Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

[VMSmith]

I would be fascinated to know which Star Trek show would be pro-Trump. Besides episodes 18 and 19 of Enterprise Season 4 I mean.

Serious hat on, one of the things that caught my eye in episode 1 was that when showing video of what led to a 2nd Civil War and WW3 they put an "audit the vote" placard very front and center, as if to say current conservative actions are what lead to those catastrophes.

Exactly. Only quality shows are successful. Which is why Jackass only made it one episode and Firefly had 900 episodes

Sorry, but popularity does indicate quality, as that shows that a product is connecting with its intended audience.

Jackass was a great, though crude and crass, show that connected well.

Firefly was not well-liked by the execs and, frankly, did not find an audience until post-cancellation. And Serenity did not do well, twisting the knife further.

A handful of loud haters/fans are not enough to either save or kill a show, unless they watch or tune out in significant numbers. Current Star Trek is appealing to its audience so well that they are airing five series in the same year. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean most people also don't like it.

Edit: it should be noted that my satirical replies were in response to claims that it's "shit" (it's clearly not since most people love it) and "dead", which five series disproves

[qwerty123456]

Sorry, but popularity does indicate quality, as that shows that a product is connecting with its intended audience.

Jackass was a great, though crude and crass, show that connected well.

Firefly was not well-liked by the execs and, frankly, did not find an audience until post-cancellation. And Serenity did not do well, twisting the knife further.

A handful of loud haters/fans are not enough to either save or kill a show, unless they watch or tune out in significant numbers. Current Star Trek is appealing to its audience so well that they are airing five series in the same year. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean most people also don't like it.

Edit: it should be noted that my satirical replies were in response to claims that it's "shit" (it's clearly not since most people love it) and "dead", which five series disproves

No popularity does not equal quality. How and why does Seven get her exact borg implants back? You think how they handled Guinan was quality writing? Or how they were causing butterfly effects all over the fucking place? And in Discovery how can you have magical floating nacelles that can transfer energy to the other parts of the ship when the power requirements would be a million times more than a warpdrive and yet they had to worry about a magic dudes cry blowing up any ships that warped using antimatter/matter reactions? Also how come there were already races that have non antimatter/matter warp engines but they didn't take over the universe or help anyone out?

I guess McDonalds is the greatest quality of food on the planet then too lol.

[Ashana Darkmoon]

Serious hat on, one of the things that caught my eye in episode 1 was that when showing video of what led to a 2nd Civil War and WW3 they put an "audit the vote" placard very front and center, as if to say current conservative actions are what lead to those catastrophes.

Sorry, but popularity does indicate quality, as that shows that a product is connecting with its intended audience.

Jackass was a great, though crude and crass, show that connected well.

Firefly was not well-liked by the execs and, frankly, did not find an audience until post-cancellation. And Serenity did not do well, twisting the knife further.

A handful of loud haters/fans are not enough to either save or kill a show, unless they watch or tune out in significant numbers. Current Star Trek is appealing to its audience so well that they are airing five series in the same year. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean most people also don't like it.

Edit: it should be noted that my satirical replies were in response to claims that it's "shit" (it's clearly not since most people love it) and "dead", which five series disproves

We have no evidence that "most people clearly love them." The fact that SNW is incredibly different that the other shows suggests the opposite. The crew spent a lot of time doing interviews trying to convince people that this one will be different.

I mean they obviously have gotten enough views to not get cancelled, but this isn't like old Neilson ratings stuff. They don't really have to be "hits" or pull in weekly ratings the same way old shows did.

The idea that quality is only determined by connecting to an audience is pretty wild though, ngl!

But yeah the idea that the franchise is dead is obviously dumb. I think they're just trying to connect with the audience and need their "Mandalorian" which they are hoping SNW will be

[VMSmith]

No popularity does not equal quality. How and why does Seven get her exact borg implants back? You think how they handled Guinan was quality writing? Or how they were causing butterfly effects all over the fucking place? And in Discovery how can you have magical floating nacelles that can transfer energy to the other parts of the ship when the power requirements would be a million times more than a warpdrive and yet they had to worry about a magic dudes cry blowing up any ships that warped using antimatter/matter reactions? Also how come there were already races that have non antimatter/matter warp engines but they didn't take over the universe or help anyone out?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson

I guess McDonalds is the greatest quality of food on the planet then too lol.

