Star Trek: *hits blunt* The higher, the fewerrrrrr

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > TV IV > Star Trek: *hits blunt* The higher, the fewerrrrrr

«‹›2724 »

Pick: Jul 19, 2009; Nap Ghost

you just know bajoran farts are like an uncleaned rabbit hutch

# ? Nov 12, 2018 22:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 12, 2024 08:05

Pick: Jul 19, 2009; Nap Ghost

The best thing about DS9 is there's like one single white guy character and he gets it right in the nuts like 24/7. He's not even English white, he's freaking Irish. It rules it's like sneaking in another alien.

# ? Nov 12, 2018 22:57

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Pick posted:

The best thing about DS9 is there's like one single white guy character and he gets it right in the nuts like 24/7. He's not even English white, he's freaking Irish. It rules it's like sneaking in another alien.

Every CHUD I know that likes Trek thinks DS9 us the worst one instead of the best one. I'm sure this is mostly why, even if they don't realize it themselves.

# ? Nov 13, 2018 00:31

LividLiquid: Apr 13, 2002

Julian reads as white even if he isn't. Like how Louis CK is Mexican.

# ? Nov 13, 2018 00:41

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

Growing up I had no idea Bashir wasn't considered white by most people.

Odo's also a pasty white dude.

# ? Nov 13, 2018 00:43

ashpanash: Apr 9, 2008; I can see when you are lying.

Cythereal posted:

"Oh btw the Federation has decayed into a tyrannical empire even though this has absolutely nothing to do with the story" does not fill me with confidence.

That plot could have been set at any time, in any galactic war in Trek - any of the Federation/Klingon wars, the Romulan War, the Dominion War, the Cardassian Wars, the Tzenkethi War, the Borg... but they specifically chose to go with this.

The enlightened and decidedly non-tyrannical, diplomacy-centered United Federation of Planets sure goes to WAR a lot.

# ? Nov 13, 2018 01:06

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

I read Julian as white too, but I'm betting that racists know he doesn't count. Odo maybe, but he's an alien

# ? Nov 13, 2018 01:17

John Wick of Dogs: Mar 4, 2017; Can't post for 5 hours!

There's exciting white male characters like Lt George Primen Starfleet Security, Michael Eddington, Vedek Bariel(more like vedek burial am I right?), Shakaar, Admiral Ross

# ? Nov 13, 2018 02:08

McSpanky: Jan 16, 2005

ashpanash posted:

The enlightened and decidedly non-tyrannical, diplomacy-centered United Federation of Planets sure goes to WAR a lot.

Haters gonna hate :smugbert:

# ? Nov 13, 2018 02:37

Powered Descent: Jul 13, 2008; We haven't had that spirit here since 1969.

Phylodox posted:

I'm literally the guy who said Star Trek can go in any direction, as long as it's well written.

Actually I think you'll find that Star Trek can also go in new directions with terrible writing.

# ? Nov 13, 2018 02:53

Phylodox: Mar 30, 2006; College Slice

Tighclops posted:

But none of this or anything like this has been what's happening. You're talking about a hypothetical take on Star Trek that nobody in charge or the potential to be in charge has been pushing. Could what you're talking about be interesting? Sure, and I bet if somebody gave the right people millions and millions of dollars it would be possible to make a riveting movie out of one of The Culture novels too but that's about as likely as what you're talking about. I mean, there's also the part where there reaches a point where you're so far removed good or bad from the original idea that you may as well just start something new but they'll never do that because *~marketing~*

Instead we've had a series of -as I've said- increasingly tone deaf prequels and reboots that often more closely resemble thematically inappropriate shows like 24 than anything Star Trek with no end in sight. In this environment, when somebody says they want to break down and examine the fundamentals of the premise it's not unreasonable to assume that probably means it's going to result in more mid-90s pouchshirt wearing hardmen who make pretty speeches to wrap their war crimes up in a bow at the end

Then who cares? If they're going to be badly written no matter what, what difference does it make? Why is poorly written more-of-the-same somehow inherently better than poorly written something-different? A premise doesn't make something good or bad. Stick to the safe stuff and you'll get yet another season of Voyager, which you can already get by watching The Orville*.

quote:

You dismiss levity as "swarm" and meanwhile they're in talks to give a whole Star Trek series to a literal space hitler

Star Trek has always had levity. Tons of it. That's not what makes The Orville different. At all. The good comedy beats are the ones featuring Bortus and Isaac, and those could literally be transposed to Worf and Data respectively and lose nothing. What makes it different is dick jokes and pop culture references.

LinkesAuge posted:

Maybe you shouldn't use bad history as example. The concept of a "dark age" has long been dispelled and is very eurocentristic to begin with. We actually made a lot of progress in the so called "dark ages". And yes, things aren't (so far) cyclical for humanity, that was my point (we DO make actual progress and don't have to reset society constantly) but even more important, it's not just about looking at "reality", more important is your outlook at the future and what ideology you'd like to support/portray in this regard. There is certainly no lack of more pessimistic/cynical view points in SciFi and I can and do enjoy these but please let's not turn everything into that.

