Netflix CEO calls its 75% stock crash "horrifying," defends Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais

[trparky]

Truth is, I think that people don't like the newer Trek because they don't want to face the fact that it portrays humanity much more accurately.

And that right there is why so many of us hard core Trek fans can't stand that. In a world that Gene envisioned, humanity had been able to rise above all of that kind bigotry, hatred, sexism, poverty, and God knows what else. They became something better, something greater. Take that away and that's not what Gene envisioned, Star Trek then becomes just another scifi show with none of the magic that made people look to Star Trek as an example of what humanity can be.

 

[trparky]

Face it man, this world sucks; it sucks donkey balls. Star Trek, at least to me, gave me hope for the future that humanity could put all of what makes society today the absolute sh*thole that it is today behind us and be something better, greater, more noble.

That's lost in today's Star Trek. Strange New World is getting back to the original premise of being that better society. However, Discovery and Picard are both examples of Star Trek regressing from what made Star Trek that utopian vision of what humanity could be.

 

[Ohnooze]

I am not saying that this obsession with defending transphobic comedians (Although nowadays, you´ll be hard pressed to find *any* comedians that aren't outright blatant hateful bigots) is directly linked to their stock crashing, but this obsession with freezed peach posturing is a huge indicative of when executives have just given up on even trying to come back from it and just start laying the ground to blame all their terrible decisions and quite honestly, lack of any culpability in the matter (As the main reason for their struggle is being strangled out of content by giants like Amazon and Disney from consolidation of media and properties going on since before digital streaming was even a thing decades ago) And just try to muster some measure of sympathy by making it a culture war.

It's interesting to me how for so many years now I have listened to MANY black comedians make fun of white people and have not heard a single uproar about it. But when they say something about LGBT people all the sudden it's all bigotry. It was just a bunch of jokes before but now it's a phobia....? I guess it's ok to trash a whole race of people with jokes but not LGBT people because they are special? I'm white and I laugh at the jokes about white people...why so serious? Why so easily offended? Why not see the the irony in the jokes and just take it all a little less serious? The bigger issue is your perception of bigotry. Comics make fun of everyone. Dave for example said in sticks and stones that he didn't care about white people dealing with the opioid epidemic. It was a joke. It was supposed to off the wall...it's the whole point of some comics. I never once got upset.

 

[trparky]

But when they say something about LGBT people all the sudden it's all bigotry.

I think it has a lot to do with how a lot of people in the LGBTQ+ community are still very self-conscience about who and what they are. They still want the limelight on them whereas with people like me, I just don't give a sh*t.

So what if someone is gay? I don't give a d*mn. Big deal. You be you, that's what I say. Live and let live. I may not necessarily agree with the LGBTQ+ way of life (I'm Catholic) but by God, I'm going to defend someone's right to live their life the way they want to because that's what it is be an American!!!

 

[mctommy]

With the end of pandemic where number of users grown significantly, it is not surprising people returning to the previous activities and use Netflix less. And as well disney+, Prime and so on - but for other companies streaming is not a single source of income. Still, even Amazon got strongly hited because people again started going to physical shops. So I don't think that there is anything surprising. And I think Netflix will do well anyway. We need competition on the market.

Except that Amazon closed a bunch of its stores... so much for "started going to physical shops"

 

[Ohnooze]

I think it has a lot to do with how a lot of people in the LGBTQ+ community are still very self-conscience about who and what they are. They still want the limelight on them whereas with people like me, I just don't give a sh*t.

So what if someone is gay? I don't give a d*mn. Big deal. You be you, that's what I say. Live and let live. I may not necessarily agree with the LGBTQ+ way of life (I'm Catholic) but by God, I'm going to defend someone's right to live their life the way they want to because that's what it is be an American!!!

Completely agree. The vast majority of people simply don't care.

 

[AlexIL]

His current competitors are other content generators, in other words the major Hollywood motion picture houses, most of which were founded in the 1920s and '30s.

Speaking to his subscriber loss, when Netflix began prioritizing the woke propaganda of their content over its entertainment value, I shut off my subscription. I suspect many others -- even those who agree with the messages purveyed -- made the same choice. Most people don't like to pay to be lectured.