Ask any 10-year old which is better, a plate of liver or a McD's cheeseburger? Hell, ask the majority of adults that question.

Not being the audience for a product does not mean the product is not of good quality. I don't enjoy Westerns at all and could poke holes in any one that I pleased, doesn't make any of them bad, just not tailored for my tastes.

Taste is subjective. Film quality is also subjective.

We have no evidence that "most people clearly love them." The fact that SNW is incredibly different that the other shows suggests the opposite.

Balderdash. If they were trying to set it apart from the other shows then they would not have referenced those shows repeatedly. This entire first episode hinged on events from Discovery, in more ways than one. Pike's anguish over the future he saw, Spock's loss of his sister, and warp signatures from the battle. This episode couldn't have been more "hey, remember Discovery? Here's what happened afterward!".

Structurally, it's definitely different. But then, that's just CBS seeing that there may also be an audience for "adventure of the week" Star Trek and making something to appeal to that potential audience. My wife loves Discovery but SNW left her a bit cold. Different styles for different audiences, as I've said. Doesn't make any of them bad, just appealing to different people.

I mean they obviously have gotten enough views to not get cancelled

The entire point of my satire was that, not only are the newer Star Trek shows not getting canceled, as so many think they should be, they're doing more than well enough to spur development on more shows, with different structures and stories to tell. If Discovery was doing poorly it would have been long-gone and there'd be no SNW. SNW exists because Discovery is successful, not despite Discovery.

but this isn't like old Neilson ratings stuff. They don't really have to be "hits" or pull in weekly ratings the same way old shows did.

I'm going to guess you have no idea what studio execs actually care about when deciding what projects to continue, greenlight, or cancel. And neither do I. So let's neither of us pretend we do.

The idea that quality is only determined by connecting to an audience is pretty wild though, ngl!

The best plate of liver ever cooked is still absolute garbage if I don't want to eat it, from a personal PoV. It may win awards, but in my book it's made for the trash can.

Again, quality is subjective. Always. Even in time-honored traditions, someone had to put their personal stamp of what they felt "quality" meant regarding that product.

But yeah the idea that the franchise is dead is obviously dumb. I think they're just trying to connect with the audience and need their "Mandalorian" which they are hoping SNW will be

Five shows. Why do you think they "need" anything? They're doing gangbusters doing what they're already doing!

No, it's YOU who wants a Star Trek version of Mandalorian. And maybe they'll make that, who knows. But they don't need it, not right now at any rate.

There are five Star Trek TV shows being aired in the course of this year. Marvel is the only studio with a franchise that can compare. Star Wars would probably be third on the list.

[Ashana Darkmoon]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson



Ask any 10-year old which is better, a plate of liver or a McD's cheeseburger? Hell, ask the majority of adults that question.

Not being the audience for a product does not mean the product is not of good quality. I don't enjoy Westerns at all and could poke holes in any one that I pleased, doesn't make any of them bad, just not tailored for my tastes.

Taste is subjective. Film quality is also subjective.


Balderdash. If they were trying to set it apart from the other shows then they would not have referenced those shows repeatedly. This entire first episode hinged on events from Discovery, in more ways than one. Pike's anguish over the future he saw, Spock's loss of his sister, and warp signatures from the battle. This episode couldn't have been more "hey, remember Discovery? Here's what happened afterward!".

Structurally, it's definitely different. But then, that's just CBS seeing that there may also be an audience for "adventure of the week" Star Trek and making something to appeal to that potential audience. My wife loves Discovery but SNW left her a bit cold. Different styles for different audiences, as I've said. Doesn't make any of them bad, just appealing to different people.



The entire point of my satire was that, not only are the newer Star Trek shows not getting canceled, as so many think they should be, they're doing more than well enough to spur development on more shows, with different structures and stories to tell. If Discovery was doing poorly it would have been long-gone and there'd be no SNW. SNW exists because Discovery is successful, not despite Discovery.



