Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

The Best Star Trek

Displaying poll results.
The Original Series (TOS) or The Animated Series (TAS)
  26% 34 votes
The Next Generation (TNG) or Deep Space 9 (DS9)
  46% 61 votes
Voyager (VOY) or Enterprise (ENT)
  2% 3 votes
Discovery (DSC) or Picard (PIC)
0% 1 votes
Lower Decks or Prodigy
  3% 5 votes
Strange New Worlds
  1% 2 votes
Orville
  10% 14 votes
Other (please specify in comments)
  7% 10 votes
130 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Saturday April 20, @06:44AM (7 children)

    by mhajicek (51) on Saturday April 20, @06:44AM (#1353700)

    Loved TNG, hated DS9.

    Liked Voyager. Haven't seen anything newer except the movies, because I won't sign up for a streaming service just for that.

    --
    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by SomeGuy on Sunday April 21, @01:45AM (4 children)

      by SomeGuy (5632) on Sunday April 21, @01:45AM (#1353805)

      By chance I was somewhere that had Strange New Worlds Season 2 for sale on DVDs. I don't do streaming either, but picked that up and it worked fine on my Windows 95 DVD player. If I recall correctly they didn't even have unskipable crap at the beginning.

      Just mentioning that in case DVDs appeal to anyone.

      Over all, I thought the show was pretty good.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by Samantha Wright on Monday April 22, @05:51PM (2 children)

        by Samantha Wright (4062) on Monday April 22, @05:51PM (#1354016)

        No unskippable crap? DVDs that just play? It sounds like you, my friend, bought pirated merchandise! Pray to the Copyright Regulation and Assessment Police for forgiveness!

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Tork on Monday April 22, @09:26PM

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 22, @09:26PM (#1354048)

          No unskippable crap? DVDs that just play? It sounds like you, my friend, bought pirated merchandise! Pray to the Copyright Regulation and Assessment Police for forgiveness!

          Ugh. I'm actually NOT watching Discovery right now (I'm in the small handful of people that actually like that show... sorta...) because when I watched the last season Paramount+ kept putting an un-skippable ad behind each episode. I was on the ad-free tier, or at least I was paying for it. I talked to support and told them I was getting an unskippable ad behind *everything* I watched and the best support was able to tell me was "that should only happen once a day...". I cancelled when I was done watching the current crop of shows because that completely misses the fucking point of an ad-free service.

          Greedy fucking assholes. I'm in no hurry to return. I'm not even bothering to look up if they rescinded that policy.

          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 4, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday April 23, @05:51PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 23, @05:51PM (#1354176) Journal

          Pray to the Copyright Regulation and Assessment Police for forgiveness!

          Shirley you mean Pay to the Copyright Police.

          --
          When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday April 27, @02:39AM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday April 27, @02:39AM (#1354723)

        I guess it was Enterprise (very different from Voyager, IMO) that told the "prequel" to TOS with Scott Bakula as captain.

        I preferred TNG to Enterprise, but felt strangely compelled to see every episode of Enterprise just to have a sense of completeness - I felt the same about TOS but in a different sort of way, TOS was just so dreadful in so many ways (mostly centered on Shatner) it was a bit like a gag reel for me.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Friday April 26, @12:56AM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Friday April 26, @12:56AM (#1354579)

      One thing I noticed about Voyager is that except for the fight scenes, you could listen to only the audio and get the whole story. Great if you're doing chores around the house.

    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday April 26, @03:50AM

      by mhajicek (51) on Friday April 26, @03:50AM (#1354597)

      Correction; I did see Enterprise, and I liked it.

      --
      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Saturday April 20, @01:37PM (152 children)

    by looorg (578) on Saturday April 20, @01:37PM (#1353735)

    The sad state of Star Trek is that the cartoon Lower Deck was probably the best Star Trek in decades and the next season (fifth) will be the last, probably. It was good, it was fun. Also it shouldn't have been grouped with Prodigy -- yes they are both cartoons but I think the audience, or their age, for each of them is very different.

    That said almost all the options were grouped options and the groupings are weird. I liked TOS, not a fan of TAS. I liked TNG, DS9 was ok -- better then average and a lot of the things to come. VOY was ok, ENT had it's moments but few and far between. DSC is horrible, it started the whole trek-woke bullshit. As I recall it it is the lowest rated Star Trek show ever in the history of the franchise. Not sure who likes it. I can probably count the good episodes on one hand -- all the good once have been when they went to the evil parallel dimension or whatever it was. PIC was odd, one would think it would be great since it had the cast of TNG making appearances. But while it had its moments it was also quite bad. As noted Lower Decks awesome, Prodigy was meh. SNW is sort of ok, not as horrible as Discovery but at the same time not great as TNG, DS9 or VOY. Orville as noted more and better Trek then a lot of the newer movies and lightyears better then Discovery. But it devolved over the seasons until it ended.

    In some regard, for a lack of better words, Trek have all gone space-woke or something. They are clearly compensating for something, even in the far far future (or a galaxy far far away even tho that would be mixing franchises). The movies became like weird space action movies and the tv-shows tried to hard to cram diversity and things down the throat of the audience. Or they tried to find a new audience. Yes Star Trek have always been sort of like pro diversity and all that but this is space-woke-politics on a whole new scale. And I guess the fans just doesn't care for it or like it. So when Orville came it tried to do Trek again and it showed that the movies or the current series then, Discovery, was horribly bad Star Trek when Seth MacFarlane who mainly makes poopjoke cartoons (Family Guy, American Dad etc) could make a better Sci-fi Trek show then the actual Star Trek franchise had managed to do in decades.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20, @04:31PM (125 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 20, @04:31PM (#1353750)

      I liked TOS, not a fan of TAS.

      DSC is horrible, it started the whole trek-woke bullshit.

      In some regard, for a lack of better words, Trek have all gone space-woke or something. They are clearly compensating for something, even in the far far future (or a galaxy far far away even tho that would be mixing franchises). The movies became like weird space action movies and the tv-shows tried to hard to cram diversity and things down the throat of the audience. Or they tried to find a new audience. Yes Star Trek have always been sort of like pro diversity and all that but this is space-woke-politics on a whole new scale.

      I'm not following your logic here. I'll start by asking, what was the most woke Trek series? The answer is TOS, and it's not close. In the TNG/DS9/VOY era, Rick Berman actively opposed some of the diversity-related themes the writers wanted to explore. I know, TNG had The Outcast, but that's really the one episode that was truly woke. From JJ Trek onward, the diversity and political elements really aren't much different than what you get in a lot of other TV. TOS was the one series that really pushed the limits of what TV networks and politicians would tolerate. This was in an era when Mississippi banned Sesame Street because of its diverse cast.

      Nichelle Nichols' portrayal of a Black woman as an officer on the bridge of the Enterprise was a strong statement, and everyone knows about her kiss with William Shatner in Plato's Stepchildren, but there's a whole lot more.

      • Errand of Mercy - Blunt critique of American foreign policy in the Cold War
      • A Taste of Armageddon - A commentary about the horror of war and it being too comfortable for people who don't experience its horrors
      • Day of the Dove - Another anti-war/anti-Cold War allegory
      • The Cloud Minders - Commentary on class issues and the rights of laborers
      • Who Mourns for Adonais? - Anti-religion message
      • The Apple - Another anti-religion message
      • The Mark of Gideon - Strong pro-contraception message
      • Patterns of Force - Criticism of fascism by having a planet of actual Nazis
      • Let That Be Your Last Battlefield - Blunt criticism of racism
      • The Ultimate Computer - Criticism of artificial intelligence and replacing human laborers with machines
      • The Empath - A criticism of sadism and torture
      • Mirror, Mirror - Blunt rejection of colonization and exploitation

      These are the episodes that first came to mind when I started writing this comment, so I'm sure there are others that also quality as woke. TOS was not only woke but incredibly blunt about it. The show pushed the limits of what NBC would tolerate. This in an era where TV shows actually got censored, not even for actually being woke but just for having a lot of diversity. If anything, Trek has tended to play it much safer in later series. I just don't understand the criticism that Trek from JJ onward is too woke. TOS was as woke as it gets, but people who criticize later Trek as too woke don't have a problem with TOS. That confuses me.

      I don't think the stories in JJ and CBS Trek are particularly compelling, which is a criticism of the writing. There's too much of a focus on action and the pacing seems too fast to allow for more thoughtful dialogue and commentary. And pacing is an even bigger problem in the rebooted Doctor Who, in my opinion. Star Trek was better, in my opinion, when the budget and technology made it really expensive to film large space battles, so the writers had to come up with other ways to tell their stories. DS9 wasn't nearly as heavily serialized as people think, with a lot more self-contained episodes and a few longer story arcs within the overall theme of the Dominion War. But making entire seasons serialized has taken away a lot of the interesting stand-alone episodes, which also were the stories that frequently allowed deeper character development. Would an episode like The Trouble With Tribbles or The Inner Light ever be considered within a heavily serialized show? The answer is almost certainly no, and that's a shame. I'm not a fan of Trek from JJ onward, and I see a lot of reasons to criticize it. But I'm just not following your position about it being too woke.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by mhajicek on Saturday April 20, @06:52PM (10 children)

        by mhajicek (51) on Saturday April 20, @06:52PM (#1353771)

        I think older audiences may have trouble keeping up with the shifts in society. If they watched a show as a kid, it will likely seem normal to them. If the show comes out, pushing boundaries, when they're 50, it may seem like too much.

        --
        The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by pTamok on Monday April 22, @09:55AM (9 children)

          by pTamok (3042) on Monday April 22, @09:55AM (#1353984)

          I think older audiences may have trouble keeping up with the shifts in society. If they watched a show as a kid, it will likely seem normal to them. If the show comes out, pushing boundaries, when they're 50, it may seem like too much.

          There's a quotation that I can't find right now that encapsulated this:

          What you experience as a child and teenager is normal.
          What you experience as a young adult is novel, exciting, and a sign of progress.
          What you experience as an older adult is unnecessary change for change's sake.
          What you experience as an old person is that things have become immoral.

          I think I'm somewhere between stage 3 and stage 4.

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Tuesday April 23, @05:57PM (5 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 23, @05:57PM (#1354177) Journal

            I remember a similar quote from Douglas Adams. [goodreads.com]

            “I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
            1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
            2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
            3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
            ― Douglas Adams, The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time

            --
            When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
            • (Score: 1) by pTamok on Wednesday April 24, @02:11PM

              by pTamok (3042) on Wednesday April 24, @02:11PM (#1354341)

              It was probably that quotation.
              Thank you.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, @07:00PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, @07:00PM (#1354672)

              But, many of our unreconstructed conservatives are mere children, on the model of Goybers and Tuning Point. The alt-right is not your grandpa's conservativism, they are not yelling at clouds, they are in it for the lulz, and sticking it to the libs. That is why they can't stand Star Trek, and prefer a Wookie fetish.

              • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Sunday April 28, @05:31AM (2 children)

                by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 28, @05:31AM (#1354863)

                Do they prefer an experienced partner, or a rookie Wookiee?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @06:35PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @06:35PM (#1354188)

            I've realized that no matter my age, the clouds float by in the sky all the same. They don't mind if you yell at them, or not.

            • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 24, @02:45PM

              by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 24, @02:45PM (#1354357) Journal

              I am reminded of Job 26:8 [biblegateway.com]:

              He wraps up the waters in his clouds,
                      yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.

              --
              When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Unixnut on Friday April 26, @10:11PM

            by Unixnut (5779) on Friday April 26, @10:11PM (#1354703)

            If that is true then I was born an "an older adult" and moved to "old person" sometime round my 20's XD

            In seriousness I have heard things like that before, but I am unconvinced. I think certain people are more independently minded and others are more herd following.

            Herd followers are more likely to follow whatever "society" considers "normal" at that point in time, while independently minded will sometimes follow, other times object and clash of what is considered the current "norm", whether their objections are seen as "old fashioned" or "radical" depends more on those they object with than the person doing the objecting.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21, @01:47AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21, @01:47AM (#1353806)

        DS9 wasn't nearly as heavily serialized as people think, with a lot more self-contained episodes and a few longer story arcs within the overall theme of the Dominion War.

        I think while most DS9 episodes were basically self-contained stories, the recurring locales and secondary characters made it so a lot of episodes, moreso than either TNG or VOY which both overlapped DS9 in their runs, were harder to appreciate by themselves if you just turned on the TV that day and had never seen any other DS9 episodes before.

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21, @10:44AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21, @10:44AM (#1353841)

          I think the problem is that while the episodes themselves are not always part of a serial arc, the teasers, first acts, and in-jokes between main characters often mention things that previously happened. Plus, with everything looking the same, orienting yourself in the universe is even more important. Watching a random episode without the ability to do so can be surprisingly difficult. As someone who watched it both ways, it is a good show if you can do it but terrible if you can’t.

        • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday April 22, @01:58PM

          by Freeman (732) on Monday April 22, @01:58PM (#1353998) Journal

          That's very true, up until DS9, there weren't many 2-part Star-Trek stories and an episode could be enjoyed without much of an introduction into the entire series. DS9 had long running plots and essentially each episode built on the other. That could partly account for my original distaste for DS9.

