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

[wiyosaya]

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.

People P&M'd about Next Generation not following canon either. And yet it persevered.

 

[terzaerian]

People P&M'd about Next Generation not following canon either. And yet it persevered.

Yes, because it stopped preaching at you. I love Season 1 for it's camp but it's also up its own ***, yet it still can't hold a candle to STD.

 

[trparky]

I find it interesting that both you and @Avro Arrow think she's devoid of emotion, or is somehow, superhuman. I don't agree.

Oh really. Let's put it this way. Rei damn near was able to pick up a lightsaber and know how to wield it from day-one. Meanwhile you had Luke Skywalker who took the better part of three damn movies to become the Jedi Master that we all know and love and not only that, but it took him losing his own damn hand in a lightsaber-to-lightsaber combat with his own father.

She was also able to somehow pilot the Millenium Falcon which by Han Solo's own admission was a very difficult to pilot ship without even having so much as one day of flight school.

Here's the point I'm driving at. We saw Luke struggle along the way to become the Jedi Master that he is. He fell down, he had to pick himself up again. That is what you call character development, it allows you, the viewer, to emotionally connect with Luke and even allows you to feel his own pain as he struggles with his journey to become the Jedi Master.

With Rei, there's none of that. She goes from zero to sixty in nothing flat. There's nothing there to allow you, the viewer, to emotionally connect with her. She's devoid of any character development.

 

[trparky]

People P&M'd about Next Generation not following canon either. And yet it persevered.

Seasons 1 and 2 of TNG were damn near unmitigated dumpster fires. It really took off after season 3 when, unfortunately, Gene had to take a back seat due to his failing health.

 

[wiyosaya]

Oh really. Let's put it this way. Rei damn near was able to pick up a lightsaber and know how to wield it from day-one. Meanwhile you had Luke Skywalker who took the better part of three damn movies to become the Jedi Master that we all know and love and not only that, but it took him losing his own damn hand in a lightsaber-to-lightsaber combat with his own father.

The way I saw it, she was a natural. So what if Luke took three whole movies. He seemed rather inept at first - and - obviously, he was not a natural, though he developed his connection over time. The fact that he struggled sounds like a connection point for you. However, for me, I am completely OK with someone being "a natural."

She was also able to somehow pilot the Millenium Falcon which by Han Solo's own admission was a very difficult to pilot ship without even having so much as one day of flight school.

Intuition - reaching out with the force to feel the ship. Another inborn talent that Luke had to develop. Some people struggle with things some don't. Its all part of being human. If you think that is unrealistic, look at some of the more famous humans in history.

Here's the point I'm driving at. We saw Luke struggle along the way to become the Jedi Master that he is. He fell down, he had to pick himself up again. That is what you call character development, it allows you, the viewer, to emotionally connect with Luke and even allows you to feel his own pain as he struggles with his journey to become the Jedi Master.

IMO, not for everyone.

With Rei, there's none of that. She goes from zero to sixty in nothing flat. There's nothing there to allow you, the viewer, to emotionally connect with her. She's devoid of any character development.

Yes, because no one, ever, has been a natural at anything.

Its obvious you and I see things differently.

Seasons 1 and 2 of TNG were damn near unmitigated dumpster fires. It really took off after season 3 when, unfortunately, Gene had to take a back seat due to his failing health.

Early seasons, of any show, being bad are not at all unusual.

Yes, because it stopped preaching at you. I love Season 1 for it's camp but it's also up its own ***, yet it still can't hold a candle to STD.

So, then Discovery is an anomaly, I guess. Four seasons so far and another in the oven, and perhaps more.

That's OK. Its your right to P&M about it.

 

[wiyosaya]

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.

Sounds like stereotyping to me. You've seen, by your own admission, a limited number of homosexual relationships, and it sounds like because a writer depicted such a relationship in a manner that did not fit your view, you consider it contrived?

IMO, it is a relationship where the homosexual aspect of it is a factoid - a portion of it that is an iota of the relationship as a whole. In addition, the writers made an effort at covering a topic that many relationships experience. Loss.

Stories that cover things that people experience touch people. You may not consider it important, but the people who are touched by a fictional depiction of something they have been through sometimes find relief from their own despair.

I think I mentioned this in another thread between us, but take Babylon 5, for instance. Fans have come forward an credited that series with saving their lives because it touched them so deeply.