I'm going to guess you have no idea what studio execs actually care about when deciding what projects to continue, greenlight, or cancel. And neither do I. So let's neither of us pretend we do.


The best plate of liver ever cooked is still absolute garbage if I don't want to eat it, from a personal PoV. It may win awards, but in my book it's made for the trash can.

Again, quality is subjective. Always. Even in time-honored traditions, someone had to put their personal stamp of what they felt "quality" meant regarding that product.

Five shows. Why do you think they "need" anything? They're doing gangbusters doing what they're already doing!

No, it's YOU who wants a Star Trek version of Mandalorian. And maybe they'll make that, who knows. But they don't need it, not right now at any rate.

There are five Star Trek TV shows being aired in the course of this year. Marvel is the only studio with a franchise that can compare. Star Wars would probably be third on the list.

Marvel Shows and Star Wars have higher ratings than these though. Halo was the #1 paramount show in terms of viewers apparently and I think it was still below Moon Knight.

Also you are projecting a lot of opinions and hostility onto me for some reason? I'm not a youtuber arguing for Kennedy to be cancelled or whatever lmao.

[TEHPALLYTANK]

And that's the moment we ask the all mighty question again

Do we include The Orville in Trek family?

Absolutely, considering it is more Star Trek than Discovery is.

[Elim Garak]

Ask any 10-year old which is better, a plate of liver or a McD's cheeseburger? Hell, ask the majority of adults that question.

You have defeated your own argument. Junk food is objectively low quality. But it is popular. Quality is rarely popular. Because you need higher quality standards to appreciate it.

E.g. I watched every episode of Discovery, but only found Seasons 1-2 worth the time. Season 3 and 4 were mostly background noise to me. But I watched them - adding +1 view to popularity.

Never judge quality by popularity. Sometimes they coincide. Often - not. Supply can create demand. Even if it's shit supply - there will be flies.

[Thestrawman]

I would be fascinated to know which Star Trek show would be pro-Trump. Besides episodes 18 and 19 of Enterprise Season 4 I mean.

I'd say all of season 1 and 2 of Enterprise. Especially with how Archer is written.

[Ashana Darkmoon]

The fact that you hate something and keep watching it is perplexing to me but also kind of the business model of half these streaming services at this point I guess? If you are paying and watching that seems kinda shrug emoji.

The entire creative economy of tv production at this point is so different than even a decade ago, it's wild!

[VMSmith]

The relationship between Spock and T'Pring was quite interesting. It provides so much context to the events of "Amok Time". I really look forward to seeing her estrangement from Spock develop, as at this point they are quite clearly very much in love.

[Dorothyjean]

I'd say all of season 1 and 2 of Enterprise. Especially with how Archer is written.

I have to "lolwut" this comment with Enterprise being "pro-Trump" ... shit was made in 2001 ffs. "In a Mirror, Darkly" is a running theme in ALL of the Star Trek universe going back to the original Star Trek. Unless people want to say that the "mirror universe" in ST:TOS was written for Donald Trump when he was 21. :P

This weird connection of things to being "pro-Trump" is most illogical... /zing. :P Gotta get my Spock in there and I appreciate the hate for Trump by trying to link 'evil' things to him is getting ridiculous because Star Trek's been doing that schtick since the 60s.

[VMSmith]

Junk food is objectively low quality.

Tell me the basis of the standard of judgment of the quality of food that exists externally from human reference. Does the nature of the universe itself judge a McD's cheeseburger to be of inferior quality to one of Gordon Ramsey's dishes, or do opinionated humans provide that standard? If it's human opinions that have created a standard, then it must be subjective rather than objective because opinions differ.

Quality is rarely popular

John Carpenter's The Thing was roundly panned by critics at the time of its release as "instant junk". Cinefantastique considered it to be the most-hated film of all time. It mostly bombed at the box office, finishing as the 42nd highest-grossing film of the year. It nearly ended Carpenter's career and cost him the directing job for Firestarter.

But today it is hailed as a horror masterpiece, inspiring many current films. It's considered Carpenter's best film. It is absolutely beloved.

If quality is objective, then both these stories cannot be true. Either it was garbage when released or it was transcendent when released.

What actually happened is that it found its audience. And those people love it.

