When Trek insults our intelligence
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Same here. If I'm working so hard to feel insulted by a show then may be it is time for a break.
For the record, I'm the odd one out. Poor storytelling is not enough to push me away from fiction, SF, or any other kind. The arguments levied against things like ST 09 or DSC about logic problems are things that I find enjoyable. I like wondering about the whys and exploring them internally, exploring questions that writers probably didn't come up with.
Far short of feeling insulted, I feel challenged to sit down and try to figure something out. It's fun, enjoyable, and I probably spend way to much time thinking about it. But, it's still fun.
They are totally selling it. For one reason or another. Especially if they're getting paid for it.
If you're making something like Star Trek then you absolutely have a point of view that you are trying to sell.
I love this. Challenged > insulted
You're not the odd one out, I'm not too bothered by the blips either, I just can't see the point getting upset over them and people do get upset. Maybe it becomes too much of an escape and they don't like being reminded it's not reality, or it reflects something about the demographic who watch the show?
For me if it doesn't make sense I can acknowledge that without being too concerned either way. I don't care if it's Prime or if there are continuity errors (and there are soooo many), I just care about enjoying it and hopefully having some level of discernible allegory which is applicable to the world we inhabit. If those things are in place I don't much care why Khan recognised Chekov or how fast warp 7 is, nor do I care if the Romulan Empire has suddenly shifted 23 parsecs to the left, I just can't see why I would
I like to at least try to meet a show or movie halfway. I have friends whom, I swear, take an almost adversarial approach to movies and TV, like it's a competition between them and the show and they score a point each time they catch a plot hole or continuity glitch. Never mind how exciting or dramatic or moving it might be, nor how well-acted or directed or whatever. I don't get that.
Personally, I'd rather enjoy a show than nitpick it to death. Life is too short to worry about the small stuff. If you're not having fun watching STAR TREK, you're doing it wrong. IMHO.
(Says the guy who spent the whole afternoon obsessing over a plot point in my new BATMAN novel.)
Personally, I'd rather enjoy a show than nitpick it to death. Life is too short to worry about the small stuff. If you're not having fun watching STAR TREK, you're doing it wrong. IMHO.
(Says the guy who spent the whole afternoon obsessing over a plot point in my new BATMAN novel.)
Obsessing over one's own work would be a completely different animal, I think.
^yeah. If I were writing Star Trek (or anything else), I would obsess over larger en smaller details as well. But that's simply because I would love doing my job (or hobby) as well as possible (and trying to improve myself at it).
However, as a viewer, it's just entertainment to me and I don't take inconsistencies or 'insults to my intelligence' (whatever that should mean) seriously.
The only thing that could offend me in that context are "immoral" inconsistencies. (For example: Picard deciding that no Boraalans can be saved because of the Prime directive when earlier he has been established as a thoroughly moral figure, Kes bent on killing everyone on board, Sisko willing to poison planets, Janeway willing to gamble on Lessing breaking in that unshielded room before he dies, and so on) <--- Please note: not saying I am offended by these plot points, just that those kind of story elements are the only ones that have the potential of offending me in entertainment.
However, as a viewer, it's just entertainment to me and I don't take inconsistencies or 'insults to my intelligence' (whatever that should mean) seriously.
The only thing that could offend me in that context are "immoral" inconsistencies. (For example: Picard deciding that no Boraalans can be saved because of the Prime directive when earlier he has been established as a thoroughly moral figure, Kes bent on killing everyone on board, Sisko willing to poison planets, Janeway willing to gamble on Lessing breaking in that unshielded room before he dies, and so on) <--- Please note: not saying I am offended by these plot points, just that those kind of story elements are the only ones that have the potential of offending me in entertainment.
The Klingonts in STD, the Spore Drive in STD, the Enterprise redesign in STD, that bullshit magic space blood from STID, the lack of canon continuity in STD, the f**king terrible uniforms in STD, STD itself, the fact thatn the makers of STD bribed the critics to get those absurd ratings (how do 90% of critics like a show, while only 53% of audiences like said show, and this is on the same website (rotten tomatoes), the stats are simular on metacritic as well (while the orville got pretty much the opposite, with most critics hating it, and most audiences loving it))
Before anyone goes into '53% is a majority': it is. However, that doesn't make it a GOOD majoirty. Plenty of shows have succeeded when only 53% of audiences actually liked it. My point is that when 47% of audiences hated it (it only won a majority by 3%, very pitiful), how can only 10% of critics hate it?? That's nearly 5 people disliking it to every one critic who also disliked it. Something very suspicious when it comes to things like that. The point is, even if it is a majority, it is only that by 3%. 3% isn't that much when it comes to a show with literally millions of people who watch/ed it. 47% IS a significant amount when it comes to ratings.
Before anyone goes into '53% is a majority': it is. However, that doesn't make it a GOOD majoirty. Plenty of shows have succeeded when only 53% of audiences actually liked it. My point is that when 47% of audiences hated it (it only won a majority by 3%, very pitiful), how can only 10% of critics hate it?? That's nearly 5 people disliking it to every one critic who also disliked it. Something very suspicious when it comes to things like that. The point is, even if it is a majority, it is only that by 3%. 3% isn't that much when it comes to a show with literally millions of people who watch/ed it. 47% IS a significant amount when it comes to ratings.
It's not unique to Star Trek but I feel a little 'insulted' well maybe borderline miffed by the small stuff. Women waking up with makeup intact and hair looking perfect. The concept of a universal translator is marvellous but oh so convenient. Little, slight people getting into fights and beating the crap out of a bulky skilled opponent on a regular basis. Jump suits for uniforms.
However nothing is more overdone and this is specific to Star Trek, as the posturing speech. Cringe. We get it, no need to spell it out.
However nothing is more overdone and this is specific to Star Trek, as the posturing speech. Cringe. We get it, no need to spell it out.
There's nothing suspicious about it. Fandoms are pre-dispositioned towards bias; critics are not.
More plausible than transporters.
That's.........................................................................
true!
The original Star Trek was nearly cancelled like three times and now it’s a cult classic. Ratings mean nothing.
All commercial T.V insults our intelligence, it assumes just because you watch X (the tv show) you will rush out and buy Y (commercials). Since they have been doing this for over 60 years the concept probably works. 
How many of those "fan reviews" are coming from people who haven't even watched the show?
Like Star Trek a bit, but darker and gloomier, it uses familiar Star Trek tropes with just ahi t of change and rubbing the serial numbers off. Not as good as the Orville, or Dark Matter, both of which return this year. . -a review from the parallel universe.