And it did not matter that B5 depicted a future that was not all warm and fuzzy. What it did do, IMO, was it depicted realistic characters - with all their flaws and foibles.

Trek has attempted to depict a future where humanity appears to have things all worked out in a better economic system at least, however, there has always been conflict in Trek.

I know I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating - IMO, the Klingons are as unrealistic as anyone could conceive of an alien species being - why? Because of their inherent belligerent and violent nature. IMO, a species like that is more likely to destroy themselves before they make it out of their own planetary system. So it makes no difference to me how they look. Maybe their hubris lead them to do some genetic experimentation in search of the perfect Klingon.

The night is young.


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.

So the copyright laws should be changed because some big, bad (in your eyes) corporations came along and bought some material, and the little people who do truly benefit from it be damned? IMO, that's cancel culture rearing its righteous head.

IMO, if you want to blame someone for the crappy direction that Star Wars took with 7 and 9, blame JJ Abrams. Its well known that the third trilogy did not follow what Lucas wanted. JJ Abrams even went to Lucas to consult with the master, and it still did little to help Abrams.

And JJ Abrams has a hand in trashing ST, too. Take that steaming pile Star Trek: Into Darkness, for instance.

 

[dangh]

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

They sure did, but that was to be expected - pandemic reduced their profit, retail have different 'rules' than online so shops without clerks simply do not work well, and competition is simply much stronger in 'real world'.
And yes, people after nearly 2 years are still happy to go to normal shops. And that highly reduced Amazon online store income. And if I can choose between normal shopping cetre with multiple options, and sad amazon store which was always very limited, choice is obvious.

 

[Endymio]

Trek has attempted to depict a future where humanity appears to have things all worked out in a better economic system

if you want to see that superior economic system in action, purchase a ticket to Pyongyang.

the Klingons are as unrealistic as anyone could conceive of an alien species being - why? Because of their inherent belligerent and violent nature. IMO, a species like that is more likely to destroy themselves...

Our own history records countless examples of nonaggressive, docile, gentle species wiped out overnight -- but none of a belligerent, aggressive one extincting itself. Are you sure you're not simply engaging in wishful thinking?

So the copyright laws should be changed because some big, bad (in your eyes) corporations came along and bought some material

No, it should be changed because current law (extended in 1976 and again in 1998) no longer fulfills the constitutional rationale for its existence. Copyrights don't exist to protect the copyright owner, but to promote the arts themselves. Giving an author exclusive rights to their work for 30, or even 50 years does that. Granting it for 120 years does the exact opposite.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Sounds like stereotyping to me. You've seen, by your own admission, a limited number of homosexual relationships, and it sounds like because a writer depicted such a relationship in a manner that did not fit your view, you consider it contrived?

I never claimed to know anything about homosexual relationships, I said that it's probable that since I was exposed to kind people of that persuasion early, I never felt like they were the "other" as so many like to claim. I didn't see them as dangerous or immoral (and being an atheist, even as a child probably helped with that as well), I just saw them as normal people. That's all I was talking about. I did notice that it was very focused on, more than any other romance that I've seen in Trek (except for, as mentioned, Tripp and T'Pol) and, as I indicated, I thought that was contrived too. They weren't contrived for the same reasons, but they both felt contrived. It's kind of like when Abrams Trek made Sulu gay. I honestly didn't care but George Takei wasn't happy about it at all:
CBS News - George Takei doesn't like that Sulu is now gay
Maybe he's just stereotyping too, eh? I'm sure that he has a lot more experience with homosexuality than I do so I'll defer to him. What you need to remember is that people aren't stupid and can tell when something is contrived. Maybe it's not important (I didn't think that it was), but people can still tell.

IMO, it is a relationship where the homosexual aspect of it is a factoid - a portion of it that is an iota of the relationship as a whole. In addition, the writers made an effort at covering a topic that many relationships experience. Loss.

Stories that cover things that people experience touch people. You may not consider it important, but the people who are touched by a fictional depiction of something they have been through sometimes find relief from their own despair.

My point was that depicting romance as it was depicted is unusual in Star Trek so it felt different, it felt contrived. I'm 100% certain that I did say that and you just ignored it. I don't know why you want to paint me as some bigot but you're wrong. Out of Discovery, Stamets and Saru are my favourite characters and I was happy to see him in STO.

I think I mentioned this in another thread between us, but take Babylon 5, for instance. Fans have come forward an credited that series with saving their lives because it touched them so deeply.