I concur. When they begun to push agenda of theirs in place of quality entertainment that's when my subscription went out the window.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I'm sorry you don't see that in the newer Trek. The truth is, it is because there are people out there that so much want to dictate to others what those others should be that they are unable to see beyond what is portrayed on the screen.

Homosexuality, people of different colors, religions, political leanings, all of it, has been around for millennia. None of it is going away because some people are unable to tolerate it or its portrayal in modern literature.

Love is love however its portrayed, and I think it unfortunate that there are those who are unable to see that on the screen just because its between two people of the same sex.

You picked my least favorite of the Trek series. I don't agree.

The way I see it, Anson Mount portrays Captain Pike far better than Shatner portrayed Kirk, and Ethan Peck puts more humanity into Spock than Leonard Nemoy every put into the character. In fact, the original TOS writers never put much at all into the humanity of Spock. It's only in Discovery and, I suspect Strange New Worlds, where Spock is given the deserved character development. Spock is, and always has been, a deeper character, and not much in the way of character development was ever payed to him in TOS.

Truth is, I think that people don't like the newer Trek because they don't want to face the fact that it portrays humanity much more accurately. And these side stories, which recognize that not everyone is like everyone else and that not being normal is an aspect of humanity that often propels it forward.

If you want to call that portrayal "in your face" and "woke for the sake of being woke" so be it. However, I suspect that there are large number of fans out there (given the fact that Paramount+ has repeatedly renewed Discovery) who identify with it and feel as if "people like me" are finally being represented on screen. Put yourself in their place. No one is asking you to be what you are not, rather, have some empathy and understand what it is like to not be part of the "normal" crowd where you have to pretend to be something you are not to be acceptable to the "normal" crowd. I suspect that you rarely, if ever, feared for your life because you were different, faced the prospect of incarceration because you were different, being denied jobs if you were different, and so on. And if you call the portrayal of so many different types of people in a fictional series anything but genius, I disagree.

IMO, the way the modern trek stories are woven is pure genius.

No one expects that you should live your life according to fictional stories. They are fiction. Lighten up.

As I said before, no one is forcing you to watch them. If you don't like them, don't watch them. Perhaps you are disappointed that they are not what you would like. That's unfortunate, however, most of us experience entertainment we don't like in our life.

Perhaps what these new series are daring people to be is tolerant. IMO, the world would be a much better place if there were more tolerance of people not like ourselves.

I could never stand Discovery and Picard has been a crapshoot (1st season - GREAT, 2nd season - MEH). Having said that, Strange New Worlds has been absolutely incredible so far. They finally managed to figure out what made Star Trek great and it's the same thing that makes EVERY great show or movie great. It's the "holy trinity" of plot, character development and acting.

The problem with Discovery is that it was far more concerned with special effects, ego and unrealistic character nature than it was with the holy trinity. Here's what I mean:
Special Effects - It looked more like Battlestar Galactica than Star Trek.
Ego - Some makeup artist wanted to turn Klingons into "Kling-Gorns"
Unrealistic Main Character - Michael Burnham was very badly written. They went so overboard to make her "tough" that she ended up being unlikeable. Overdoing one specific trait in any character ruins them. Compare Michael Burnham to Christopher Pike and you'll know what I mean. He's far more human.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds has gone back to the original formula. Sure, it's still too visually dark but it's not dark in tone. The characters are all fun, likeable and most importantly, they're not stupid. They remain rational and work together to solve problems, even the gruff Aenar engineer. Pike knows that he's not omniscient and is always willing to listen to the people around him. He's more of a human being than a cartoon character.

 

[trparky]

Michael Burnham was very badly written. They went so overboard to make her "tough" that she ended up being unlikeable.

It's the same reason why Rei of Star Wars was so badly hated, the character was badly written. Some people went so far as to call Michael Burnham "Space Jesus" because she could (seemingly) do no wrong. I referred to her as Mary Sue.

To quote Wikipedia...

A Mary Sue is a type of fictional character, usually a young woman, who is portrayed as unrealistically free of weaknesses.

Yep, that right there is a perfect explanation of what Michael Burnham and Rei were. It was cringeworthy to watch both characters on the screen.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds has gone back to the original formula.

Exactly. That's why I like Strange New Worlds so much. It may be "woke" at times but it's not as in-your-face as it is in Discovery and Picard. It takes true creativity to be able to weave social commentary into a story and make it part of the plot as versus something that's just bolted on to push some kind of agenda.

