC back in the day (uncut I might add) and on DVD and Blue Ray. I mean which of these two films is more talked about? So there IS an argument to be made that TMP just isn't popular.. and it CAN be an objective argument because the ray BO numbers are not the sole factor in terms of determining popularity.
Asking someone to provide proof of what they 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.