          --
          Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Vocal Minority on Sunday April 21, @12:20PM (109 children)

        by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Sunday April 21, @12:20PM (#1353852) Journal

        We seem to have this same conversation every time star trek and woke are mentioned, and it's getting a little tedious.

        What the OP was calling woke is not what you are calling woke.

        Briefly (and over simplified):

        Old trek, liberal humanist - Emphasis on our common humanity and fairness in the way people are to be treated.
        Woke - Marxists conflict theory applied to identity politics. Aims to take control of the means of cultural production. Typical outcomes include insufferable girlbosses and character assassinations of legacy characters who are the wrong 'race' and gender.

        Your confusion is now cleared up - hooray!

        I haven't seen any Star Trek after the Abrams movies - which were not woke in this sense (but WERE postmodern - I'll leave figuring that out as an exercise for the reader), but I have heard that the more recent series are.

        • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21, @01:16PM (56 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21, @01:16PM (#1353859)

          Woke - Marxists conflict theory applied to identity politics. Aims to take control of the means of cultural production.

          Lol wtf does that even mean?

          Typical outcomes include insufferable girlbosses and character assassinations of legacy characters who are the wrong 'race' and gender.

          As opposed to the insufferable boybosses. What characters were assassinated? Wrong 'race' and gender? Sounds more like a triggered misogynist doing the usual whine-fest about having to confront the systemic problems of humanity. Orville was hilariously heavy handed with "woke" topics, but since it was done with a humorous side you probably think it was mocking diversity topics. Doubtful Dolly made a cameo for a joke.

          • (Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Sunday April 21, @03:52PM (54 children)

            by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Sunday April 21, @03:52PM (#1353877) Journal

            Yeah, so basically woke media is media made by someone similar to this AC, LOL.

            Further reading:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theories [wikipedia.org]
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality [wikipedia.org]

            "systemic problems":
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure [wikipedia.org]

            • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21, @05:41PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21, @05:41PM (#1353886)

              Ah yes, the dreaded straight white guy who has friends that are gay, trans, and straight. The type of someones that do not appreciate bigotry towards their fellow humans for sinply existing, and who does not get bent out if shape that such examples of humanity are included in stories.

              You seem like the type that was offended by the new Ariel movie. It is hard for some people to realize the full spectrum of humanity when they were raised in oppressive ideologies that actively persecute LGBTQ persons.

            • (Score: 2) by julian on Monday April 22, @05:38AM (52 children)

              by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 22, @05:38AM (#1353967)

              Conservatism consists more and more of just stating things that are good and true in a sarcastic mocking tone and acting like that's an argument against them.

              • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday April 22, @06:30AM (33 children)

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 22, @06:30AM (#1353969) Journal

                I agree - and their comments are usually ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the issues under discussion.

                • (Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Tuesday April 23, @03:22AM (30 children)

                  by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Tuesday April 23, @03:22AM (#1354085) Journal

                  The post you are responding to is, from what I can tell because it doesn't make a lot of sense, criticising me for my mocking response to what was essentially an ad hominem attack. Somehow I don't think that poster considers themselves to be conservative - and neither do I.

                  • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 23, @07:05AM (29 children)

                    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 23, @07:05AM (#1354094) Journal

                    The following is my interpretation and it is apparent that you do not agree.

                    Your 'mocking response' is an attack against the person - you were not actually arguing against what he said. In my opinion (and I accept that your opinion may differ) that is also an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack in response to an ad hominem attack does not justify either of them. This is a trait that I am seeing more and more on this site, and it is very common elsewhere in the internet. Replies are all too often intent on ridiculing the person who made the comment rather than countering what he has said.

                    In extreme cases - and this does NOT apply here to your comment - there are many comments which simply mock an individual and do not even consider the contents of the thread at all. You have personally been on the receiving end of several such comments along with a small group of other community members, and I have tried to counter them with moderation or debate. Your ability to express your views as freely as any other community member is important and I hope that, in part, it is what differentiates our site from many others. I did not moderate your comment in any way, but I did respond with my opinion.

                    Please enjoy the rest of your day.

                    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @06:55PM (19 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @06:55PM (#1354190)

                      The reason the frequency of more adhom replies is increasing is because there is a heavy conservative leaning to the user base here and they mod up posts like TVM's while modding down snarky yet accurate replies. This has gone on for years, the trump years were when it got really bad, so now there is no patience for ignorant blow hards that want to keep their systems of oppression and whine incessantly about being "forced" LOL to see diversity.

                      From your own writings janrinok you don't seem to be on board with the isms. However, you do frequently defend the whining conservatives if not their ideas, while having scorn and moderation punishment for those pushing against the ignorance and lies. It is a ctural and generational gap I believe, we all have our own issues and no one is perfect. Please realize you protect one ideologucal class of commenters more than others even if you have zero intention of doing so.

                      Nothing TVM said was rational, and it started with absolute condescension. They deserved no erudite exanations, which would clearly be rejected as "marxist conflict theory applied to identity politics" as the most cringe conservative adhom. You must be more proactive if you do not want more reactive adhom-type replies to such garbage.

                      Anecdote time. I have a friend going through a sociology program and when woke topics came up one straight white man got upset and said he just did not like being forced to see such problems. His little bubble of privilege was being popped and it was unpleasant. That is what is happening here, and I had hoped a site priding itself on science and facts wouldn't coddle such stupidity. It helps no one, the babies will either grow up or not. Coddling them only makes certain they will remain babies.

                      Also since when is a reply restricting anyone's ability to comment? That right there best illustrates my points above.

                      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 23, @07:11PM (18 children)

                        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 23, @07:11PM (#1354191) Journal

                        The reason that you seem to think that I am always supporting right wing speech is because that is what you and a few others are always trying to silence. If there was the same amount of comment trying to silence individual left wing views then I would also be trying to support that part of our community. I encouraged aristarchus to publish many of his rejected submissions in his journal. They were not suitable for the front pages - but they would have been fine in his journal.

                        It is your political views which are clouding your judgement. I have no interest at all in other people's politics. I do care about the right of everyone to be able to express their view on this site without being attacked as a person rather than engaging them and debating their views.

                        I am disappointed that you and others have even managed to drag this poll into a US-centric political argument.

                        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @06:45AM (15 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @06:45AM (#1354282)

                          Never tried to silence them, you sure love embelishing and presuming. Over enough time your pattern becomes clear, multiple times in the last few weeks you have come to the defense of users who are not under attack. Giving them a taste of their own attitudes is not advocating censorship. You need some new material, your bias is oozing.

                          • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 24, @07:54AM (13 children)

                            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 24, @07:54AM (#1354286) Journal

                            Giving them a taste of their own attitudes

                            is most definitely attacking the person and not what they are say, IMHO. You are not presenting a logical rebuttal of their claims or views.

                            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @08:16AM (11 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @08:16AM (#1354291)

                              A) you admit they were posting personal attack garbage with inflammatory rhetoric

                              B) you defend vociferously their right to post such garbage, but not mine for responding logically with similar levels of rhetoric.

                              Conclusion: your standards are the same we see from US republicans, rules for thee but not for me. The other AC below, whom you'll likely censor, seems to have you pegged. I will start caring about your content standards when you lecture assholes like The Vocal Minority even half as much. Instead you only defend them from "being silenced" which is the most pathetic excuse for this thread.

                              • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday April 24, @08:53AM (9 children)

                                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 24, @08:53AM (#1354295) Journal

                                I defend everybody's right to express themselves. I do not do it based on their politics, religion, nationality or anything else. I have criticised TVM in this very discussion. We have exchanged views in a calm and reasonable way and both understand each other's points of view. That doesn't mean we agree with each other, but we haven't resorted to personal attacks against each other.

                                You will not win a argument by lowering yourself to your perceived opponent's standards.

                                This is exactly what I was saying a few comments earlier. The reduction of some debate to a shit throwing contest is very obvious in the USA, and thanks to social media, it is travelling around the world fairly quickly. If neither side is prepared to step back and begin to act in a civilised manner then you are all leading to the same destination - a possible civil war with weapons being available to everyone. And it is being reflected here on this site. Perhaps not surprisingly, it tends to be most evident in the journals that have the most ACs commenting in them, although it is certainly not limited to them alone. Some of them are not interested in an intelligent discussion but see this as an opportunity to target a specific group of people. That is NOT what this site is for. The Policy document makes that quite clear.

                                You are in a race to the bottom, and both sides seem keen to win.

                                Instead you only defend them from "being silenced" which is the most pathetic excuse for this thread.

                                Right wing site members do get temporary bans or warnings about their behaviour, just as every other group on this site occasionally do. it is up to the individual concerned whether he or she makes that a public matter or not.

                                This 'thread' is in a Poll about Star Trek and the popularity of various series within it. We shouldn't even be discussing the points you seem intent on repeatedly raising. If you do not like the topics under discussion you are free to seek another site that will meet you personal preferences.

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @09:36AM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @09:36AM (#1354298)

                                  Your patterns of responses do not match your claims. I will not waste effort writing academic essays for gish galloping bigots, and you were the one that entered into the thread judging my responses while not calling out TVM's glamebait rhetoric or modding it appropriately. I cannot help you see your own bias beyond what I've said, it is up to you to work on yourself.

                                  In summary, allow low level rhetoric then expect more of it. Continuously picking on leftist commentary only, aside from your rare condemnation of bigotry, shows how the site is truly governed. Stop jumping into discussions or at least lay blame equally, you are making these offtopic long threads by pronouncing your preeminent judgment which site history shows to be flawed and biased. Good luck.

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @07:28PM (2 children)

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @07:28PM (#1354395)

                                  When I had an account, I wrote a few journals about Star Trek, including one that was a strong criticism of CBS Trek. You can read the comments here: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=48668 [soylentnews.org]. I don't remember the exact details, but I included a single sentence at the end that the issue wasn't Trek being woke, to try to avoid that taking over the discussion. I've been very critical at times of the production, direction, and writing of Star Trek under CBS, and I would have been happy to discuss those things. I think my journal was objecting to CBS pulling Star Trek from other streaming services and putting everything solely behind the Paramount+ paywall. Despite that, the discussion quickly was taken over by an argument about CBS Trek being woke, and that dominated my journal.

                                  The same thing happened here, where there was quickly a comment posted about CBS Trek being too woke, and that took over the discussion. It's hard to have a discussion about the current state of Star Trek without someone complaining that it's woke, then devolving into an argument about politics. It's incredibly tiresome.

                                  If looorg thinks Star Trek is too woke, that's their opinion, and they're entitled to it. But it's also fair for me to point out that their opinion isn't supported by the facts. I've cited many Star Trek episodes and quoted scripts to try to make my point. The part of the responses that stood out to me were:

                                  I'll just re-quote myself here since apparently a fair amount of people decided to not read what I actually wrote and went on some rant about how woke and progressive Star Trek have always been and I have somehow missed that, which I quite clearly have not.

                                  This isn't an accurate assessment of what I wrote. I said that TOS-era Trek was very blunt about what it was trying to express, and that's actually been toned down in all the series after that. There's also this part:

                                  That is the difference. They made that the point. Not the story, or that is the story these days. Or the root of all the stories, the thing that binds it together. It overshadows the story. It overshadows Star Trek. Any critique of it is apparently now just cause you are white, cis, male, racists and a scumbag. Not because the writers decided to take the show and franchise on a wild tangent.

                                  Nobody at all jumped to those conclusions about looorg. They're making a straw man argument here. Instead, the responses tried to point out how the opinions about Trek being woke now weren't supported by the facts. Looorg is trying to make the other side appear unreasonable without actually engaging them on the arguments they made.

                                  I tried to continue the discussion by citing more examples to support my position. I also provided other examples of how criticisms of shows like Star Trek and Doctor Who are often not supported by the facts. I distinctly remember a YouTube channel called Nerdrotic complaining about the writers for recent seasons of Doctor Who, basically suggesting that the show was too woke and it was linked with the writers coming from other genres instead of having a science fiction background. I pointed out that Terry Nation, the guy who created the Daleks, was a comedy writer originally. If we applied Nerdrotic's standard, we would have rejected Douglas Adams as a writer and script editor for Doctor Who. Again, these criticisms aren't supported by the facts, and that's often the case. Instead of looorg citing examples to support their position, they made vague arguments and then stopped participating. The discussion has devolved into bickering over politics, and nothing useful is likely to come from it.

                                  Conservatives have the right to express their opinions. If they believe that Star Trek is too woke, they have the right to that opinion, no matter how much I disagree. But when I challenge them on the facts and cite examples, I don't expect to get a straw man argument in response. I don't know a lot about the OP, but I assume they're a positive contributor to this site. However, their comments in this poll come across as trolling. It's not hard to see why this discussion erupted into a dumpster fire of political bickering.

                                  It's frustrating that we can't have a discussion about Star Trek with this type of trolling and shitposting. It's fair to discuss how political and moral ideas are expressed through Trek, because the writers have always done that. If people don't like something and want to have an honest discussion, that's fine. It's also reasonable for people to argue that the TNG era wasn't woke enough because Rick Berman actively toned down diversity-related themes, and that he really didn't follow Gene Roddenberry's vision as closely as he would have wanted to do. I'm not opposed to discussing those things as long as they're done in good faith. But looorg decided to attack the person making the argument instead of actually refuting the arguments that Thexalon and I posted. There are interesting discussions that could be had about the messages contained within Star Trek stories. We don't have those types of discussions because the people who claim that Star Trek is too woke attack the person instead of defending their positions, and then the discussion quickly turns to shit. This isn't the first time I've seen arguments over whether Trek is too woke, and this is just following the predictable pattern of how those discussions go.