The quality of John Carpenter's The Thing is absolutely subjective and we have the evidence. Shifting mores and distribution methods affect who sees a film and whether it finds the audience it is looking for or not. The audience determines the quality of a film, despite what Academy voters might like to think ... but, then, they are an audience as well. The only difference is that they have a vote amongst themselves for which of them did the best. That's still subjective.

[Thestrawman]

I have to "lolwut" this comment with Enterprise being "pro-Trump" ... shit was made in 2001 ffs. "In a Mirror, Darkly" is a running theme in ALL of the Star Trek universe going back to the original Star Trek. Unless people want to say that the "mirror universe" in ST:TOS was written for Donald Trump when he was 21. :P

This weird connection of things to being "pro-Trump" is most illogical... /zing. :P Gotta get my Spock in there and I appreciate the hate for Trump by trying to link 'evil' things to him is getting ridiculous because Star Trek's been doing that schtick since the 60s.

And this has what to do with my comment?

[Elim Garak]

Tell me the basis of the standard of judgment of the quality of food that exists externally from human reference. Does the nature of the universe itself judge a McD's cheeseburger to be of inferior quality to one of Gordon Ramsey's dishes, or do opinionated humans provide that standard? If it's human opinions that have created a standard, then it must be subjective rather than objective because opinions differ.

There is this field of science called Biology. We know what junk food is.

John Carpenter's The Thing was roundly panned by critics at the time of its release as "instant junk". Cinefantastique considered it to be the most-hated film of all time. It mostly bombed at the box office, finishing as the 42nd highest-grossing film of the year. It nearly ended Carpenter's career and cost him the directing job for Firestarter.

But today it is hailed as a horror masterpiece, inspiring many current films. It's considered Carpenter's best film. It is absolutely beloved.

Once again arguing against your own point.
It wasn't popular at release, but it was high quality. If you were insinuating that people who love it are the majority - you are plain wrong. The majority go to the movie theaters at release (they also do not go to internet to rate movies). The quality crowd prefers VHS/DVD/Blue-Ray - at home.

You also ignore this thing, very recently discovered, called marketing. It can sell shit to bees and vinegar to wine connoisseurs. Which in turn means that the most popular shit that sells like hot stuff is indeed shit.

[Deadite]

The entire point of my satire was that, not only are the newer Star Trek shows not getting canceled, as so many think they should be, they're doing more than well enough to spur development on more shows, with different structures and stories to tell. If Discovery was doing poorly it would have been long-gone and there'd be no SNW. SNW exists because Discovery is successful, not despite Discovery.

Guess you have never heard of The CW? They pump out low rated mostly garbage shows that are spin-offs from garbage shows. Guessing you prolly love the CW tho

[Thestrawman]

Guess you have never heard of The CW? They pump out low rated mostly garbage shows that are spin-offs from garbage shows. Guessing you prolly love the CW tho

Well not anymore those shows got cancelled.

[Ivanstone]

I'd say all of season 1 and 2 of Enterprise. Especially with how Archer is written.

ENT is post Bell Riots. After those humanity decided to start taking better care of each other which is very anti-Trump.

[Thestrawman]

ENT is post Bell Riots. After those humanity decided to start taking better care of each other which is very anti-Trump.

Did you watch Enterprise? We're talking about the show where the captain said yes to genecide, worried more about his dog then getting his ship repaired, was xenophobic, and got into more fist fights (and lost) then any other captain.

[Ivanstone]

Did you watch Enterprise? We're talking about the show where the captain said yes to genecide, worried more about his dog then getting his ship repaired, was xenophobic, and got into more fist fights (and lost) then any other captain.

I remember a show where a captain learned from his mistakes, tried to treat aliens well, liked animals and didn't shy away from a fight by bloviating.

Then there's the whole founding the Confederation of Planets.

[Elim Garak]

I remember a show where a captain learned from his mistakes, tried to treat aliens well, liked animals and didn't shy away from a fight by bloviating.

Then there's the whole founding the Confederation of Planets.

"These Vulcans are holding us back" (Paraphrasing) Archer. Also interfered into foreign affairs based on his personal beliefs on what's right and wrong.