That's why I hated Discovery so much. It lacked depth, plot, believable characters, and most of all, it lacked any sort of true creativity.

 

[Avro Arrow]

There's no nobility in poverty

There's apparently no nobility in wealth either. With governments set up the way that they are, wealth puts you above the law. Welcome back to feudalism, the only difference being that most people don't recognise it as such.

 

[trparky]

With governments set up the way that they are, wealth puts you above the law.

Yep. Justice is blind, until you shove a big stack of cash under her nose and she lifts the blindfold.

 

[terzaerian]

Well, there it it is..the stupidest comment I'll read today.

The night is young.

Personally, I find the stories of ST: Discovery excellent. Assuming that is what you are calling NuTrek.

Case in point.

Star Trek is deader than Star Wars at this point, both are obscene puppets animated by the wills of evil corporate apparatchiks and flagship examples of how broken the copyright/rightshoarding system is.

 

[terzaerian]

There's apparently no nobility in wealth either. With governments set up the way that they are, wealth puts you above the law. Welcome back to feudalism, the only difference being that most people don't recognise it as such.

Man at least feudalism gave us cathedrals and illuminated manuscripts and ****. All this bullshit is giving us is bad writing and cheap, minimalist post-modern design.

 

[terzaerian]

And that right there is why so many of us hard core Trek fans can't stand that. In a world that Gene envisioned, humanity had been able to rise above all of that kind bigotry, hatred, sexism, poverty, and God knows what else. They became something better, something greater. Take that away and that's not what Gene envisioned, Star Trek then becomes just another scifi show with none of the magic that made people look to Star Trek as an example of what humanity can be.

Star Trek, at its very best, wrestled with questions with no right answer and asked the viewer to think, not what to think. It was the episodes where it overtly preached some message where it consistently failed.

Discovery is nothing BUT preaching. Take the preaching out and all that's left is stupid asides like "I like science." Thanks for the Facebook group level takes.

 

[Avro Arrow]

It's the same reason why Rei of Star Wars was so badly hated, the character was badly written. Some people went so far as to call Michael Burnham "Space Jesus" because she could (seemingly) do no wrong. I referred to her as Mary Sue.

You know what's funny about that? It's the so-called "woke" writers and producers that cause these characters to be unlikable. I refer to them as "so-called" because I consider myself to be "woke". Where I grew up as a child, my friends were all colours and faiths.

When I learned that people divided us by our skin colour, hair type and eye shape, it made me mad. These were my friends and they were all the same to me. My mom did a lot of amateur theatre so I was exposed early to homosexuals as well. No big deal, they were nice people and funny as hell. I liked them as people which meant that later on when I found out what being gay meant, I was like "That's really weird, but I don't care. They're good people." whereas the so-called "woke" writers focused on Stanitz and Culber's relationship more than TNG focused on Troi and Riker's. It didn't bother me because I'm not homophobic but I could definitely see that it was contrived.

In Star Trek, any depiction of romance needs to be critical to the plot (like "The City on the Edge of Forever") for it to get special focus like that. They did it in Enterprise as well with Tripp and T'Pol to try to fix sagging ratings and it was stupid.

Exactly. That's why I like Strange New Worlds so much. It may be "woke" at times

Strange New Worlds IS woke, but it's what woke was always supposed to be. Woke means that unimportant differences are seen (because not seeing them is impossible) but completely ignored. This idea of celebrating unimportant differences can serve the same function as discrimination. It validates their existence, points them out and is therefore, divisive. That's not woke, that's discrimination in sheep's clothing. The problem is that those who aren't truly "woke" refer to that as "woke" and so the term gets demonised.

but it's not as in-your-face as it is in Discovery and Picard. It takes true creativity to be able to weave social commentary into a story and make it part of the plot as versus something that's just bolted on to push some kind of agenda.

Picard wasn't so bad because the unimportant differences were understated. There was VERY little romantic interaction between characters no matter who they were. That was good because Star Trek is about adventure and exploration, not romance.

That's why I hated Discovery so much. It lacked depth, plot, believable characters, and most of all, it lacked any sort of true creativity.

And the Kling-Gorns, don't forget those terrible Kling-Gorns....