                                  Looorg's straw man argument is an attempt to shut down discussion by attacking the people disagreeing with them instead of addressing what they posted. Both sides have done so since then, but that's where the discussion originally went off track. This was predictable, and it's both unfortunate and frustrating.

                    • (Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Wednesday April 24, @04:11AM (5 children)

                      by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Wednesday April 24, @04:11AM (#1354270) Journal

                      I agree that the discourse on this site could be a lot better but I don't think I was really contributing negatively. I mean c'mon, the guy hit the ball right to me!

                      Thanks for the reassurance about the free speech values of the site. One of the reasons that I replied was because of who you are, and that the sort of views that you were appearing to support are very anti free speech.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, @07:12PM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, @07:12PM (#1354533)

                        Star Trek has always addressed political and social issues. I think it's on-topic to criticize how the messages are presented, and even to question whether it sends the right message. An example of the latter criticism is the Enterprise episode Dear Doctor that attempts to be a proto-Prime Directive story. But the story involves withholding medical treatment from one species of people on a planet who requested assistance. They do this because they're concerned about another species that's also evolving on the same planet, and think that providing medical treatment might impact the development of this other species. It totally misses the intent of the Prime Directive wrong, and refusing to provide assistance in response to a distress call is actually rather cruel. TNG's Symbiosis is actually a much more interesting dilemma. I don't have a problem with criticizing the writing, and that includes discussion of the moral of any of the stories. I just want the discussion to remain focused on Star Trek and not take a turn into just a massive argument over culture wars.

                        If someone asserts that recent Star Trek is too direct and too preachy in with the moral of the stories, they should be prepared to hear other points of view. That includes challenging whether Star Trek has actually become more overt with their messaging. In TOS, you have literal Nazis on another planet (Patterns of Force), and also the American flag and the Constitution on another planet but the inhabitants didn't understand their meaning (The Omega Glory). Or there's TNG, where Journey's End involves the Enterprise being sent to resettle a colony of Native Americans from a planet that would end up in Cardassian territory due to the recent treaty with the Federation. One commenter mentioned transgender issues, which were also addressed in TNG and DS9. There's The Outcast, which is very clear in its message, though still somewhat toned down at the request of Rick Berman. There's also the Trill, which were introduced in TNG's The Host, which involves a symbiont being transferred from a male host to a female host. The DS9 pilot Emissary involves the Dax symbiont being transferred from Curzon to Jadzia. That's why Sisko often addresses Jadzia Dax as "old man" despite Jadzia being a woman, so that messaging is ubiquitous throughout DS9.

                        I have no problem if people want to criticize the writing of Star Trek. They should just be prepared to hear different opinions, and for people to challenge them if the evidence doesn't support their position. It's well known that Rick Berman actively wanted some of the messaging about social issues to be toned down in the TNG era. I don't know as much about what influences the writing of CBS Trek, but I believe that TV networks tend to prefer allegorical messages to the more literal approach that TOS took.

                        Incidentally, I really dislike the writing, production, and direction of CBS Trek. I don't like Discovery and Picard at all, and think they're easily the two worst Star Trek series. I just disagree with the assessment that these series are too political. If you can figure out which AC comments are mine, you'll find lots of criticisms I've posted about CBS Trek.

              • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, @11:44PM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, @11:44PM (#1354065)

                I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Were the 100,000,000 corpses piled up under Marxist regimes "good and true" or am I misunderstanding? And does anybody think Cultural Marxism, as illiberal praxis, will have less murderous outcomes?

              • (Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Tuesday April 23, @03:13AM (13 children)

                by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Tuesday April 23, @03:13AM (#1354083) Journal

                Well it's good thing that I'm not a conservative and what I wrote has nothing to do with conservatism then! I'm also struggling to see what these "good and true" things that I'm apparently mocking are, perhaps you could enlighten me?

                • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @06:51AM (12 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @06:51AM (#1354093)

                  Woke - Marxists conflict theory applied to identity politics. Aims to take control of the means of cultural production. Typical outcomes include insufferable girlbosses and character assassinations of legacy characters who are the wrong 'race' and gender.

                  Well hate to break it to you, but that paragraph is the most stereotylically US Republican or Libertarian (R with less bible) description of woke. Everyrhing in life comes in a variety of bell curves, so sure maybe overall you might not fit entirely in one box, but that paragraph sure sounds like it.

                  The good and true things are what being woke is about. Realizing racism and misogyny are deeply ingrained in Western societies and many problems of oppression and abuse stem from those issues. Mocking them as insufferable girl bosses and marxism is a huge red flag that you are an insufferable conservative mad that society is changing and you can't help but be exposed to issues you'd rather pretend do not exist. Yes, assumptions about you made from your posts, as everyone does.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @03:07PM (8 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @03:07PM (#1354148)

                    Well hate to break it to you, but that paragraph is the most stereotylically US Republican or Libertarian (R with less bible) description of woke.

                    You don't appear to understand Republicanism, Libertarianism or Wokism.

                    Everyrhing in life comes in a variety of bell curves

                    So you read Charles Murray then?

                    The good and true things are what being woke is about. Realizing racism and misogyny are deeply ingrained in Western societies and many problems of oppression and abuse stem from those issues.

                    Is that why so many universities and colleges are under Department of Education investigation for rampant anti-semitism? To understand what "Woke" is, is to understand why calls for Minouche Shafik to resign will come from all sides.

                    Shafik is of course, the president of Colombia University which was home to the Frankfurt School during their exile from Nazi Germany. It was there they argued the denazification program should focus on collective punishment rather than solely on high ranking Nazis. The golem has turned. Would you like some "white privilege" for your guilt-tripping narcissistic abuse today? Or would you prefer a primer on Marxist conflict theory and dialectics so that you can no longer deny that your "good and true" are cancerous lies?

                    Star Trek was a utopian Liberal future, not college kids engaging in Borg Collective like screeching for "intifada" and "death to America". As to "woke" being a progressive movement, in their eyes, this Liberal has now apparently progressed from "Nazi" to "Zionist" - so there's that!

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @05:47PM (6 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @05:47PM (#1354172)

                      Humans often go to extremes, even in movements trying to make things better but I see you don't even have proper examples for your Borg and death to America comments. I see you have only angry howling left, good luck with all that. Systemic racism and sexism are real issues, and they affect straight white men as well.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @09:38PM (5 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @09:38PM (#1354225)

                        I see you don't even have proper examples for your Borg and death to America comments.

                        Leftists call this cult-like repetition [twitter.com] "a human megaphone" to disguise what it actually is. No disguising this. [bizpacreview.com]

                        I see you have only angry howling left, good luck with all that.

                        I am not Allen Ginsberg.

                        Systemic racism and sexism are real issues, and they affect straight white men as well.

                        Yes, we call it "critical theory". It's the erasure of merit in favor of identity politics and is fully intended to corrode social cohesion. It started in the US at Colombia, and the faux oppressor / oppressed dichotomy is at the root of the explosion of anti-semitism we're seeing at universities. [youtube.com] It's good you're starting to understand the true problem.

                        As for Colombia, it took years for the university to financially recover from the '68 protests. They should expel the current students and fully decolonize it by giving the land back to the Lenape who could do something useful with it like building a casino.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @08:18AM (2 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @08:18AM (#1354292)

                          I see we have the usual current affairs replies going on, means you are a Fox News or alternate rightwing media outlet afficianado.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @01:42PM (1 child)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @01:42PM (#1354334)

                            We're discussing the utopian liberalism of Star Trek as it differs from the illiberalism of the woke. Every news channel is full of woke university students chanting "from the river to the sea...", most unable to answer which river and which sea. You think the comparison to Borg like collectivism is misplaced or my specific mention of current affairs at Colombia which is ground zero for Critical Theory (IE: woke) in the US?

                            You discredit this history as "current affairs", here's Trudy Gold explaining why it's not. [youtube.com] I'm sure it wasn't "current affairs" when Discovery writers attempted to draw parallels between anti-interventionist MAGA voters and the Klingon Empire - perhaps they were Fox News afficianados too?

                            One of the things that bugged me, specifically with Voyager was the self-satisfied smugness. At least writers back then could conceive storylines where the erstwhile crew were deceived, had to make difficult choices or plain got it wrong. If there were such self-reflection among the woke, they wouldn't be woke, or support Hamas. [youtube.com]

                            Liberals have principles, we hold to our values. The woke are petulant, virtue signalling narcissists condemned to remain self-satisfied only in their all-encompassing ignorance.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, @11:14PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, @11:14PM (#1354570)

                              It is hilarious how backwards you have reality.

                  • (Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Wednesday April 24, @03:57AM (2 children)

                    by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Wednesday April 24, @03:57AM (#1354268) Journal

                    Your quote comes from one of my previous posts, not the one that was replied to, so the reply still doesn't make sense. And anyway, just because you are receiving criticism from someone who you think is bad does not make anyone criticising you for the same things one of those people. The use of "conservative" in these contexts is really just a thought terminating cliche.

                    Also - you are again proving the point I was actually trying to make. Old Trek was "liberal" - the whole show was "Americans in space" being part of an idealised space USA. The view that western culture is fundamentally racist and sexist, or at least best viewed in that way, is a woke perspective, and, from what I understand, seems to be the overarching philosophy of the newer Star Trek shows.

                    Obviously I am (very) critical of woke but getting into that is just a distraction, and I don't have the time (and someone else seems to want to play culture war with you anyway, or perhaps another part of your own brain, who can tell with ACs these days). Point taken that I shouldn't have used the word "insufferable", that was unnecessary and inflammatory.

                    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @06:51AM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @06:51AM (#1354283)

                      You are right, should have just called a spade a spade. Not all conservatives are sexist bigots.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday April 24, @08:54PM (48 children)

          by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 24, @08:54PM (#1354412)

          Woke - Marxists conflict theory applied to identity politics.

          Um, no. "Woke" is being aware of discrimination and injustice in our current society with a desire to end them. The derogatory re-definition of the term is coming from those who are against getting rid of said discrimination and injustice for one reason or another.

          Aims to take control of the means of cultural production. Typical outcomes include insufferable girlbosses and character assassinations of legacy characters who are the wrong 'race' and gender.

          Crappy writing to check the inclusivity box is crappy. It's more of a ham-fisted attempt to pander to more diverse groups than anything else.

          I haven't seen any Star Trek after the Abrams movies - which were not woke in this sense

          There was one instance that I remember from them. I forget which one, but there was a scene where Kirk was watching Sulu interact with his family, including a husband, establishing Sulu's orientation (likely a nod to George Takei). I just remember that it was the right way to do it: put it out there as something normal without bashing the viewer over the head with it.

          Star Trek has ALWAYS been woke. How else would there have been a black woman, an alien, and a Russian as part of the bridge crew back in the 60s?

          --
          The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @11:47PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @11:47PM (#1354437)

            Um, no. "Woke" is being aware of discrimination and injustice in our current society with a desire to end them.

            No it isn't. We can trace the DNA from Gramsci thru the Frankfurt school and Angela Davis to Crenshaw and by expansion to Butler and other such cretins. Critical Theory has nothing to do with creating social harmony, it is the opposite.

            The derogatory re-definition of the term is coming from those who are against getting rid of said discrimination and injustice for one reason or another.

            The original term wasn't redefined, the praxis was... although I grant your description of Crenshaw and friends is completely accurate.

            "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." -- Henry Rogers (AKA: "Ibram X. Kendi"), "How to be an Anti-Racist"

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, @07:57PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, @07:57PM (#1354685)

              I can't speak to the intent of Henry Roger' statement, but sounds more like the paradox of intolerance. Tolerating intolerance is not required to be a tolerant person.

              The way you can tell where the real problem lies by which groups are committing the most prejudiced violence and supporting discriminatory legislation. If you have a real complaint and not culture war BS then feel free to share and we can discuss.

            • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Friday April 26, @09:43PM (1 child)

              by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 26, @09:43PM (#1354701)

              No it isn't. We can trace the DNA from Gramsci thru the Frankfurt school and Angela Davis to Crenshaw and by expansion to Butler and other such cretins.

              No clue about what you're asserting here. The definition comes from Black culture. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/19/1188543449/what-does-the-word-woke-really-mean-and-where-does-it-come-from [npr.org]

              Critical Theory has nothing to do with creating social harmony, it is the opposite.

              Sure, but how else does one change society and culture for the better? When there's a problem that's a part of society and culture, fixing it is going to require some demolition.

              The original term wasn't redefined, the praxis was

              No. The term's original application is still valid; the definition has just been hijacked to mean something bad by hucksters opposed to the original goal.

              "The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination." -- Henry Rogers (AKA: "Ibram X. Kendi"), "How to be an Anti-Racist"

              I disagree strongly with that assertion. Fixing discrimination requires getting rid of it. Unfortunately, it is a slow process only advanced one funeral at a time.