And it did not matter that B5 depicted a future that was not all warm and fuzzy. What it did do, IMO, was it depicted realistic characters - with all their flaws and foibles.

Yes, and we both agreed that Babylon5 was an incredible Sci-Fi series. I still have the entire series and have been a huge fan of Babylon5 since I was a kid. I think that you'd love Rowan J Coleman's retrospective on it. I personally wish that he had mentioned the Technomages but it was still good.

Trek has attempted to depict a future where humanity appears to have things all worked out in a better economic system at least, however, there has always been conflict in Trek.

That's not because Roddenberry wanted it. Conflict has always been in Star Trek because the studio execs wanted it. They had assumed that American audiences would get bored if there were no space battles. They probably assumed right because most people say that DS9 was the opposite of what Roddenberry wanted but it's one of the most popular ST series made.

I know I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating - IMO, the Klingons are as unrealistic as anyone could conceive of an alien species being - why? Because of their inherent belligerent and violent nature. IMO, a species like that is more likely to destroy themselves before they make it out of their own planetary system. So it makes no difference to me how they look. Maybe their hubris lead them to do some genetic experimentation in search of the perfect Klingon.

Of course they're unrealistic. Gene Roddenberry didn't even want them to exist. He wanted the "antagonist" race to be the Romulans. He specifically based Romulan culture on the Roman Empire because it had been proven that a culture like that can survive for millennia. The Klingons only came to be because the studio said that the prosthetic ears for the Romulans was too expensive. The execs also considered the Romulans to be too complicated as a people for American audiences. Remember that, at the time, the idea of villains being complicated instead of outright evil didn't exist in the USA. They wanted simple, mustache-twirling villains which was the style at the time, so that's what they got. This idea that the Klingons were "honourable warriors" came much later.

So the copyright laws should be changed because some big, bad (in your eyes) corporations came along and bought some material, and the little people who do truly benefit from it be damned? IMO, that's cancel culture rearing its righteous head.

Where on Earth did you get that idea? I never said anything like that. I happen to be an Axanar supporter and the only people benefitting from Star Trek as it is now is CBS. That's not exactly what I call "little people". If you're referring to the "little people" as the people who are actually working on the show then I would ask you one very important question:

What good does it do the "little people" if a show's GIGANTIC established fan-base doesn't like it? The show won't do well (or at least not nearly as well as expected) and it will end in cancellation. So great, now the "little people" are all unemployed because the writers and designers couldn't check their egos and follow the formula that has been successful for decades. It's a fine line between what makes something great and something that is just "meh".

If JMS were to completely shake-up B5 in a reboot, sure, we probably wouldn't be too happy about it because we're fans of the established canon. The thing is, it would be much more forgivable if he did it because the Babylon 5 fanbase isn't nearly large enough for a modern show to survive on. Star Trek is the exact opposite of that. People know the names Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Chekov, Sulu, Picard, Data, Worf and Enterprise. Most people have heard of Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, Starfleet and the Federation. Star Trek's established fanbase is so massive that, like Star Wars, it has become entrenched in Western Pop Culture.

On the other hand, if you ask people if the names Sheridan, G'Kar, Londo, Garibaldi, or Delenn sound familiar, sure, a few people will recognise them but most people won't. That means Babylon-5 is justified in actively trying to expand its fanbase. Star Trek doesn't need to do that and will only piss people off in the same way that the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy pissed off that massive fanbase. People know that it's all about greed and money when things like this are done and when it's already a massive franchise they have the attitude of "Haven't you made ENOUGH money with the great format that you were using?" and they get angry about it. It's just human nature.

IMO, if you want to blame someone for the crappy direction that Star Wars took with 7 and 9, blame JJ Abrams. Its well known that the third trilogy did not follow what Lucas wanted. JJ Abrams even went to Lucas to consult with the master, and it still did little to help Abrams.

And JJ Abrams has a hand in trashing ST, too. Take that steaming pile Star Trek: Into Darkness, for instance.

I completely agree with you. I thought that the Abrams-Trek movies were god-awful compared to the original ten. They were all about glitzy style with very little substance. Trying to expand a fanbase the size of Star Trek's is an exercise in futility because the people who would like it already do and the people who don't like it never will. It's not like with Babylon 5 where most people have maybe heard of it but not much else.

 

[Avro Arrow]

The night is young.


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.