KLINGON vs. KLING-GORN

 

[trparky]

Strange New Worlds IS woke

If you really think about it, Star Trek has always been woke and it's always been progressive right from the very beginning. Heck, back in the TOS era there was Uhura who was not only a woman, but an African American woman and she was playing a very critical role during a time and age when not only were women seen as nothing more than eye candy but also during a time when African Americans were still seen as less than white people. You can't get any more progressive than that.

However, they didn't push it in your face in TOS like they do today. In TOS, she's just there. Important though Uhura was, she wasn't in your face like modern Star Trek seems to have an issue with.

Then you have DS9 where you had the first on-screen lesbian-style kiss between Jadzia Dax and someone from her past. The episode was titled "Rejoined" (4x06).

There's a reason why Star Trek, classic Trek, is seen by many as superior to that of NuTrek because the stories were actually good, well-written stories that engaged you. Picard and Discovery lack this very important element. Strange New Worlds is bringing concept back, the idea that you need to have a good story to engage the audience.

 

[trparky]

And don't get me started on how they claim that Michael Burnham is the first female captain. Hello! Captain Janeway was the first female Star Fleet captain. Oh, and let's not forget DS9's Captain Benjamin Sisko who was the first African American Star Fleet captain.

It's like none of these modern-day Star Trek writers have ever seen an episode of old Trek. I've seen every damn episode and I know Star Trek canon forwards and backwards.

 

[terzaerian]

And don't get me started on how they claim that Michael Burnham is the first female captain. Hello! Captain Janeway was the first female Star Fleet captain. Oh, and let's not forget DS9's Captain Benjamin Sisko who was the first African American Star Fleet captain.

It's like none of these modern-day Star Trek writers have ever seen an episode of old Trek. I've seen every damn episode and I know Star Trek canon forwards and backwards.

ACKTHUALLY the first female captain was Captain Rachel Garrett of the Enterprise-C

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C)

The USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C), sometimes referred to as the Enterprise-C, was a Federation starship, an Ambassador-class heavy cruiser in service to Starfleet in the mid-24th century. In the year 2344, the Enterprise and her crew sacrificed themselves to save a Klingon outpost from a Romulan...

memory-beta.fandom.com

 

[Avro Arrow]

If you really think about it, Star Trek has always been woke and it's always been progressive right from the very beginning.

Absolutely! Star Trek was woke before the term was even coined.

Heck, back in the TOS era there was Uhura who was not only a woman, but an African American woman and she was playing a very critical role during a time and age when not only were women seen as nothing more than eye candy but also during a time when African Americans were still seen as less than white people. You can't get any more progressive than that.

Agreed. They did the real woke thing and completely ignored the unimportant differences. The producers never let these things define who the character was whether it was Uhura, Sulu or Chekov. They were just members of the crew and that was it. Spock was different because he wasn't completely human and so his nature was different. However, the important things remained the same.

However, they didn't push it in your face in TOS like they do today. In TOS, she's just there. Important though Uhura was, she wasn't in your face like modern Star Trek seems to have an issue with.

Yep, because she wasn't defined as a Swahili woman, she was defined as the communications officer of the USS Enterprise. It's really just as simple as that because it demonstrates that in every way that matters, everyone is just a part of the crew that makes up the Enterprise.

Then you have DS9 where you had the first on-screen lesbian-style kiss between Jadzia Dax and someone from her past. The episode was titled "Rejoined" (4x06).

That wasn't a demonstration of homosexuality though. That was just a part of being a Trill. A similar situation was shown in TNG when Crusher fell in love with Trill ambassador Odan (episode: "The Host"). When Odan's new host was female, Crusher was torn because she had to call into question what it was about Odan that she loved. She still loved Odan, but as a human, the body that the Trill inhabited made a difference as to whether or not she could still love Odan physically and ultimately, she couldn't.

Jadzia was different however because she was a joined Trill and none of this was new to her. Attraction between joined Trill is different than attaction between Terrans because two entities are involved on both sides. To a joined Trill, the host and the symbiant are one and so the symbiants have a strong role to play and that makes them different to even non-joined Trill. That's a demonstration of a species-specific trait, not a demonstration of homosexuality. The problem is that people see it and are too narrow-minded to consider looking at it through non-human eyes.