              --
              The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
              • (Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Thursday May 02, @09:12PM

                by ChrisMaple (6964) on Thursday May 02, @09:12PM (#1355598)

                When there's a problem that's a part of society and culture, fixing it is going to require some demolition.

                When a person is blocked from a job by race, a solution is to hire that person, not to beat up the blocker.

          • (Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Thursday April 25, @04:34AM (42 children)

            by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Thursday April 25, @04:34AM (#1354465) Journal

            Sorry, no, I'm telling you specifically what I mean when I use the term "woke", and this is consistent with how the broader anti-woke movement uses the term (and yes we are mocking the idea that someone would use the term to indicate that they and their friends have special insight into the injustices in the world, and the rest of us are uncultured troglodytes). There is plenty of literature and media about this if you care to look. That other people may use it in a different way is irrelevant as that is not how it is being used here. I'm telling you this and yet somehow you seem to want to just use your own definition and restate what was in the OP.

            To be fair, looking at their subsequent posts, I don't think looorg was specifically using the word this way. I think they were just referring to what you are calling "a ham-fisted attempt to pander to more diverse groups". But I would argue that the underlying cause of this is, at least partially, the ideology I'm talking about.

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 25, @06:00AM (24 children)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 25, @06:00AM (#1354468) Journal

              Why argue about what it means when it already defined and included in various dictionaries?

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke [wikipedia.org]

              The phrase stay woke has been present in AAVE since the 1930s. In some contexts, it referred to an awareness of social and political issues affecting African Americans. The phrase was uttered in recordings from the mid-20th century by Lead Belly and, post-millennium, by Erykah Badu.

              The term woke gained further popularity in the 2010s. Over time, it became increasingly connected to matters beyond race such as gender and identities perceived as marginalized. During the 2014 Ferguson protests, the phrase was popularized by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists seeking to raise awareness about police shootings of African Americans. After the term was used on Black Twitter, woke was increasingly used by white people, who often used it to signal their support for BLM; some commentators criticized this usage as cultural appropriation. The term became popular with millennials and members of Generation Z. As its use spread internationally, woke was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017.

              By 2020, the term became a sarcastic pejorative among many on the political right and some centrists in Western countries, targeting various leftist and progressive movements. Woke was seen as offensive by commentators who felt it disparaged advocates of identity and race-related ideologies. Subsequently, terms like woke-washing and woke capitalism emerged to criticize those using social or political causes for financial or political gain, rather than sincere commitment, a phenomenon often referred to as "performative activism".

              • (Score: 1, Redundant) by The Vocal Minority on Friday April 26, @03:19AM (23 children)

                by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Friday April 26, @03:19AM (#1354592) Journal

                As much as the way I am using the term "woke" falls within that definition, I think there is always room to discuss how a term is being used in a particular situation without having to resort to "top down" imposition from an institutional source. It helps avoid equivocation, either accidental or deliberate.

                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30, @09:28PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30, @09:28PM (#1355259)

                  There is always room to discuss how terms are used, but you object to "top down imposition" while you try and apply your own narrow viewpoint guided by the extremes you feel justify disregarding the real problems.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, @06:17AM (15 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, @06:17AM (#1354472)

              What do you think would happen if Plato's Stepchildren aired with today's technology and viewing habits, but everything else the same? That is, of course, the TOS episode where Kirk and Uhura kiss. What kind of reaction would NBC get from fans? I suspect it would be polarizing, with some people loving it, and other people hating it and saying it's offensive.

              What really happened? If fan mail is any indication, the response was overwhelmingly positive [wikipedia.org] and almost nobody complained.

              Looorg's comments repeat the same things I've heard in other arguments about whether CBS Trek is too "woke". I've seen almost that exact same wording elsewhere, and the arguments are almost identical. That includes the straw man argument about people making negative assumptions about people who don't like CBS Trek. I've heard it all before, and almost verbatim. Also notice that he doesn't seem able to point to specific episodes, scenes, or dialogue as examples of his opinion. It looks like a lot of talking points and nothing more.

              Although I don't like how he reacted to comments I posted in reply to him, I'm not accusing him of being a copypasta troll. He might have read reviews of CBS Trek online before watching it, saw people he considers to be his peers say that Trek is extremely woke, and that preconditioned him to believe that he was watching something extremely woke. Alternatively, perhaps he wasn't entertained by the shows he watched, looked up reviews online and saw the criticism of CBS Trek being woke, and concluded that's why he also didn't enjoy what he watched.

              Social media and the internet didn't exist in the 1960s. There weren't DVRs, streaming services, or VHS, so there really weren't a lot of ways for people to be influenced by other people's opinions before watching an episode. People just weren't bothered by Kirk and Uhura kissing, and there was no internet and no social media to tell people they should find it offensive. I don't think looorg really considered CBS Trek woke according to your standard. He's probably using that term because he's seen other people call CBS Trek woke and thinks he agrees with them. Groupthink is powerful and drives a lot of today's polarization.

              • (Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday April 25, @02:44PM (5 children)

                by looorg (578) on Thursday April 25, @02:44PM (#1354515)

                Although I don't like how he reacted to comments I posted in reply to him

                Up until now I have not reacted, responded or modded any of your posts. Perhaps that is what you don't like. I have made five posts here, six if you count this one. One was the initial post, the others where to Thexalon and Hubie and one response was to myself about spelling. None of them, until now, have been a response to you, or whatever other AC posts there are. But since you are now apparently making claims and naming me and I should at least correct you in that regard.

                If you enjoy DSC that is fine. I have said nothing to the contrary. I think Trek have degraded over the decades and started to tell different stories and promoting ideals it didn't previously promote. I find the current story telling detrimental to Trek in general. You apparently disagree. Great.

                If you believe that TOS and DSC are sending the same messages or are "woke" on the same level I guess we are not on the same page. To the surprise of nobody. I'm sure they are glad you are enjoying the show.

                That Star Trek has had a message or is seen as an analogy of the Cold War isn't really worth pointing out anymore. Or are we to talk about how VOY is sharing a premise with the Odyssey by Homer to? Is that somehow even relevant here? I don't think so.

                You wanted some example of episodes and stories. Lets take Enterprise 1x05 Unexpected. Is that a story about the struggle of transgender people and a man getting pregnant or just a funny story about how a man got pregnant when an alien touched his bare skin? I saw it as a funny story, others might have seen it in a different light. Who is in that regard correct?

                But the only one here that has been building any straw men or trying to put words in the mouth of someone else is you. For all I know you are AC sockpuppeting with yourself. I don´t really care. But this is as far as I'm willing to engage with you.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, @04:39PM (4 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, @04:39PM (#1354521)

                  Among other things, I posted this comment [soylentnews.org] that provided many examples of TOS being woke. Although you didn't directly reply, you appeared to reference my comment in your comment here [soylentnews.org], and some of what you said seemed to misrepresent what I had posted. In particular, I didn't appreciate this:

                  Any critique of it is apparently now just cause you are white, cis, male, racists and a scumbag. Not because the writers decided to take the show and franchise on a wild tangent.

                  I've offered many good reasons why people don't like CBS Trek. I personally don't like the CBS era of Trek, nor do I like the JJ movies. It has everything to do with the writing, production, and direction. But I think Trek is actually less blunt in their social message now than they used to be. I have a few giveaways in how I write my comments that are different from other ACs, and it's especially pronounced. If you can figure out what those are, it's very obvious which AC comments actually are mine. All I've done is disagree that CBS Trek is woke, and I think many of the things you've said -- like what I quoted -- were unfair.

                  I don't think CBS Trek very good, and I personally don't like it. Lower Decks and Prodigy are small improvements. Strange new Worlds is a little better, too, and my understanding is that's because Anson Mount wanted some creative control. But Discovery and Picard were just bad. Having one galactic-scale crisis after another in Discovery (the Dark Matter Anomaly and the Burn) was just lazy writing. The Short Trek The Trouble with Edward was an attempt at comedy, but just came across as mean-spirited and lacked the charm and fun of The Trouble with Tribbles and Trials and Tribble-ations. It's sometimes cited as an example of being woke, but I think it's just unfunny and a complete failure at comedy. My standard is that comedy has to be funny, and if something isn't funny, it's a failure.

                  If we're discussing Enterprise, the episode you reference was probably an attempt to be silly. For the most part, Enterprise didn't do humor very well. I didn't particularly enjoy A Night in Sickbay, either, and it actually made me cringe. On the other hand, Enterprise had an episode called Cogenitor, which had a very blunt message.

                  H&I is a cable channel that shows five classic Star Trek episodes every night except Saturday. Last night, the TOS episode they showed was The Omega Glory, which was very blunt in having American flags, and having the Constitution be the governing document of another planet, though the inhabitants didn't understand its words, and didn't understand that those documents were intended to apply to everyone. There was nothing subtle about it at all, and it's also considered a really bad TOS episode.

                  The TNG episode was Violations, which is a story about Ullians, who have telepathic abilities and can help people recover memories they've lost. One of the three Ullians starts probing people's memories without their permission, causing people to fall into comas. It's actually a pretty disturbing episode, right up there with Eye of the Beholder, in the subject matter and how it's presented through the episode. Violations is a story about one of the Ullians mind-raping people, then trying to frame his father for it. It's a story about rape, it was intended to be disturbing, and it succeeded in being disturbing. I mentioned Eye of the Beholder, which also involves telepathy, but is about suicide.

                  The DS9 episode was Far Beyond the Stars, which is about racism in the 1950s. It's very direct, and it's also one of the greatest episodes of Trek.

                  It took until the fourth episode of the night, the Voyager episode The 37s, before we got an episode that didn't have a strong message that was presented bluntly. The three previous stories were all very direct, with varying degrees of quality in the episodes. I enjoyed the DS9 episode but found the TOS and TNG episodes a bit difficult to watch.

                  Anyway, if you can figure out how my posting style gives away who I am, you can figure out which AC comments are mine. I think you'll see that I've tried to be very fair to you. My reply to The Vocal Minority was about groupthink, by the way, and how our opinions of things we watch are preconditioned by what others say. The Vocal Minority referenced you, and so I offered another perspective on what people mean when they say something is woke.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, @08:46PM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, @08:46PM (#1354544)

                    Is this "academic" [emory.edu] arrested earlier today at Emory "woke" under the Left's own '00s colloquial redefinition that Janirock quoted above?

                    Noëlle McAfee is a critical theorist working in the tradition of the Frankfurt School, drawing on feminist philosophy, psychoanalysis, and political theory.

                    How tiresome that people keep explaining exactly what "woke" is and how it differs from Liberalism and still some persist in citing Liberal beliefs as if they're "woke". Critical Theory is Neo-Marxism, Marxists and Fascists are authoritarian collectivists, both of these Hegelian sects are opposed to Individualist Liberalism. HTH!

                    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, @11:14PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, @11:14PM (#1354569)

                      I don't care about someone at Emory University being arrested because it's utterly irrelevant to the topic of Star Trek. I don't give a damn about pedantic discussions over the definition of "woke" and how that differs from its colloquial use. It's just not very interesting to me, so you'll need to find someone else to discuss that wish.

                      I'm using the term in the same context that looorg originally used it in this thread to discuss Star Trek. Now, if you want to insist that JJ Trek and/or CBS Trek are "woke" according to your definition, then provide specific evidence of it. What episodes, storylines, or dialogue support your position that Trek is "woke"? It's not my job to demonstrate your point for you.

                      I am open to discussing how social and economic issues are actually portrayed in Star Trek. In fact, I have discussed them previously [soylentnews.org] on more than one occasion [soylentnews.org]. If you want to discuss how the post-scarcity economy of the Federation works and what the writers want to convey, that could be intriguing. There are worthwhile discussions that could be had about the government of the Federation, or what civilian life is like. These are some really interesting discussions to be had, especially because Star Trek is mostly about life in Starfleet instead of being told from a civilian perspective. Star Trek writers also had different perspectives, with TNG's The Neutral Zone making a blunt and fairly simplistic criticism of capitalism and greed, while DS9's critique of capitalism through the Ferengi-focused episodes is considerably more nuanced. Here's a hint: the DS9 writers criticized both laissez-faire capitalism and also how bad regulation can lead to both corruption and non-compliance with regulation. It's nuanced and has a lot of depth, contrary to what people might think.

                      Now, if you actually want to discuss Star Trek, I'm certainly willing to do so. But I don't give a damn about pedantic arguments over the definition of the word "woke", the arrest of someone at Emory University, or having an argument about culture wars. Perhaps you'll find it more enjoyable and less tiresome to discuss this with someone else.

              • (Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Friday April 26, @04:42AM (8 children)

                by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Friday April 26, @04:42AM (#1354601) Journal

                Sorry, I'm not really sure what your argument is here? That Looorg is only saying that new trek is woke because they have been told to say that by the internet, or simply doesn't understand why they don't like something? I can understand why they have been annoyed by your post!

                Sooo...therefore it is valid to say that old trek is also woke because of...reasons???