Thankfully, Strange New Worlds has been great so far. I'm pretty sure though that the best Star Trek to be released in over a decade will be Axanar, if and when it's completed.

 

[Avro Arrow]

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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I never said that she's emotionless, I said that she's tough at all costs and is completely driven by emotion instead of rational thought. That's the opposite of what you said. Rei is emotionless, yeah, but the Jedi are supposed to be as, according to the Star Wars lore, unchecked emotions lead to the dark side. Burnham isn't the Mary Sue that Rei is, she's just not that likeable. She committed mutiny FFS!

If you want to talk about a number of issues being dealt with, just imagine what Pike is dealing with. He saw and experienced his own death! Still, he maintains his composure and doesn't fall to pieces every day. He cares more about others than he does himself and demonstrates his care and intelligence constantly. Sure, he has his flaws but they don't define him to the level that Burnham's flaws define her. IMO, Pike is a likeable character, Burnham is not.

 

[trparky]

That's not because Roddenberry wanted it. Conflict has always been in Star Trek because the studio execs wanted it. They had assumed that American audiences would get bored if there were no space battles. They probably assumed right because most people say that DS9 was the opposite of what Roddenberry wanted but it's one of the most popular ST series made.

I will give you that. Deep Space Nine is by far my favorite Star Trek series mainly because it had loads of character development. For instance, take Worf; in all of TNG he was but a one-dimensional character. He was a Klingon, and he was all about honor and... yeah, that's about it. We really knew nothing about him. It was only when he showed up on DS9 that he became this fully fleshed out character.

Heck, even the Ferengi were really nothing more than one- or two-dimensional characters until DS9 came around they became more than a sum of their parts. We learned more things about their culture than in any time in Star Trek history.

So yes, Deep Space Nine was my favorite series because it had depth, it had great stories, and yes... seriously epic space battles that make me so much want to see the series be up-scaled to 1080p.

 

[hwertz]

I'll just point out, in Japan the streaming services (like 20 years ago) they found with 5 or 10 streaming services, each with like 1/5th or 1/10th of the available TV shows on it, that most people were going to subscribe to NO service -- some service was NOT going to get the "best" shows enough to have people want to pay for a few shows but have no access to the rest. And most people were not going to subscribe to 4 or 5 different services. They went to a system where channels have exclusive rights to a show for a year, then it's available on all other services. So this still makes it worth it to make high-quality new shows, if you do you will get more subscribers than ones that don't; but, they found they get far FAR more subscribes when one can subscribe to *a* service and watch what they want, far more profit and income for everybody.

That's the problem I see here -- I won't subscribe to ANY service, I've been in households with Netflix, with Hulu, with Apple+.. watch some show and it's great, then go to look for other shows to watch... "nope don't have that one" "Nope don't have that one" "Have that one, but only season 6", "Nope don't have that one"... try scrolling through the list of shows and nothing catches my eye. And even worse, get into one of those shows and have them cancel it even if it's highly popular -- that really does hurt them. On the other hand, go to a pirate^H^H^H^H^H^H "streaming" site and you can find any show you want, download it, and watch it later whenever you want even if you're offline, on any device you want. Yo ho ho!

 

[wiyosaya]

I never claimed to know anything about homosexual relationships, I said that it's probable that since I was exposed to kind people of that persuasion early, I never felt like they were the "other" as so many like to claim. I didn't see them as dangerous or immoral (and being an atheist, even as a child probably helped with that as well), I just saw them as normal people. That's all I was talking about. I did notice that it was very focused on, more than any other romance that I've seen in Trek (except for, as mentioned, Tripp and T'Pol) and, as I indicated, I thought that was contrived too. They weren't contrived for the same reasons, but they both felt contrived. It's kind of like when Abrams Trek made Sulu gay. I honestly didn't care but George Takei wasn't happy about it at all:
CBS News - George Takei doesn't like that Sulu is now gay
Maybe he's just stereotyping too, eh? I'm sure that he has a lot more experience with homosexuality than I do so I'll defer to him. What you need to remember is that people aren't stupid and can tell when something is contrived. Maybe it's not important (I didn't think that it was), but people can still tell.

I think you and I see things differently. I am inclined to follow a story and not come to conclusions about the way things are presented. I am not a professional writer, and as such, its not my place to second guess the writers. I might not like stories or entire shows, and if that's the case, then I just don't watch them. As I see it, if we take "contrived" as it is defined, then all fiction is contrived in that it is all deliberately created.

