51–60 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly don't know what you mean by this?
What's more, your deleted comment is why they will continue to have a difference of opinion with you.
Because it became saddled with SJWism and PC culture.
This is completely counter to the thesis in the article. For example: > Looking back from two decades later, Next Generation (1987–94), Deep Space Nine (1993–99), and Voyager (1995–2001) feel like a single continuous 1990’s moment, a moment that began in a renewed liberal optimism for multiculturalism and progress and the general advancement of humanity. Where is the SJWism and PC culture which saddles the latest ST…
If you're really paying attention, and with the exception of DS-9, almost all of the heroes are white and educated (or their sidekicks) and all the villains are dark and barbaric. Seems straight up racist to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original Star Trek I think did it with reason. I think 2017 is not the 1960's - and the problem is 'populist social leftism' is still using the 1960's playbook. It's tired, it lacks nuance. The new Star Trek's remind me of the Canadian government's 'soft propaganda' in 'Degrassi Street' - which is lampooned spectacularly well on 'Kroll Show'. And I don't use the term 'propaganda' lightly - it's state sponsored 'y…
> It's not a 'hippie dippy idea' in 2017 to have a 'Black Woman' in charge of something. I completely agree! But neither is it "saddling the show with SJWism and PC culture." It's just... a normal, unremarkable thing, which as you say the vast majority of people won't care about one way or the other.
From a review: "T'Kuvma, the Klingon leader, has a rallying cry of “Remain Klingon .... loathes the Federation ideals of equality, diversity, and peace. "
Those are nice ideals, and the work in a nation like America, which is 'an idea'.
But consider for a moment that 95% of people outside America live in 'ethnic groups' - and who's ethnic identities are existentially challenged by an American led corporate-globalism.
I live in Quebec, where the issue is real. The decline of the 'Francophone' culture - which is very different than the 'rest of North America' - can be measured. It's not doing so badly, but it's an issue: new immigrants want to speak English, and be 'Anglo' (i.e. not just language), meaning at one point in the future 'there is no Quebec'. I'm not hyperbolic, I think it will be ok - but my point is the issue is fully legit. Literally two hours ago I had a convo in a cafe with a French girl studying finance 'in English' to move to 'New York' 'where the money is' (literally her words).
I agree with the commenter (maybe for different reasons) because I feel that many outside America will simply see 'The Federation' as a metaphor for 'Americanisation'.
"We are morally superior"
"Your culture is barbaric"
"Give up your stupid cultures and norms, and become like us, speak English, and put a Starbucks on every street corner"
Even though that might not be the intent - often, it really is pragmatically that.
'Free Trade' with America, which is 10x bigger than any partner really means: "once we have even trade, our companies will devour yours". Imagine if Canada-US had 'free trade' on ownership of Telecoms. Do you think Bell Canada would buy Verizon? No. Sprint, Verizon and AT&T would instantly buy Telus, Rogers and Bell (their Canadian counteroparts). 100% of the 'good jobs' would go to the US, in Canada, only 'tech support' and 'local marketing' would remain. But because the 'balance sheet' would look better, economists like it (and have convinced even left-of-center politicians of this).
Yes - ideas such as 'equal pay for equal work' are fairly universal ... but cultural context is relevant.
You know what would be more 'authentically Star Trek'? ----> the 'Prime Directive' !!! "Don't mess with other cultures!"
If they stuck to the 'Prime Directive' maybe they'd be more appreciative/understanding of the Klingon's views instead of just starting a war (!) with them :)
FYI - the original Klingon's I don't think were politicized in this context, of course I think Rodenberry may have used them as a stand-in for the Soviets or whatever. (Soviets were hard-core egalitarians though, at least on paper. More female Engineers than males in Soviet Russia).
Anyhow: "Disney Social Politics" does not fit very well in the rest of the world. Even though Americans think they might be 'doing good' by promoting specific values, like so many things, we know the parable about 'good intentions'. Let's try the 'Prime Directive' (except when it comes to stopping things like genocide etc..) I like that one :).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's more, your deleted comment is why they will continue to have a difference of opinion with you.
You're not wrong there. I deleted it so I could take the time to expand on it beyond that glib knee-jerk reaction, which I regret posting even for the very brief period it was online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> even if hard science fiction fans can be perfectly targeted through Netflix or Amazon, special effects will keep production costs high It's a thing I've been wondering about - what makes special effects cost so much, compared to previous decades? I mean, everything is done with CG now, that's supposed to be orders of magnitude cheaper than what people did in the XX century.
We also want orders of magnitude more special effects done! See the Wolf of Wall Street VFX highlights: https://vimeo.com/83523133
It now seems the high costs are more plausible, but then again - shouldn't the diminished need for sets offset that? Or is renting (or building) e.g. a prison yard so much cheaper than doing it in CG?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> even if hard science fiction fans can be perfectly targeted through Netflix or Amazon, special effects will keep production costs high It's a thing I've been wondering about - what makes special effects cost so much, compared to previous decades? I mean, everything is done with CG now, that's supposed to be orders of magnitude cheaper than what people did in the XX century.
I would think that practical effects would cost even more due to inflation. Also you may miss how much of the shows are CGI if you aren't looking hard. Watch a few shows from the 70s and 80s, ones with high production values, then watch the average show today and you'll see that audiences demand much more realistic sets and scenery. Just about everything in the background of a sci-fi show is CGI.
Didn't realize how much this is true until I saw the video 'lfowles posted. That's a good point.
The only good TV content I've seen recently is Expanse, which is quite well done. As others have mentioned, this is only limited to TV. SF Books/Movies are still popular enough .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think "The Martian" counts as moving forward, but I'm much less happy with most of the books Amazon recommends for me I'd believe that more if there would have been any wider followup of similar works. But alas, there hasn't been (or at least I haven't heard of them), so I'm more likely to categorize The Martian as an outlier rather than a herald of new era.
I actually think Seveneves might have pretty much been inspired by The Martian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original Star Trek I think did it with reason. I think 2017 is not the 1960's - and the problem is 'populist social leftism' is still using the 1960's playbook. It's tired, it lacks nuance. The new Star Trek's remind me of the Canadian government's 'soft propaganda' in 'Degrassi Street' - which is lampooned spectacularly well on 'Kroll Show'. And I don't use the term 'propaganda' lightly - it's state sponsored 'y…
Was putting a Russian guy and a black woman on the bridge of the Enterprise a nuanced thing? It strikes me that the original Star Trek was fairly blatant in this respect. It may seem nuanced looking back because we see nothing special about something like a white man and a black woman kissing on TV, but at the time it was about as subtle as a stick of dynamite.