Revisiting Star Trek Continues...

[StarCruiser]

^ THAT was the one serious issue I had with it. "DEI pandering" etc....

Otherwise, he does have the right point concerning the terrible writing and self-parody idiocy that I can't stand in current Star Trek.

There are many very good Star Trek novels and short stories out there that could be adapted. Having a few dedicated -REAL- SciFi writers as actual staffers, or at least tapped to help out; would also be better than what they are currently doing.

Instead of having something like 3 different shows in production - how about ONE really good show?

 

[Warped9]

Woke, wokeness, and DEI have become catch phrases that might mean different things to different people depending on who is using them. But his essential point is still on target. And his essential point is on a general mindset that has come to the fore in the past several years that is indeed pissing off a lot of people.

You can rant all you like about the far right, and very legitimately so, but the far left also has its issues and in some ways can be very much a pain in the ass.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I rarely like that guy's take on almost anything. He also loves to tediously comment on "woke"ness, so I'm not giving him the timer of day.

Thanks. It was in my queue to watch and evaluate, but now I'll not waste the time.

 

[Warped9]

Thanks. It was in my queue to watch and evaluate, but now I'll not waste the time.

And so you dismiss everything based on one criticism. Thats one way to stifle a discussion.

 

[Firebird]

And so you dismiss everything based on one criticism. Thats one way to stifle a discussion.

It's a bad-faith argument if the YouTuber in question is framing it under the cloak of "anti-woke" politics.

 

[Warped9]

It's a bad-faith argument if the YouTuber in question is framing it under the cloak of "anti-woke" politics.

No. He has a valid essential point regardless of how he has framed it. We all know or have friends with whom we don’t agree on everything, but we can still listen to what they might say because we do agree with them on other things. Thats how you have a dialogue as opposed to shutting someone down because you’ve already prejudged them.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And so you dismiss everything based on one criticism. Thats one way to stifle a discussion.

No. He has a valid essential point regardless of how he has framed it. We all know or have friends with whom we don’t agree on everything, but we can still listen to what they might say because we do agree with them on other things. Thats how you have a dialogue as opposed to shutting someone down because you’ve already prejudged them.

What discussion?

If you want to discuss something, why don't you post your own words, rather than simply linking to videos? I'd rather spend my time on this board talking to my fellow Star Trek fans than carrying on discussions via proxies and putting money into the pockets of third parties by watching their monetized videos.

 

[Treadwell]

This has been very interesting!

STC crewmember here. As such it wouldn't be appropriate to participate very much in the thread, as analysis is best when it comes from outside. Any counterpoints to criticisms would just seem defensive, and any agreement (and I have more than you might expect!) would be discourteous to my colleagues.

So I'll just offer a few "just the facts" clarifications:

- Matt Bucy was DP of Farragut's "Conspiracy of Innocence", despite the perceived change in lighting. Maybe he was trying to keep the looks separate, I don't know. It was shot immediately after "Lolani", so maybe he was fried....as many of us were. That was a long couple of weeks. (A lot of shared crew.) After that he chose not to do any more Farraguts.

- The STC sets were in Kingsland, GA, not Atlanta, which is 300 miles north.

- There was not as much long-term thematic planning as is being assumed. Smith was originally just going to be in Ep 3, McKenna was not conceived to make Spock quit the services, etc. It was one-show-at-a-time until at least halfway through.

- Had there been more episodes, it might have just been two. Vic often cited 13 as a good number, I think because that used to be the standard initial order of episodes of any new show, with more to follow if it did well. At any rate, another round of crowdfunding would have been necessary to make any more, and that well was running a bit dry.

- Therefore, no other episodes were planned other than ideas lightly tossed around...much less anything written. Two concepts I heard Vic mention: a "A Piece of the Action" sequel, and a musical episode. I wasn't excited about either. (I just broke my own rule there.)

- STC was produced 2012-2017, so if Chris has just turned 66, he'd have been 53 when it started.

- I think you eventually realized that "something's wrong with Connies" was a red herring.


I think that's it. As Spock told Uhura, "please proceed".

 

[Akiraprise]

At any rate, another round of crowdfunding would have been necessary to make any more, and that well was running a bit dry.

I think that seems to be true of a lot of projects in general now. Once people start shelling out money there is also a lot more pressure on the project to deliver something in a timely fashion. Which can affect quality especially when they drag on for years after the initial crowdfund and backers start getting agitated. The recently released VOY documentary is a good example of this.