My point was that depicting romance as it was depicted is unusual in Star Trek so it felt different, it felt contrived. I'm 100% certain that I did say that and you just ignored it. I don't know why you want to paint me as some bigot but you're wrong.

I'm sorry you got that impression. That was not my intent. But, Romance is also a part of the human condition, and romance can appear anywhere - even in situations that have a military foundation. We had Kirk go off on a few romantic encounters, and need I go on about other Trek series that also had a element of Romance? Is romance, in Trek, limited to brief flings and for command staff only? Perhaps Trek should come with a viewer warning - no romance allowed between crew members; there must be a non-crew member involved or its not allowed.

Out of Discovery, Stamets and Saru are my favourite characters and I was happy to see him in STO.

Yes, I like Saru, however, I also like Tilley, and other characters on the show. I don't think that I could identify a favorite for you. I just like the show in general. Personally, though he has shown signs of growth, I think Stamets is a bit of an arrogant ***.

Yes, and we both agreed that Babylon5 was an incredible Sci-Fi series. I still have the entire series and have been a huge fan of Babylon5 since I was a kid. I think that you'd love Rowan J Coleman's retrospective on it. I personally wish that he had mentioned the Technomages but it was still good.

That's not because Roddenberry wanted it. Conflict has always been in Star Trek because the studio execs wanted it. They had assumed that American audiences would get bored if there were no space battles.

In those days, I'm not sure that I would agree that audiences wanted space battles. However, Roddenberry agreed to it. He did not have to.

That said, I'm not so sure that having a series without conflict would have made any sense. If we go to the quote from the 200th episode of SG-1 -

Science fiction is an existential metaphor that allows us to tell stories about the human condition. Isaac Asimov once said, "Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinded critics and philosophers of today, but the core of science fiction, its essence, has become crucial to our salvation, if we are to be saved at all."

and we look at fiction, in general, as a reflection on the human condition, then how does one exclude conflict from what humanity is?

Conflict is, as I see it, an essential part of humanity and it has shaped what humanity, as a whole, is. Without conflict, we might have had a show that was, essentially, a 60's Love In, and just how interesting would that have been - to anyone anywhere? Flower children meet space aliens. Sounds exciting - though there was an original Trek episode where those flower spores turned the crew, including Spock, into flower children. I would, perhaps, be fascinated to see Roddenberry's version of Trek without conflict. Do you have any links?

They probably assumed right because most people say that DS9 was the opposite of what Roddenberry wanted but it's one of the most popular ST series made.

Of course they're unrealistic. Gene Roddenberry didn't even want them to exist. He wanted the "antagonist" race to be the Romulans. He specifically based Romulan culture on the Roman Empire because it had been proven that a culture like that can survive for millennia. The Klingons only came to be because the studio said that the prosthetic ears for the Romulans was too expensive.

That's ironic given what the Klingons have become - even Worf's iteration of them.

The execs also considered the Romulans to be too complicated as a people for American audiences. Remember that, at the time, the idea of villains being complicated instead of outright evil didn't exist in the USA.

It had not become mainstream, but there were thread of it at the time in the dark corners of places like the FBI - at least - as told by "Mindhunter".

They wanted simple, mustache-twirling villains which was the style at the time, so that's what they got. This idea that the Klingons were "honourable warriors" came much later.

Where on Earth did you get that idea? I never said anything like that.

No, you did not. Please review the post you responded to and note that I said that immediately after quoting this post - https://www.techspot.com/news/94757...tock-crash-horrifying-defends.html#comment_61 which you, yourself, quoted in a subsequent post of yours.

I happen to be an Axanar supporter and the only people benefitting from Star Trek as it is now is CBS. That's not exactly what I call "little people". If you're referring to the "little people" as the people who are actually working on the show then I would ask you one very important question:

What good does it do the "little people" if a show's GIGANTIC established fan-base doesn't like it?

I know this is not what you are saying, but I'll say it anyway - "so a fan base is supposed to like a show because it was made by the little people?"

Or, I'll put it another way, is the fan base so fixed in what they are familiar with that any changes at all are not to be tolerated because it deviates from what was?

Like Rei in Star Wars. OMG, she's a natural force wielder??? WTF??? It took Luke three full movies to be defeated by Palpatine - anyone developing advanced talents without three full movies is not canon. OMG - she cannot do that because Luke, OMG, did not.