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, @06:01AM (6 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, @06:01AM (#1354608)

                  I've seen several comments insisting that CBS Trek is too overt in its political and social messages compared with prior series. No specific examples have been provided, though. Yes, there have been some attempts to explain this, but it's incredibly vague to the point that I really have absolutely no idea what the complaint really is. From what I understand, the objection seems to be that CBS Trek is more overt and direct in their messaging than previous series. Others and I have provided plenty of examples of earlier series being extremely blunt with their messaging, trying to understand why people think CBS Trek is actually more preachy, and why they think that the message overshadows the story. The idea that CBS Trek is way more blunt and direct with the political and social ideas it intends to convey simply doesn't seem to be supported by the facts. I'm trying to offer an explanation to counter other ACs who imply that people with conservative points of view are posting in bad faith here.

                  You have the right to your own opinions about what is and is not "woke". I saw your reply here [soylentnews.org] to a comment of mine, but I just don't find that topic very interesting. I'm here to discuss Star Trek, as I've tried to in many places. I've probably spent far too much of my life watching Star Trek and Doctor Who, but I've really enjoyed them. I don't want to argue about US politics or the definition of woke, and that doesn't lead to insightful discussions. Frankly, the needlessly combative and rude comments about things that are totally off-topic have pretty much ruined this poll discussion for me.

                  If someone argued that the writing of CBS Trek is lazy and cited specific examples of really overt political and social messaging that they found off-putting, I would welcome that discussion. When I had an account, I wrote a journal ripping the CBS Trek series, and you can read the discussion here: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=48668 [soylentnews.org]. I tried to steer people away from talking about the supposed wokeness to focus on other criticisms, but about 80% of the discussion ended up being about that anyway, and it devolved into a pissing match about politics. It's off-topic, not constructive, and just plain boring. Can't we get back to the usual complaining about the writing, production, and directing of Trek? I'd welcome some good old-fashioned Rick Berman hate over this type of discussion. At least people had clear and specific reasons for disliking Berman.

                  • (Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Tuesday April 30, @04:20AM (5 children)

                    by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Tuesday April 30, @04:20AM (#1355169) Journal

                    Sorry, I've been busy so haven't replied sooner. As I've said before I haven't watched the new trek shows because they just haven't appeared to be any good, so I can't really point out anything particular from specific episodes. I don't spend a lot of time watching media so I am very picky about what I watch, and I don't have any allegiance to any franchises.

                    The woke are "cultural constructivists" - people are determined by culture - so you won't get any long winded dialogue about intersectionality or whatever because they just do not believe in the liberal idea of changing peoples minds through reason. It they do pontificate it will be from a position of power (e.g. a DEI workshop) and largely propaganda. In media this manifests thematically instead. A somewhat trek related example is the trek inspired episode from Black Mirror. It was the season that this series went super woke (the fourth?) and it was quite good up until then. In this show the evil white man has trapped self aware digital recreations of his diverse coworkers in his private old trek style online game and has them do his bidding to play out his own narcissistic fantasies. This is social critique straight out of the woke world view. Even better, when the diverse cast escape into the wider online game, in doing so the only white man in the crew has to sacrifice himself to be in pain forever so that they can do so. Yowzers!

                    You should get another username. From what I could see you were just caught up in the game playing by the old site owners. But that's fine, these sorts of things happen. I think you are a great contributor to the site (even if I did think that you were an Ari sock to begin with :))

                    • (Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30, @08:03AM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30, @08:03AM (#1355181)

                      Jesus H. Maryanne Christ you are insufferable.

                      • (Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Wednesday May 01, @03:59PM (1 child)

                        by The Vocal Minority (2765) on Wednesday May 01, @03:59PM (#1355383) Journal

                        Of course you have a username that is how you are moding your own posts!

                        Meh, if you're going to be that fragile I just won't bother.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 02, @10:47PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 02, @10:47PM (#1355618)

                      I haven't replied to your comment until now. I'm not responsible for the other AC comment, nor did I moderate your comment. Janrinok could probably confirm that I don't have an account and only post as an AC. He's also pretty good at recognizing my comments, and I also know that unless some random AC managed to post comments using the IP address of my cable modem, the hash will be different. It doesn't prove innocence, but it's hard to prove a negative. I decided to give it a rest arguing about "woke" and actually appreciated the last paragraph of your comment. I like discussing Star Trek, but I really prefer to discuss other ideas than whether it's "woke" or not. But I'd have a very hard time responding to your last paragraph with a personal attack.

                      A long time ago, I created another account, realDonaldTroll [soylentnews.org], as a joke. I don't even remember what email address I registered it with, let alone the password for the account. I also asked that it be disabled when the dalek account was also disabled. The username was a joke, much like old school Slashdot accounts used to incorporate "troll" into clever usenames like trollercoaster. I intended to discuss things in a serious manner, but never did, and eventually forgot about the account. I have no idea if it's been disabled, but I haven't used it since a day or two after its creation and don't even know how to login. Either way, you're mistaken in assuming I'm posting personal attacks or abusing moderation. I'm responding now because I saw a new comment had been posted and wondered if there was any discussion of stuff like my idea for season 4 of Voyager. I find that sort of discussion much more interesting, but perhaps it's more appropriate somewhere like r/DaystromInstitute.

                      I have thought about getting a new account or asking janrinok to reactivate the dalek account. But neither is likely to happen in the foreseeable future. I don't get to post journals, participate in many of the discussions, or to moderate other users. Those are actually good things for me because there are fewer reasons for me to spend lots of time on this site and more reason to spend time on my business. Since I'm now self-employed, I don't have anyone to set deadlines for me, so it's up to me to have enough discipline to get work done. Much of it involves some Python coding and writing articles about the results for public consumption. I'm also doing some work with a Raspberry Pi and an Arduino to develop a platform for collecting and recording environmental sensors. It's not nearly as accurate as something like a mobile mesonet (see https://www.nssl.noaa.gov/tools/observation/ [noaa.gov] for what that is), but I'm prototyping a mobile weather station. All of that takes time, and I'm better off directing more of my effort there or just spending more outdoors this summer than arguing about stuff online. When janrinok said he hoped I'd be involved with policy discussions again, I declined because I knew it could start taking up a lot of my time, and because I knew it would probably be as contentious as last time. When it comes to online discussions, less is more for me. I hope you can respect that.

                      In an effort to make this comment slightly on-topic, I'll point out that one of the themes in TNG (e.g., when Picard lowers the Enterprise's shields in The Enemy while a Romulan warbird has their disruptors locked on target) is that a bit of trust goes a long way. Or there's trusting crew members in episodes like Cause and Effect (time loop) or Schisms (aliens deep in subspace abducting crew members and performing experiments on them) when they report really bizarre and improbable events happening. I need to do better about not getting pulled into arguments and letting things get heated. But I assure you that I'm not posting AC personal attacks, and I haven't moderated any comments since the dalek account was closed. I can't prove any of this, of course, so it's up to you whether to trust me.

                      dalek

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 27, @03:19AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 27, @03:19AM (#1354729)

          Is Doctor Who science fiction? Yes or no? I'll bet you say yes to this. But what about 1960s serials like The Aztecs and The Romans? Are those science fiction, when the only fictional technology is the TARDIS bringing the Doctor and his companions to the setting for those stories? Or are they more accurately described as historical fiction? Does this change whether the Doctor Who series overall is considered science fiction? Does Doctor Who deserve to be categorized in the same manner as Star Trek or The X-Files, both of which are also considered science fiction?

          While we're at it, what shall we make of The X-Files? There are certainly episodes that deal with fictional technology or speculation about aspects of science like the existence of extraterrestrials. Or what of a classic episode like Ice that has a fictional science idea of mind controlling worms from space but is more about scaring the audience? Is that more in the horror genre? And what about the banned episode Home that is about incest? What is the proper label for that? What is an appropriate label to encompass the series? Do we need to rigorously define science fiction and invent more specific labels to provide more accurate details on each series? Or is it good enough that we have very broad labels that aren't particularly descriptive? How shall we proceed?

          You seem obsessed with a label, "woke", which you've described in vague terms like "aims to take control of the means of cultural production." How does one produce culture? It's not a good or service that can so easily be measured. What does that even mean? It's vague, compared with something like ownership of a factory or fields for agricultural production, to the point that I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Another AC called you a conservative, and you didn't like that very much [soylentnews.org]. It's another one of these very broad labels where people don't really agree on its meaning. The same goes for liberal, which can either mean the political left or a desire to maximize individual freedom. It is related to the word "liberty", but I could also say that I liberally applied fertilizer to my lawn. In the latter example, I'm not talking about the freedom of the fertilizer nor of the grass growing on my lawn.

          All this minutiae over a label like "woke" is unhelpful but has done plenty to diminish the quality of this discussion. The previous three paragraphs I wrote are rather ridiculous, but for the purpose of giving you an example of how ridiculous you're being. There are instances where labels and categories can be very helpful, but not here, especially since we don't all agree on what the label even means. Everyone has the right to their opinion about CBS Trek, and we shouldn't judge people on the basis of whether they like or dislike those series. If we were judgmental in that manner, it would be no better than applying vague labels. On the other hand, if there's something you like or dislike about CBS Trek, and you can clearly articulate what that is, it could lead to an interesting discussion. I've posted critiques of multiple few Star Trek series in this poll, and I haven't been hesitant to criticize when I deem it appropriate. Arguing over a label just isn't interesting, however, but it has lead to a completely off-topic argument about culture wars.

          One more thing is that different people can have different opinions on the ideas conveyed by a writer through a story. Take the classic TOS episode The Devil in the Dark as an example. Is it just intended as a moving story about the Horta with some very creepy elements early in the episode? Is it a story about environmentalism and the need to protect an endangered species? Is it a story about not being judgmental of things we don't understand, which could include silicon-based life? Sometimes there's a very obvious moral of a story, but perhaps it's often more about we interpret those stories and apply them to our own situation. Perhaps Star Trek is simultaneously both woke and not woke, and there's no way for us to measure it and force it to choose one of those states. You can do as you wish, but Schrodinger's wokeness will be my last word on the topic.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday April 27, @02:43AM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday April 27, @02:43AM (#1354724)

        Trek has always been "woke" - at least relative to contemporary mainstream media when it was being produced.

        Until the Chris Pine movies, that is. IMO those 3 movies are peak Trek, they could never stand on their own, but they hit all the memes nice and hard with a heavy dose of Trek lore mockery in a very enjoyable way.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by hubie on Saturday April 20, @05:59PM (7 children)

      by hubie (1068) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 20, @05:59PM (#1353765) Journal

      My apologies as the grouping is entirely my fault. The poll software allows a maximum of only eight options and there were far more options included by the poll submitter. I'm familiar with the series that were shown OTA, but I haven't seen the ones that were aired behind paywalls. I thought it was better to pair them up somehow instead of dropping any options.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by acid andy on Saturday April 20, @06:52PM (3 children)

        by acid andy (1683) on Saturday April 20, @06:52PM (#1353772) Homepage Journal

        When the poll has run its course, I'd recommend taking the four highest options and splitting them into a second poll of eight to find an ultimate winner.

        --
        If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
        • (Score: 3, Informative) by liar on Monday April 22, @04:55PM

          by liar (17039) on Monday April 22, @04:55PM (#1354009)

          Just because the cat has her kittens in the oven, that doesn't make them muffins...

          --
          Noli nothis permittere te terere.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday April 27, @02:43AM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday April 27, @02:43AM (#1354725)

          How can the poll be a complete championship without including the movies?

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by Cyrix6x86 on Sunday April 21, @10:11AM (1 child)

        by Cyrix6x86 (13569) on Sunday April 21, @10:11AM (#1353838)

        Yeah, in hindsight this would have made more sense a decade ago before they decided to bleed out the "Star Trek" name for money with all the new shows.

        I submitted each show as a separate option, but then the Orville had to be an option too, so we ended up with more shows than is possible to be listed.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday April 21, @10:19AM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday April 21, @10:19AM (#1353840) Journal

          We still appreciate the submission. (I was still pondering what to do with it when hubie went ahead with it. I cannot say I could have done anything better.) The format of the poll template is fixed.

      • (Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday April 21, @01:57PM

        by looorg (578) on Sunday April 21, @01:57PM (#1353863)

        It's fine. I understand it's a limit in the polling system. It was just odd. Basically I would be very surprised if TNG/DS9 doesn't win the poll by a landslide. TOS/TAS, I don't believe anyone picked that option due to TAS. Just as whomever picked VOY/ENT didn't do it due to ENT. Lowerdeck was more of a cartoon catering to the somewhat older crowd that have already seen Trek. While Prodigy was Star Trek for kids, it started on Nickelodeon before moving to other channels.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Sunday April 21, @04:15AM (17 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Sunday April 21, @04:15AM (#1353821)

      Do you want to know when Star Trek went "woke"? No later than August 1964, when Gene Roddenberry completed the scripting for "The Cage". You know, the first pilot.

      You don't see this as "woke" now, but it was a big deal to have Majel Barrett's Number One take command of the Enterprise and its crew at the time. Women formally being men's bosses or especially their commanding officer was rare in 1964. And yet that's how it was written.

      Now, don't get me wrong, there are definitely some cringey moments in TOS. The most cringey for me has to be a scene in "The Enemy Within", where Kirk gets split into his good and evil halves. Evil Kirk has sexually assaulted Yeoman Rand, and when Rand reports that to Spock and McCoy, they both work to convince her to not report what Kirk did to Starfleet over what it would do to his career. This is made doubly-cringey because we the audience found out much later that the actress who plays Rand, Grace Lee Whitney, had been sexually assaulted by somebody she refers to as "the executive" right around the same time this scene was given to her. Oof, not cool.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by looorg on Sunday April 21, @01:37PM (16 children)

        by looorg (578) on Sunday April 21, @01:37PM (#1353860)

        Do you want to know when Star Trek went "woke"? No later than August 1964, when Gene Roddenberry completed the scripting for "The Cage". You know, the first pilot.