Again, this appeal to pessimism/cynicism/nihilism. There's literally nothing intrinsically pessimistic about the premise. At all. Unless the very idea of conflict is somehow pessimistic, in which case we're getting into early seasons of The Next Generation territory, and that was a mess. The end of the Federation doesn't have to be some desperate, world-ending business. Maybe the galaxy has simply outgrown the Federation, and its hardline adherents, people like Admiral Cartwright in The Undiscovered Country, are the antagonists. People more dedicated to the institution than the ideas it represents. There's never been any shortage of those kinds of people in Star Trek. Hell, in the original series almost every other starship captain we meet is either insane or evil. From what I can gather about the short "Calypso", which I haven't actually seen, the antagonistic V'draysh are concerned with old things and maintaining them, which would play into this thematically.

quote:

Institutions are build on ideas which come from people. I hate it when people use phrases like "Institutions fail. Ideas persevere" (no offense) because that's imo just not true or has at least other really bad implications because that'd mean BAD ideas also persevere and there is nothing to get past them. You also can't disconnect the institutions from the people, the instituations are functions of ideas and not the other way around. The problem you describe is that those (good) ideas can be corrupted over time and thus the institutions with them. Seperating between "the Federation" and "the people" is just semantics. There is a reason why I wrote if the current Federation (and thus its good society) turns evil it undermines the utopian portrayal of its society (and I do admit that the Federation is obviously by no means an actual utopia but it's at least as close as you can get for a TV show).
Sure you can go back to the "roots" of the "good" Federation but you now have established that SOMETHING was wrong, that the utopia wasn't really a utopia, that people didn't get past human "nature", that we once again look for answers to the very basic questions of society.
The problem with removing the "fake UN" is that the fake UN is the connection between the utopian and the outside world. Like I said an utopia society is indeed "boring" or let's say at least very limited in regards to its storytelling potential (it offers by definition no conflict on its own) and thus we need to look for it at its borders or beyond them (metaphorically and literally).
I'm not sure what the Romulans got to do with it, it's not like I think we should retread old ground. That's why I would want future Treks shows to actually move FORWARD in the timelime. I don't mind the Klingons, Romulans and so on as part of the ST universe but it also shouldn't revolve around them.

This is akin to saying "If the United States isn't around in 1000 years then liberty and justice don't exist." Things don't have to "become evil" to become defunct. Why is there so much obsession with "good" and "evil" and "light" and "dark"? The Federation served laudable ideals. If it doesn't last forever that doesn't somehow mean it was flawed and worthless. That's a ridiculous way of looking at things.

_{* For the record, I actually like The Orville, but it's stupid to pretend it's something it's not. It's not somehow revolutionary or excellent. It's literally, beat-for-beat, more Star Trek: The Next Generation/Voyager with some crass humour layered on top.}

# ? Nov 13, 2018 04:22

MikeJF: Dec 20, 2003

It'd be neat if in the Next Next Generation the entity was the Federation of Worlds. Set after the political merging of the United Federation of Planets and the Coalition of Worlds, a similar alliance they came across in, say, the Beta Quadrant.

Hell, the contact and union might be a decent part of a series. The UFP choosing to sacrifice its national identity to an even greater ideal.

MikeJF fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Nov 13, 2018

# ? Nov 13, 2018 04:28

galenanorth: May 19, 2016

MikeJF posted:

It'd be neat if in the Next Next Generation the entity was the Federation of Worlds. Set after the political merging of the United Federation of Planets and the Coalition of Worlds, a similar alliance they came across in, say, the Beta Quadrant.

Hell, the contact and union might be a decent part of a series. The UFP choosing to sacrifice its national identity to an even greater ideal.

That does make me realize the only legal entities consisting of more than one world they've ever encountered since the founding of the Federation have been either single worlds or brutal empires. The "ethics in foreign affairs" episodes mainly concern the diplomacy of dealing with brutal empires in a Cold War-like fashion. It's odd they've never come across another entity that is at least somewhat democratic on some scale or another. I guess Bajor is the most similar thing aside from the spirituality and only consisting of a single world. As other people said, it's because Cold War politics were topical in the 60s-early '90s, and as America has less of an economic hegemony over the rest of the world, that arrangement might be more relevant.

If there are worlds with valuable resources like dilithium in the rival's territory, and the rival's organization is too different to merge with the Federation just yet, then there'd be trade agreements to work out, but that'd be kind of boring

galenanorth fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Nov 13, 2018

# ? Nov 13, 2018 04:41

Pick: Jul 19, 2009; Nap Ghost

I want a series about romulan kabuki humor

# ? Nov 13, 2018 04:58

Cythereal: Nov 8, 2009; I love the potoo,
and the potoo loves you.

galenanorth posted:

That does make me realize the only legal entities consisting of more than one world they've ever encountered since the founding of the Federation have been either single worlds or brutal empires.

The Ferengi Alliance and Talarian Republic come to mind. We don't get many details about the latter but presumably the name Republic is indicative.

# ? Nov 13, 2018 04:59

primaltrash: Feb 11, 2008; (Thought-ful Croak)