As I see it, unless one has seen "The Clone Wars" there is no background to even Vader defeating Palpatine - and Vader, I.e., Anakin also being a force wielder along the lines of skill as Rei.

The show won't do well (or at least not nearly as well as expected) and it will end in cancellation. So great, now the "little people" are all unemployed because the writers and designers couldn't check their egos and follow the formula that has been successful for decades. It's a fine line between what makes something great and something that is just "meh".

I agree though, IMO, much of that fine line lies in the eyes of the fan.

If JMS were to completely shake-up B5 in a reboot, sure, we probably wouldn't be too happy about it because we're fans of the established canon.

And here we are at that word again - canon. I'm not the professional writer. I might not like what JMS does with the reboot, but it won't be because JMS strayed from canon. JMS created B5, he is the sole voice of what is in the B5 universe, I.e., canon. I already expect that the reboot will be different. How can it not be with so many of the original cast now dead?

The thing is, it would be much more forgivable if he did it because the Babylon 5 fanbase isn't nearly large enough for a modern show to survive on.

Apparently, the current B5 fan base was enough to scare off a B5 movie because JMS said that he would have recast Galen - and the current fan base reacted in a "waaa, waaa, waaa we won't accept anyone potraying Galen except Peter Woodward" in a crying their eyes out manner. I could not help feeling like a potentially excellent B5 movie was ruined by a bunch of sad-sack nit-picking fans who were locked into seeing Galen portrayed by Peter Woodward. How TF do they know that the actor to play Galen would not have done a better job?

Star Trek is the exact opposite of that. People know the names Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Chekov, Sulu, Picard, Data, Worf and Enterprise. Most people have heard of Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, Starfleet and the Federation. Star Trek's established fanbase is so massive that, like Star Wars, it has become entrenched in Western Pop Culture.

Perhaps I would put it in different words - set in immutable stone so that any "true trekkie" cannot tolerate anything that does not fit what they think how trek should be portrayed.

On the other hand, if you ask people if the names Sheridan, G'Kar, Londo, Garibaldi, or Delenn sound familiar, sure, a few people will recognise them but most people won't. That means Babylon-5 is justified in actively trying to expand its fanbase. Star Trek doesn't need to do that and will only piss people off in the same way that the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy pissed off that massive fanbase. People know that it's all about greed and money when things like this are done and when it's already a massive franchise they have the attitude of "Haven't you made ENOUGH money with the great format that you were using?" and they get angry about it. It's just human nature.

Maybe the trekkies should organize protests and descend on Paramount with chants and signs saying "No More Trek" and put all the little people involved in the current productions of Trek out of work.

I agree that money is a likely driver, but the people at the lower levels, the writers, producers, actors, as I see it, are out there trying to do something that they will be proud of - and it is paying the salaries of little people. At least some of them actually care about the work they produce, and I know some of them are grateful for the opportunity to do the work that they are doing. Getting work in a franchise like that is something that most people will never see. I saw a ST: SNW video on You Tube where Anson Mount was, quite literally, enthralled at being in a Star Trek show.

I completely agree with you. I thought that the Abrams-Trek movies were god-awful compared to the original ten. They were all about glitzy style with very little substance. Trying to expand a fanbase the size of Star Trek's is an exercise in futility because the people who would like it already do and the people who don't like it never will. It's not like with Babylon 5 where most people have maybe heard of it but not much else.

I think you would be surprised at how big B5's fan base is.

Its obvious to me that we both have strong opinions on these matters, and we will never see eye-to-eye on them.

 

[wiyosaya]

if you want to see that superior economic system in action, purchase a ticket to Pyongyang.

Perhaps, since you bring it up, you should purchase one??

Our own history records countless examples of nonaggressive, docile, gentle species wiped out overnight -- but none of a belligerent, aggressive one extincting itself. Are you sure you're not simply engaging in wishful thinking?

Ah yes. And those aggressive species are the pinnacle of evolution (is that something you even believe in). They will never know what might have been achieved if they were more tolerant of their relations. After all, raping and pillaging everything is sight is where its at. I get it.

No, it should be changed because current law (extended in 1976 and again in 1998) no longer fulfills the constitutional rationale for its existence. Copyrights don't exist to protect the copyright owner, but to promote the arts themselves. Giving an author exclusive rights to their work for 30, or even 50 years does that. Granting it for 120 years does the exact opposite.

Ah, our resident constitutional scholar shows his face.