        I'll just re-quote myself here since apparently a fair amount of people decided to not read what I actually wrote and went on some rant about how woke and progressive Star Trek have always been and I have somehow missed that, which I quite clearly have not.

        Yes Star Trek have always been sort of like pro diversity and all that but this is space-woke-politics on a whole new scale.

        There is a difference, that is apparently hard to grasp for some. Trek has always, or most of the times, had a message of some kind. But they didn't let it get in the way of telling a good story. That is the difference between back in TOS and now in DSC and more or less everything in between to some degree. Story has taken a backseat to making diversity pointers. They are pointing out their own moral superiority to the lesser beings, and viewers. In a way it wasn't done before.

        TOS was never about Kirk flying thru space to bang weird alien babes, green Orion slave girls or kissing Uhura. Those things happened, they happened for a reason and to make points. But they were not the main story or reason for the entire show. Not so today. Stamets isn't just the engineer, he is the gay engineer. Dr Culber isn't just the doctor, he is the gay doctor. Like the gayness somehow makes them special. I don't know who Dr.McCoy banged in TOS. I don't care. It wasn't important. Was it Chapel, Rand or Sulu? Does it matter? The new alien girl in DCS isn't just the alien girl, "she" is the gender fluid something something alien that is a girl but isn't a girl. Apparently so is the actress that plays her. That was apparently big news to when they made that a thing.

        That is the difference. They made that the point. Not the story, or that is the story these days. Or the root of all the stories, the thing that binds it together. It overshadows the story. It overshadows Star Trek. Any critique of it is apparently now just cause you are white, cis, male, racists and a scumbag. Not because the writers decided to take the show and franchise on a wild tangent.

        We didn't need pointing out that Cisco was black, that Janeway was a woman or that Takei was gay. That wasn't the point about DS9, VOY or TOS. Those things progressed fine without making that the point. But now they are over the top going out of their way to point it out. Their agenda is overshadowing the story. In a very annoying way. I guess it could also just be that they are shit writers and the writers of old were better at hiding their agenda inside a good and interesting story.

        • (Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday April 21, @01:40PM (1 child)

          by looorg (578) on Sunday April 21, @01:40PM (#1353861)

          Cisco? Eyeroll. Fat fingers. Sisko.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 27, @05:03AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 27, @05:03AM (#1354731)

            First they came for your computer networks. Now they come for your TV networks.

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday April 21, @04:16PM (2 children)

          by Thexalon (636) on Sunday April 21, @04:16PM (#1353880)

          That's not true though.

          Of course you cared about who the major characters slept with. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and to a lesser degree Scotty and Sulu, all had love interests. You didn't see that as notable because all those love interests were straight. But also, there's a reason why Kirk/Spock fanfiction came about and in fact invented the genre of "slash" fiction - the gay subtext was there all along for anyone wanting to see it.

          As for Takei, he was always gay, and he was out to the rest of the cast, but they never made his character gay.

          By the 1990's, the franchise was doing plots involving or even centered on transgender issues, and if you didn't notice that you weren't paying attention. Like the time Riker got together with an alien that didn't have gender, but the alien Riker was with was certain she was a woman, and it turned into a major political issue. Or a lot of people read Kurzon / Jadsia Dax as a transgender metaphor.

          So yes, it was always there.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 2) by looorg on Sunday April 21, @06:41PM (1 child)

            by looorg (578) on Sunday April 21, @06:41PM (#1353891)

            I guess we just watched Star Trek for different things then. I was never expecting Kirk and Spock to go space-brokeback, giving each other massages in the Ready room or going where no man (or many men) had gone before. I never watched it as some kind of space romance soap. I wasn't particularly interested who the Captain kissed or didn't either. I would have assumed people looking for that was a minority of viewers or watching the wrong show. But I guess I could be wrong about that aspect.

            • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday April 24, @09:30PM

              by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday April 24, @09:30PM (#1354417)

              So you're telling me you didn't understand the major plot point and key character decision that Kirk had to make in City on the Edge of Forever?

              --
              The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, @12:04AM (10 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, @12:04AM (#1353944)

          I'm the AC who wrote this comment [soylentnews.org]. I didn't post any of the AC replies to The Vocal Minority, though. In your current comment, you wrote this:

          Any critique of it is apparently now just cause you are white, cis, male, racists and a scumbag. Not because the writers decided to take the show and franchise on a wild tangent.

          I actually went out of my way to avoid doing any of the things you just mention, instead offering my own suggestions for things that aren't done well in the JJ movies and/or CBS Trek. We'll come back to that, though.

          When I said TOS was the most woke, it was also very overt, in ways that you probably wouldn't see in TV shows now. Take Patterns of Force, for example, which has actual Nazis on another with Nazi flags, Nazi salutes, and swastikas. Or Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, with two aliens with one black and one white side, but they are reversed. The commentary on racism is blunt. Or take this quote from The Mark of Gideon (complete transcript [chakoteya.net]):

          KIRK: Those are conditions most people would envy.
          HODIN: But Gideon did not find it enviable. The birth rate continued to rise, and the population grew, until now Gideon is encased in a living mass who can find no rest, no peace, no joy.
          KIRK: Then why haven't you introduced any of the new techniques to sterilise men and women?
          HODIN: Every organ renews itself. It would be impossible.
          KIRK: Then let your people learn about the devices to safely prevent conception. The Federation will provide anything you need.
          HODIN: But you see, the people of Gideon have always believed that life is sacred. That the love of life is the greatest gift. That is the one unshakable truth of Gideon. And this overwhelming love of life has developed our regenerative capacity and our great longevity.
          KIRK: And the great misery which you now face.
          HODIN: That is bitterly true, Captain. Nevertheless, we cannot deny the truth which shaped our evolution. We are incapable of destroying or interfering with the creation of that which we love so deeply. Life, in every form, from foetus to developed being. It is against our tradition, against our very nature. We simply could not do it.
          KIRK: Yet you can kill a young girl.
          HODIN: We're trying to re-adjust the life cycle of an entire civilisation.
          KIRK: You're killing your own daughter. How can you do that?
          HODIN: My daughter hoped to make you feel the agony of Gideon. But it was impossible. No stranger could realize the horror that life can be here. I will not beg for your understanding of my personal grief, nor will I parade it for you to gain your co-operation. My love for my daughter is too deep for display. My pride in her runs even deeper. My daughter freely chose to do what she is doing, as the people of Gideon are free to choose.

          Hodin's lines about life being sacred are very similar to religious teaching about human life [usccb.org], and the story criticizes that bluntly. For someone who is familiar with religious teaching on such issues, that comes across as very blunt.

          It's not just that Star Trek was always woke, but TOS was very blunt in its criticism, whereas later series tend to not be quite as direct. That's why I disagreed with your original comment.

          But I didn't assume anything about you, and actually suggested a number of other issues with new Trek. I've also seen criticisms of the lighting of scenes, especially lens flares, and that being annoying. The style of dialogue gets criticized quite frequently, often saying that characters talk over each other too much. The pacing and more frequent scenes with action leave less time for thought-provoking dialogue, or for the reader to absorb what's going on. Another major criticism I've seen is the tendency of have season-long story arcs about an issue that threatens the entire galaxy or the universe, so the stakes are always incredibly high. One example from Discovery is the Burn, which effectively made warp travel impossible in the galaxy. In my opinion, the explanation seemed a lot like fantasy or magic, which seemed out of place in a science fiction show. I also just didn't think it was a very interesting explanation for rendering all dilithium inert.

          If you compare this with TNG, the story with the highest stakes was probably The Best of Both Worlds. There's a case for the anomaly in All Good Things and its impact on life having higher stakes, but it was also clear that Q was involved and wanted Picard to succeed. The Borg cube headed for Earth, with the understanding that the Federation and other Alpha Quadrant powers had no defense, was probably the clearest existential threat in any of the seven seasons of TNG. In most episodes, the stakes were considerably lower. Some people might say you need to have really high stakes to make the viewer care about the outcome of the story. I disagree, and think it's actually lazy writing, instead of giving the viewer reasons to care about the characters and the outcome. The heavily serialized nature of Discovery and Picard also doesn't leave a lot of opportunities for the kind of character development and interesting self-contained stories from other shows. I can't imagine those series would have ever considered doing an episode like The Visitor or Duet, which were two great episodes from DS9.

          If I'm offering plenty of reasons to dislike JJ Trek and CBS Trek, I'm hardly jumping to conclusions about people who don't like those movies and shows. I didn't assume anything about you, and I'm not responsible for the AC comments in reply to The Vocal Minority. I just don't think it makes sense to criticize JJ Trek and CBS Trek as being too woke. If your position is that they're very overt in their commentary, I believe TOS was actually much more direct. TOS really did push the limit of what TV networks were willing to tolerate, but the current CBS shows really seem to play it safe and aren't doing anything beyond what lots of other current TV shows also do.

          I have no expectation that you should like JJ Trek and CBS Trek. In fact, I've offered many criticisms of the production, direction, and writing of those shows. I just didn't think it made sense to criticize them as too woke against the standard of past series like TOS. You can like or dislike shows as you wish. I just tried to offer some perspective on your comment about the shows being too woke. Janrinok frequently tells people to criticize the argument, not the person. If you go back and read my original comment, I think you'll find I tried hard to do exactly that.

          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, @06:00PM (8 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, @06:00PM (#1354017)

            Amazing how people bend over backwards to protect the feelings of conservatives.

            • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, @06:09PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, @06:09PM (#1354019)

              Additionally, at least the comment count is currently one reliable method of seeing that content was removed.

              Signed,
              Not aristarchus

            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @04:48PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @04:48PM (#1354167)

              This isn't the first time I've had these types of discussions about Star Trek. I knew that an argument like this might come up:

              Any critique of it is apparently now just cause you are white, cis, male, racists and a scumbag.

              Basically, the purpose of this statement is to portray the other side as unreasonable. If I had been harsher in my reply, it might have made that comment seem more reasonable, and would have been an unforced error on my part. Besides, there are lots of places on this site to have liberal vs. conservative arguments. They're just not that interesting, so I'd prefer to discuss things like the writing, production, and direction of Trek. It just leads to more interesting discussion, even if just to criticize things like lens flares.

              Story has taken a backseat to making diversity pointers. They are pointing out their own moral superiority to the lesser beings, and viewers. In a way it wasn't done before.

              This is an interesting comment, but it also forgets what early TNG was like. Here's a portion of the script from Encounter at Farpoint (complete transcript [chakoteya.net]):

              Q: Captain, thy little centuries go by so rapidly. Perhaps thou will better understand this.
              (A flash of light and he is wearing a 20th century US military uniform, with a cigarette in his hand)
              Q: Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the commies. All it takes is a few good men.
              PICARD: What? That nonsense is centuries behind us.
              Q: But you can't deny that you're still a dangerous, savage child race.
              PICARD: Most certainly I deny it. I agree we still were when humans wore costumes like that, four hundred years ago.
              Q: At which time you slaughtered millions in silly arguments about how to divide the resources of your little world. And four hundred years before that you were murdering each other in quarrels over tribal god-images. Since there are no indications that humans will ever change.
              PICARD: But even when we wore costumes like that we'd already started to make rapid progress.
              Q: Oh yeah? You want to review your rapid progress?
              (Flash, and a change into a padded suit)
              Q: Rapid progress, to where humans learned to control their military with drugs.
              WORF: Sir, sickbay reports Lieutenant Torres's condition is better.
              Q: Oh, concern for one's fellow comrade. How touching.
              WORF: And now a personal request, sir. Permission to clean up the bridge.
              TASHA: Lieutenant Worf is right, sir. As Security Chief I can't just stand here and let
              PICARD: Yes you can, Lieutenant Yar.
              Q: (taking a snort of something) Oh, better. And later, on finally reaching deep space, humans of course found enemies to fight out there too. And to broaden those struggles you again found allies for still more murdering. The same old story, all over again.
              PICARD: No. The same old story is the one we're meeting now. Self-righteous life forms who are eager not to learn but to prosecute, to judge anything they don't understand or can't tolerate.
              Q: What an interesting idea. Prosecute and judge. Suppose it turns out we understand you humans only too well.
              PICARD: We've no fear of what the true facts about us will reveal.
              Q: Facts about you? Splendid, splendid, Captain! You're a veritable fountain of good ideas. There are preparations to make, but when we next meet, Captain, we'll proceed exactly as you suggest.

              There's an incredible amount of smugness and arrogance here, particularly the comment about it being the "same old story" that they're encountering "self-righteous life forms who are eager not to learn but to prosecute." If that doesn't suggest that they think humanity is superior, I'm not sure what would.