There's a reason why Star Trek, classic Trek, is seen by many as superior to that of NuTrek because the stories were actually good, well-written stories that engaged you. Picard and Discovery lack this very important element. Strange New Worlds is bringing concept back, the idea that you need to have a good story to engage the audience.

Picard had it in the first season (because I loved it), but not in the second. The second season dragged relentlessly and the fact that it took place in semi-present day didn't help at all. Hopefully, season 3 will be better and having Worf involved means that, at least in Picard, Klingons will be Klingons instead of Kling-Gorns because Michael Dorn has stated unequivocally that he has no intention of going through the ordeal of becoming a Kling-Gorn.

 

[Painkillz]

Netflix lost their marketshare because of their homosexual content. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a fool period.

 

[maxxcool7421]

His current competitors are other content generators, in other words the major Hollywood motion picture houses, most of which were founded in the 1920s and '30s.

Speaking to his subscriber loss, when Netflix began prioritizing the woke propaganda of their content over its entertainment value, I shut off my subscription. I suspect many others -- even those who agree with the messages purveyed -- made the same choice. Most people don't like to pay to be lectured.

Excellent, you canceled yourself. Not a jab .. but that's the effect.

If you don't pay money, and then watch other things that don't offend you you give up your vote. you stop showing interest in other media.. You cancel yourself .. and the more of you that do that .. the more other media gets priority because that's what gets paid for and gets netflix ratings. so when you stop viewing and paying .. you help create new content you don't like.

As for the ''woke agenda'' well it is 2022.. being gay is ok, gay tv is ok trans media is ok, women don't have to be barefoot and can choose what to do with their bodies. heck you can be a gay priest now.. get married... even fox news staff got vaccinated and executives got vaxxed.

Maybe .. your the one who is refusing to move forward out of the 60's

 

[Endymio]

Hmm remedial might be a bit advanced based on your reply ...

In other words, you have no rebuttal or logical argument, so instead go straight for a personal attack. Wise tactic -- think anyone will notice?

 

[Endymio]

Excellent, you canceled yourself. If you don't pay money, and then watch other things that don't offend you

Eh? Nothing on Netflix offended me. It did far worse -- it bored me. When you devote your entire story line to preaching and virtue signaling, there isn't much room left over for entertainment.

Maybe .. your the one who is refusing to move forward out of the 60's

Actually, in the '60s I was doing things that would set your eyebrows on fire just to hear of them. I grew up, though. Don't worry -- you will too.

 

[wiyosaya]

Face it man, this world sucks; it sucks donkey balls. Star Trek, at least to me, gave me hope for the future that humanity could put all of what makes society today the absolute sh*thole that it is today behind us and be something better, greater, more noble.

I see what explains your opinion, however, I don't agree with it.

You know what's funny about that? It's the so-called "woke" writers and producers that cause these characters to be unlikable. I refer to them as "so-called" because I consider myself to be "woke". Where I grew up as a child, my friends were all colours and faiths.

I'm well aware of your opinion of Discovery, and I don't agree with it. People watch it. It's already greenlit for season 5. I gather their opinion of it is different than yours, too. I think its good to have a series that does not follow formula once-in-a-while. It gives those who like formula a chance to enjoy that formula.

Netflix lost their marketshare because of their homosexual content. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just a fool period.

Netflix still has the most subscribers and the current loss of subscribers does not represent them losing their top spot on the list.

 

[wiyosaya]

It's the same reason why Rei of Star Wars was so badly hated, the character was badly written. Some people went so far as to call Michael Burnham "Space Jesus" because she could (seemingly) do no wrong. I referred to her as Mary Sue.

To quote Wikipedia...

Yep, that right there is a perfect explanation of what Michael Burnham and Rei were. It was cringeworthy to watch both characters on the screen.

I find it interesting that both you and @Avro Arrow think she's devoid of emotion, or is somehow, superhuman. I don't agree. Personally, I think she has a large number of issues she is dealing with, and that is, for me, what makes her human. She's made mistakes, knows it, and deals with the fallout. If she did not deal with the fallout, I might agree that her character is not believable, but for me, that singular aspect makes her real to me, and demonstrates that her character is interested in making her best efforts to improve herself. For me, that's where improving the world starts in improving one's self. We certainly don't have control over others; the only one we have control over is ourselves.