 

[Endymio]

Perhaps, since you bring it up, you should purchase one??

Of the two of us, is it not more logical that the one who adores their socialist system should be the one to travel there, rather than the one who abhors it?

Ah yes. And those aggressive species are the pinnacle of evolution

If one defines 'pinnacle' as the ability to survive, propagate and multiply, rather than be extincted, then yes. If one define the evolutionary peak as possessing a heartfelt belief in rainbows, unicorns, and safe spaces for pangenderist philosophy, then you'll likely disagree.

Ah, our resident constitutional scholar shows his face.

Do you thus believe that snarky comments substitute for rational debate?

 

[wiyosaya]

Of the two of us, is it not more logical that the one who adores their socialist system should be the one to travel there, rather than the one who abhors it?

Who said I adored it? That was what was in Trek - like it or not. I really think your conception of socialism is tainted by the coloration and demonization by those who share your political leanings.

So, let me see if I got this straight - oh wait, the original statement I replied to was a snarky remark.

If one defines 'pinnacle' as the ability to survive, propagate and multiply, rather than be extincted, then yes. If one define the evolutionary peak as possessing a heartfelt belief in rainbows, unicorns, and safe spaces for pangenderist philosophy, then you'll likely disagree.

The jury is out yet on whether humanity will survive. As a scientist, have you not heard that there are those in the scientific community that believe we are in the next mass extinction even today? Just how many species have gone extinct in recent years?

Do you thus believe that snarky comments substitute for rational debate?

You presented no evidence for your opinion. You were expecting something better? Besides, I addressed that in another post in this thread, and, apparently, you did not bother to read it.

 

[wiyosaya]

Oh the terror! The wokeism is coming to ST: SNW https://news.yahoo.com/queer-folk-star-jesse-james-202408590.html

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Oh the terror! The wokeism is coming to ST: SNW https://news.yahoo.com/queer-folk-star-jesse-james-202408590.html

Go woke, go broke. Promoting mental illness as normal human behavior only gets you so far.

 

[Endymio]

Who said I adored it? That was what was in Trek - like it or not.

You called it a "better economic system". Are you backtracking now or simply forgetful?

The jury is out yet on whether humanity will survive. As a scientist, have you not heard that there are those in the scientific community that believe we are in the next mass extinction even today?

Certainly we're in such an event. But as banal melodrama of that phrase, it's essentially meaningless. Humanity is doing better than ever. More importantly, the total planetary biomass -- the sum of all plants and animals alive on earth -- is increasing, not decreasing. The "extinction event" isn't any sort of mass die-off; it's a simple result of interspecific competition squeezing out certain species in favor of more viable ones.

You presented no evidence for your opinion.

I did, actually. You simply missed it. I'll be more specific. From the US Constitution. Note both the justification for IP protection, as well as the phrase "limited time"
""To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

 

[wiyosaya]

You called it a "better economic system". Are you backtracking now or simply forgetful?

I think you are confusing a response to another post, but you missed that post too, yes? Another post you did not bother to read?

Certainly we're in such an event. But as banal melodrama of that phrase, it's essentially meaningless. Humanity is doing better than ever. More importantly, the total planetary biomass -- the sum of all plants and animals alive on earth -- is increasing, not decreasing. The "extinction event" isn't any sort of mass die-off; it's a simple result of interspecific competition squeezing out certain species in favor of more viable ones.

And, of course, ignoring the interdependencies. But since humans are the apex predator, it makes no difference, right? The vast majority of those whom you appear to worship because of their might want everything for themselves and think nothing of depleting prey stocks for profit.

I did, actually. You simply missed it. I'll be more specific. From the US Constitution. Note both the justification for IP protection, as well as the phrase "limited time"
""To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

Well, you'll just have to take that up with your congressional representatives, won't you?

 

[wiyosaya]

Go woke, go broke. Promoting mental illness as normal human behavior only gets you so far.

Ah, another bogeyman claim heard from. Show me in the ICD codes where it classifies homosexuality as a disease? How about having black people as friends, or having them in entertainment productions? Do they have ICD code entries, too? Or is that only in your own personal copy of the ICD codes that you've altered to your liking?

The industries that offend you by producing your bane of "woke" entertainment, do you see signs of them going broke? Somehow, you think that this loss of subscribers and stock price drop is making Netflix go broke? What about Disney, Paramount+, HBO+ and the others? Lets be fair, now, and measure them all with the same yard-stick.