              When Nicholas Meyer was hired to work on Star Trek II, he tried to make the characters feel more human and more relatable. From what I understand, he thought Roddenberry's vision of the future was arrogant, and that even with all of the advances, human nature would still be the same in the 23rd century. That heavily influenced how Star Trek II was written, to make the human characters actually seem realistic. If anything, Meyer's approach was more in like with TOS, where the Federation and Starfleet were sometimes wrong about stuff. If you want an example, take Errand of Mercy, where Kirk is completely wrong about the Organians and looks like a fool.

              Sometime between TOS and TMP, Roddenberry's vision for Star Trek changed, and he tried to portray future humanity as having evolved beyond most of the flaws of human nature. That also carried over to early TNG, and the above quote from the TNG pilot is a fine example of this. It's not limited to Encounter at Farpoint, either. The finale of season 1, The Neutral Zone, involves three 20th century humans being awakened from a frozen state. You'll find plenty of dialogue about how foolish and backwards they are, and that humanity has evolved beyond vices like greed. It's no coincidence that season 1 of TNG is probably the worst season of classic Trek, even worse than season 3 of TOS.

              Some of the most thought provoking Trek happened when the characters were allowed to be wrong, have vices, and even behave maliciously at times. Kirk is openly racist toward Klingons by the time of Star Trek VI, bitter because a Klingon killed his son. Admiral Cartwright is probably the worst admiral in the history of Star Trek, and there are a lot of badmirals. The DS9 two-part story of Homefront and Paradise Lost is a powerful message about protecting civil liberties, when a corrupt admiral tries to restrict them due to an attack on Earth by a changeling. It aired in 1996, but the message is relevant to the events after 9/11.

              I've provided lots of examples, including citing specific episode and actual dialogue to support my position. Trek has always been woke, and sometimes it's been arrogant to the point of being smug and preachy. If anything, I believe new Trek actually tries to be more subtle and less blunt. If the OP in this thread or anyone else disagrees, I ask you to please provide specific examples like I've done.

              To the poster of the parent comment, I'm taking this approach to try to clearly show that there's no merit to saying that new Trek is too woke. I think this makes my point more effectively, even if I'm not being as blunt.

              • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 23, @06:07PM (1 child)

                by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 23, @06:07PM (#1354182) Journal

                he thought Roddenberry's vision of the future was arrogant, and that even with all of the advances, human nature would still be the same in the 23rd century.

                The recognition that human nature would not change was something I very much enjoyed in Babylon 5.

                And that the future would be as dirty and gritty with minimal maintenance as it is today. Greed and lust for power would still rule.

                --
                When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @05:50PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @05:50PM (#1354175)

              Another reply... Let me put it this way... I think the best way to show claims about science fiction being too woke are nonsense is by trying to get people to provide evidence. A lot of the criticisms can easily be shown as objectively false if people have to be specific in their complaints.

              One of the common criticisms is that Spock was influenced by having a sister, which apparently people think is woke. One of the complaints I've heard elsewhere is that it's ridiculous to say that Spock has a sister when we've never heard anything about her before. Of course, there is absolutely no precedent whatsoever for Spock having siblings introduced that we've never heard of before [fandom.com].

              You get the same thing with Doctor Who, where people complain that the writers are too woke and criticize the credentials and experience of the writers. One of the common complaints I've heard elsewhere is that the show has too many writers who don't have experience in science fiction, and come from other genres like soaps. Of course, there's no precedent for a comedy writer to become a great science fiction writer [wikipedia.org]. There's also no precedent for someone with a background in writing soaps to also be successful in science fiction [wikipedia.org]. Then there's the abomination of late 1970s Doctor Who, where a young comedy writer became the script editor and also wrote a few serials [wikipedia.org]. What was the BBC thinking, giving him that position? He never made any useful contributions to the science fiction genre. Never!

              Did I also mention that the Vulcan Science Directorate has determined that time travel is impossible?

              Sarcasm aside, my point is that when people have to provide evidence for their criticisms, it's very easy to see that they are without merit.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30, @09:36PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 30, @09:36PM (#1355262)

                Good points, but there are times when excessive tolerance is counter productive. There are numerous users on this site that continue to post lies even after being so challenged to back them up. Part of the misinformation strategy. We are social mammals, displaying derision for anti-social behavior is one of the key feedback mechanisms that helps individuals learn their behaviors are not ok.

  • (Score: 2) by Cyrix6x86 on Sunday April 21, @10:18AM (4 children)

    by Cyrix6x86 (13569) on Sunday April 21, @10:18AM (#1353839)

    Tier One:
    1) DS9
    2) Strange New Worlds (Great show, but what a missed opportunity to make this a continuation of 25th century Starfleet)
    3) The Next Generation
    ...
    Steep dropoff
    4) Voyager
    5) The Original Series
    6) Lower Decks
    7) Prodigy
    ...
    Trash Tier
    7) Enterprise
    8) Discovery
    9) Picard
    ...
    Never seen:
    Animated Series

    The Orville is/was good in its own right but that was more of watching it through the lens of a counter to the absolute shit show that was Discovery.
    Picard never needed to happen, and is full of geriatric Patrick Stewart's hubris.

    In my mind, the real Picard died in the Nexus and everything since then, the Movie Picard (which is completely different than TNG Picard), is just a Nexus fantasy.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21, @10:53AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 21, @10:53AM (#1353843)

      The third season of Orville, "New Horizons," is pretty good in its own right too (even better if you don’t count episode 2). Season 3 is better than Season 2 is better than Season 1. I think they didn’t strike the right balance early on, but found it later. And being Seth’s passion project, the writing between episodes is pretty tight with nice details and connections you won’t notice until subsequent viewings.

      As for Picard, I’ve never seen it since the only friend I know who has reviewed it with: "I wish there was a way to unwatch a show. Not only is it bad in its own right, but it manages to ruin other parts of Star Trek by trashing heir memory."

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Cyrix6x86 on Sunday April 21, @01:03PM

        by Cyrix6x86 (13569) on Sunday April 21, @01:03PM (#1353855)

        Picard was horrible, terrible. I could never get beyond the first couple episodes of that trash. It was received so poorly by the fanbase that Season 3 was a soft reset that basically shat on all but one element of the first two seasons. Even then, I quit watching about halfway through and only watched the final episode.

        So I went into Season 3 with low expectations, but also knowing this is it, the final saga of the TNG crew, so let's watch it. I went in knowing that we would see the Enterprise D and the old crew come together for the last time, no surprises there. Also knowing that this is going to advance the story of 25th century Starfleet, perhaps preparing it for the follow-on series we've all wanted since VOY ended.

        Season 3 is all about wrapping up old story lines while also paying homage to some of the legacy. There's a bunch of "see, this is Trek, we have this xxxx thing too! remember xxxx?" We call them "remember-berries" and that's fine, it's appreciated in bits.

        But it also re-establishes Picard as like the greatest single thing to ever happen to Starfleet. They need his body. They need his expertise. They need his son.

        DS9 established the Dominion War as being the existential terror to the entire Alpha Quadrant. It was seven seasons of world-building for the Alpha Quadrant writ large but has never been DIRECTLY referenced by future series, despite two main characters from TNG crossing over into DS9.

        The rub is that the main character of DS9 is the Anti-Picard. Benjamin Sisko, who blames Picard for the murder of his wife, turns out to be the Emissary and the true hero of the Alpha Quadrant. Sisko is counterculture to the traditional Starfleet Captain, and some of Avery Brooks discourse bleeds into the show. In terms of diversity, it was groundbreaking in the cast being mostly African descent, and it explored many uncomfortable topics, from slavery to hidden biases to same-sex relationships during its seven year run.

        I imagine Patrick Stewart did not like that.

        So all that Season 3 of Picard serves to do is undermine the legacy of DS9. Not a single character from DS9 is mentioned by name, or their role is greatly downplayed. The Worf we see, is a continuation of the TNG Worf; not the person who's character actually developed for four seasons on DS9, who fell in love, had a wife who was killed, and then struggled in dealing with that loss. This is not the same as TNG Worf, who shows up repeatedly in the TNG Movies with no recollection of having ever been married, one brief mention of DS9 but nobody by name, and no character development.

        Season 3 Picard is reconciling the DS9 series ... the Dominion War happened, yes, but the Dominion wasn't nearly the threat that the Borg were. Picard's nemesis is much more dangerous than Sisko's nemesis. The plot twist of experimenting on Changelings ... the fact that it was Miles O'Brien who helped end it is not mentioned at all. The Defiant is briefly shown, but Picard's son talks over the montage, while they play up how great Voyager is.

        Picard ends up being the great hero, the single point of failure, the single savior of the Alpha Quadrant. He gets the wife, he gets the son who goes on to do great things, while burying the legacy of DS9. But it also cheapens the character of Captain Picard. He doesn't have to deal with loss because he gets all of his friends back, he gets his old ship back, he gets a new family who loves him, and more. He doesn't have to deal with the conscience of Ro Laren any more. Even his son gets his own Enterprise. It's cheap.

        It ends up doing exactly what "Far Beyond the Stars" spoke about.

        Season 3 is speaking to a very specific audience. The re-watchability score is low, and probably only for that final scene of the Enterprise D.

    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday April 21, @06:08PM

      by Gaaark (41) on Sunday April 21, @06:08PM (#1353889) Journal

      SNW: i WANTED it to be a GREAT show; what i got was:

      an episode where the crew re-enacts (badly) the Doctor's daughters (apologies to Doctor Who) storybook (Anson Mounts character is just awfully acted and the story-line is weak)

      an episode where they sing and dance through the show (not as bad as the above mention, but still weak sci-fi)

      Good show and then two unwatchable shows.
      I'm thinking about deleting the episodes so it doesn't spoil future watchings...

      I'm REALLY hoping that future episodes go back to 'Sci-fi' rather than 'Sci-dreck'.

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, @08:23AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 22, @08:23AM (#1353979)

      Enterprise gets judged way too harshly, IMO. Star Trek just doesn't work when it tries to clone itself. TNG attempted to be another TOS, just 80 years in the future. Episodes like Q Who started to move beyond that, and things continued to improve in season 3 when Michael Piller became the showrunner. DS9's first couple of seasons were more TNG-like, and the format didn't work that well. Introducing the Jem'Hadar in the final episode of season 2, followed by the two-parter to start season 3, was when DS9 really got better. Voyager was a lot like seasons 8-14 of TNG, but the show got better with the introduction of Seven of Nine, and the focus on developing her character and the Doctor.

      The first couple of seasons of Enterprise were written like seasons 15-16 of TNG, with some good episodes, but many that just weren't very interesting. Again, it's the problem of Trek trying to clone itself. Season 3 experimented with heavily serialized Trek, and while that was an improvement, it was just too long of a story arc, and with too much filler. Season 4 was a lot more DS9-like, with a series of shorter story arcs that were mostly good. The influence of Manny Coto made Enterprise a lot better, much like Michael Piller did with TNG, or Ira Steven Behr and Ronald D. Moore did with DS9. Rick Berman knew how to make good TNG, but it didn't work as well when he tried to clone that formula.

      I know that the Temporal Cold War was supposed to add an element of mystery to an era of Trek that might have otherwise not seemed all that interesting. I just didn't think it worked all that well, though the Xindi story arc was better than the first two seasons. The highlights of those seasons were the stories about the hostility between Vulcan and Andoria. Season 4 finally started to advance the storyline about why the Vulcan government was trying to hold back Earth. The show was also laying the groundwork for the Romulan war.

      If Enterprise had continued, Jeffrey Combs would have almost certainly moved into a starring role in season 5. His portrayal of Weyoun was excellent, and Shran was one of the best characters in Enterprise. If there had been seasons 5-7, they probably would have had some similarities to the later DS9 seasons. It took a coalition of the major Alpha Quadrant powers to defeat the Dominion, and Enterprise would have taken a similar direction with the Romulan war and the creation of the Federation.

      I don't think it would have been a clone of DS9, though. Archer was the key figure in forming the Federation, and he was written very differently from Sisko. The story probably would have focused a bit less on the actual war, and more on Archer trying to build trust and persuade the founding members of the Federation that they needed to align with each other. I don't think there were any more season-long story arcs planned, though I don't fault Enterprise for trying something new in season 3. It would have been more like season 4, with lots of 2-3 episode story arcs. There probably would have been more stories about Tellarites and about the role of the human colony on Alpha Centauri, because they were also founding members of the Federation. Unlike DS9, it wouldn't have made as much sense to have big space battles between fleets. It wouldn't have been a 22nd century clone of DS9, but I think people who liked DS9 would have also liked seasons 4-7 of Enterprise (assuming it ran seven seasons like Voyager, DS9, and TNG).

      I get that the first two seasons had some dull episodes, but it still felt like Star Trek, and the last two seasons both were big improvements. I just don't think Enterprise should be ranked with Discovery and Picard, both of which really are the worst of Trek.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Monday April 22, @01:50PM (7 children)

    by Freeman (732) on Monday April 22, @01:50PM (#1353997) Journal

    Patrick Stewart was the best Star Trek Captain and the show was great.

    Watching The Original Series is so different from watching modern TV shows. The Next Generation is modern enough to not just feel odd when you watch it. The Original Series is more like watching a local theater production. It has that same feel as Gilligan's Island. The props are Very Much props. That said, The Original Series is worth watching. In the even that you watch a few episodes and go, wow, that's old looking, etc. Then, it's quite possibly, just not for you.

    Deep Space Nine is somewhat like watching Day Time Soap Opera Dramas. The characters don't change much and everything is very much the same almost all of the time. I get why I hated it back in the day. Now that I've watched the entire series on Netflix, I would give it a B-.

    Voyager gets a B-, because the writers were stupid. Hey, let's have this hologram doctor have a child . . . that works . . ., because magic. It doesn't help that they killed off one of my favorite characters during the show.

    Pretty much all modern Star Treks get a F-, either because they're just not worth watching, or they're paywalled behind yet another service to subscribe to. Though, probably the worst one is Enterprise. Yes, the guy from Quantum Leap is a good actor. Every episode of Enterprise that I watched was horrible though. Perhaps it was just me not seeing the guy as anything, but the guy from Quantum Leap. I never saw him as a "good captain" though.

    I've watched none of the newer series, because they're paywalled behind yet another subscription service that I'm not going to pay for.

    --
    Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 23, @02:44PM (3 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 23, @02:44PM (#1354144)

      Voyager gets a B-, because the writers were stupid. Hey, let's have this hologram doctor have a child . . . that works . . ., because magic. It doesn't help that they killed off one of my favorite characters during the show.

      I rewatched it recently...trying to think what semi-major characters they killed off? Seska? Kes didn't die...that one murderous Betazoid character, I would've liked to see in a few more episodes before they killed him off. You wouldn't count Tuvix, would you?

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday April 23, @03:19PM (2 children)

        by Freeman (732) on Tuesday April 23, @03:19PM (#1354150) Journal

        Ah, the character I was thinking of was Harry Kim, I believe. An alternate version of himself replaced himself in the episode called "Deadlock" which is probably the episode I remember. I'm pretty sure I never watched the entirety of Voyager. I may eventually try to watch the entire thing. I don't think it was on Netflix when I watched the entirety of DS9. In any event, I'm not seeing any of the Star Trek series on Netflix now. Ah, apparently all of the Star Trek series are on Paramount+ now.

        In any event, it appears that his demise was great exaggerated. Sort of anyways.

        --
        Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @05:14PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @05:14PM (#1354170)

          The show might have been better if Harry Kim had been killed when he was attacked by a member of Species 8472 in Scorpion. Character development mostly wasn't a strength of Voyager, especially compared to DS9, but Kim was particularly bland. I would have preferred that Kes stay and Kim go.

          The interactions between Kes and Neelix were awkward and cringe-worthy, yes. But Kes also had a big role in evolving the Doctor's character in the early seasons of Voyager. She is the one character who really tries to help him see that he deserves respect, and she helps him to better understand humanity. Although I generally like Vulcan characters, and I like Tim Russ as an actor, the writers just didn't give Tuvok a lot to do. At least helping to train Kes to use and restrain her mental abilities and psychokinetic powers gave Tuvok something more to do. In the later seasons, the Doctor frequently tries to help Seven of Nine understand humanity and adapt to no longer being connected to the Borg collective. I think that she also could have had a role in helping Seven of Nine adapt and understand home human traits like empathy.

          The only thing I recall being noteworthy about Harry Kim is that he was somewhat of a sidekick to Tom Paris, but he just didn't do much and wasn't a very interesting character. I also think there was more opportunity to develop Kes to have a bit more assertive personality in the later seasons of Voyager and give her more to do, a bit like how TNG evolved Troi's character after Disaster. Some of the issues with Harry Kim and Chakotay are also related to the actors who portrayed them, and you can find more details on that if you do a bit of searching. The Kes character was less of a dead end than Harry Kim.

          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 24, @10:46PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday April 24, @10:46PM (#1354429)

            Unfortunately the word online is that they had to write Kes off the show because Jennifer Lien had some sort of mental problems that she refused to have treated, that made her increasingly difficult to work with on set. I rather liked her as well, although Seven was also interesting.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 23, @06:02PM (2 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 23, @06:02PM (#1354180) Journal

      Voyager gets a B-, because the writers were stupid.

      Hey, now, the writers of Voyager had the foresight to equip Voyager with an infinite supply of shuttle craft. Something that was very important for them to have considering the way they went through them.

      After the first couple seasons, I struggled to make it to season 5, and gave up. Eventually I did watch the couple episodes leading to the conclusion and I enjoyed that very much.

      --
      When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @07:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, @07:15PM (#1354192)

        The same thing happened with torpedoes. In Caretaker, I believe Tuvok says that Voyager has a limited supply of torpedoes and no way to get more. They used far more than the supply of torpedoes that they were supposedly limited to.

        The later seasons of Voyager really did have some good episodes, especially the ones that provided character development for Seven of Nine and the Doctor. It's well known that Kate Mulgrew resented Jeri Ryan's presence on the show, though some of that might have been the attempt to sexualize Seven of Nine. On the other hand, Robert Picardo and Jeri Ryan seemed to have great chemistry in their scenes together, as well as a lot of musical talent. Another episode I highly recommend is Blink of an Eye, which is a really interesting story about Voyager accidentally impacting the cultural development of a planet over thousands of years. The science is completely contrary to what general relativity says should happen with a rapidly rotating body, but it's okay because the story is more than interesting enough to compensate. For all the criticism that Voyager deserves, I highly recommend the episodes in later seasons that focus on character development for the Doctor and Seven of Nine.

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @01:06PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @01:06PM (#1354324)

        ...an infinite supply of shuttle craft.

        Replicators had specs for all the parts. New craft were roboticly fabricated as needed. Duh!

  • (Score: 2) by Revek on Monday April 22, @05:00PM

    by Revek (5022) on Monday April 22, @05:00PM (#1354010)

    I loved TOS and the animated stuff as a kid. I liked TNG but loved DS9 for its darker approach not to mention the multi episode story arcs which are nice. Of the new stuff I really like Lower decks. Its fun and not too serious. My favorite episodes so far involve the evil super computers. I did like the crossover episode of SNW. They left in the ridiculous parts. Like the scene where Boimler found the orions by using future knowledge and Pike and the rest 'Just didn't look'.

    --
    This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 23, @02:39PM (4 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday April 23, @02:39PM (#1354142)

    Does answer count max out at 8-10 options or something?

    Haven't gotten around to watching TOS, but enjoyed TNG and VOY. DS9 I've tried to watch a few times now; last time I got to the start of the Dominion War, but it just has a harder time sucking me in for some reason. Quark is great, but the rest of the cast is sort of meh. Liked Enterprise even though it gets a bad rap.

    I've watched reviews of Discovery and Picard, which RLM didn't like. I'm boycotting nuTrek same as the newer Star Wars films, to avoid getting my fond memories all beshatten-over. I hear Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks are okay, but now I guess there's like "a Star Trek show for everybody" that they're flooding the market with?

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 23, @02:51PM (3 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 23, @02:51PM (#1354145) Journal

      Yeah, the template is fixed and cannot easily be extended.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, @09:16AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, @09:16AM (#1354616)

        And the editors are old and set in their ways. Some things never change, because they can't.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 26, @10:37AM (1 child)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 26, @10:37AM (#1354618) Journal

          Because the template for a Poll is a fixed format and cannot accept a variable number of options.

  • (Score: 2) by Zinho on Wednesday April 24, @02:15PM (1 child)

    by Zinho (759) on Wednesday April 24, @02:15PM (#1354342)

    Galaxy quest is the best Star Trek movie ever made. [youtube.com]

    Fight me.

    --
    "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
  • (Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday April 24, @09:30PM

    by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 24, @09:30PM (#1354418)

    Best Trek? It's a tough choice for me, as I have enjoyed pretty much all of them.

    (Yeah, I admit to being easily entertained when it comes to sci-fi. :) )

    TOS: It was the one that came first, that all the rest are based on (loosely or otherwise). It will always hold a special place in my heart.

    TAS: A continuation of TOS, more or less. Mostly good, some not so good like it's live action parent.

    TNG: Also a favorite due to growing up watching it. The first two seasons are hard to rewatch, but I loved them at the time. Season 3 forward was when they really hit their stride.

    DS9: Good all around, especially the long story arcs. And it had Nana Visitor, yowza!

    VOY: Enjoyed it at the time, some good, some bad. Was better watching the second time around for me.

    ENT: Was OK, like TNG it was weaker in it's early seasons. Unfortunately it was killed just as it was beginning to hit it's stride.

    DIS: Again, started kinda weak but has gotten better. I do like that it became the far future instead of another pre-TOS setting.

    PIC: Enjoyed it, especially season 3 for the TNG nostalgia.

    SNW: Thoroughly enjoyed it, best pre-TOS series to date. This was my pick.

    LD: Fun to watch, as a comedy should be.

    PRD: Also fun to watch. Cool to see Janeway (both instances).

    Orville: Haven't watched a lot of it, but also enjoyed what I saw.

    My 2 bars of gold-pressed latinum, YMMV, live long and prosper!

    --
    The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @11:07PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, @11:07PM (#1354435)

    Individual episodes of Voyager really aren't bad, but the series was a major disappointment. Here's a quote from TNG's Q Who:

    Q: You judge yourselves against the pitiful adversaries you have encountered so far. The Romulans, the Klingons. They are nothing compared to what's waiting. Picard, you are about to move into areas of the galaxy containing wonders more incredible than you can possibly imagine, and terrors to freeze your soul. I offer myself as guide only to be rejected out of hand.

    In that episode, Q brought the Enterprise into contact with a Borg cube. But the bigger picture is that Starfleet just wasn't ready for what awaited them in the rest of the galaxy. Voyager had the opportunity to explore the marvels and dangerous that Q promised, and it was a huge letdown. Most of what Voyager encountered wasn't very different from the Alpha Quadrant, not was it particularly interesting. They did manage to ruin the Borg, however.

    TNG Borg were scary because they could analyze and quickly adapt to any weapon. They appeared to have assimilated so much technology and become so advanced that any weapon Starfleet could devise in the near future would be useless. Voyager took that away, making it so the Borg couldn't understand anything they couldn't assimilate. It didn't just weaken the Borg but turned them into complete idiots. TNG Borg also weren't interested in conquest, just assimilating technology and the biological advances of each species. That means the Borg had no concept of territory, which is completely contrary to Voyager's idea of "Borg space". This made the Borg more like a typical adversary, making them less unique and menacing.

    Some of the most interesting Borg stories were about Borg being separated from the collective. TNG had I, Borg. Voyager had Unity and Survival Instinct, the latter being written by Ronald D. Moore after DS9 ended. All of these are really interesting stories. Unlike many other characters, the writers put real effort into developing Seven of Nine. She was one of the best characters in any Star Trek series, and the scenes with her and the Doctor were always great.

    TNG's Descent showed the Borg using a transwarp conduit that reached all the way to the Delta Quadrant, so it made sense that Voyager would encounter the Borg. Blood Fever was a solid episode with similarities to TOS' Amok Time, but with the twist that the Borg had been active in that region of space. Unity reinforced that Voyager was entering a region of space where the Borg were active. I have no problem with any of this. The problem is that Voyager diminished the Borg's menace starting a few episodes later with Scorpion. They were the most dangerous enemy in Star Trek, so weakening them made the galaxy a less dangerous place. Star Trek works best when space seems really big, somewhat mysterious, and a bit dangerous and scary. Voyager took that way.

    Season 4 should have been all about traveling through an area of space where the Borg are active, trying to obtain resources and supplies while evading the Borg. The Borg could have been expending a lot of resources in a major war with Species 8472, which might explain why the Borg could only muster a single cube to try to assimilate Earth. Perhaps 8472 attacks a Borg scout ship, which crashes on a planet, and Seven of Nine is the only survivor. Her character would then be developed in a very similar manner.

    Species 8472 would still have defenses against assimilation, but they would also have a diverse array of powerful weapons. Perhaps the Borg's weakness is that adapting to protect against one form of attack leaves them vulnerable to other attacks. Species 8472 could be able to use this against the Borg, making them adapt to one weapon so that other types of weapons would become effective again. Basically, the Borg can analyze and adapt to almost everything, but they can't prevent all types of attacks simultaneously. If they use their energy to stop one form of attack, then that leaves them vulnerable to something else. That could weaken the Borg enough while still retaining their menace.

    The Borg are known to ignore beings who aren't considered a threat, which is why it's possible to transport onto their ships and encounter no resistance at all. There are probably planets within "Borg space" that just get ignored for the same reason. Others might have evolved ways to avoid drawing the Borg's interest or have defenses that keep the Borg out of their system. Some might be hostile toward any ships entering their system, fearing that they might attract the Borg's attention. Others might try to mask their technological advancement or that they even exist, similar to Blood Fever. Maybe there are a series of subspace corridors between some systems, allowing travel and trade without directly venturing into interstellar space, which might draw the Borg's attention. There could be a star that produces a form of radiation that disrupts the signals that make up the Borg's collective consciousness, effectively preventing the Borg from entering the system at all. It could have been really interesting to examine what it's like for a planet to have the Borg as their neighbor, but Voyager didn't go this direction.

    Voyager might try to learn more about the Borg and Species 8472 while passing through the region, which could put them at risk for encounters with both of them. There could be some close calls, though not a direct conflict during the season. The Doctor could develop a cure for people attacked by Species 8472 during the season, but Voyager would want to keep that away from the Borg. If the Borg used that to help defeat Species 8472, it could allow them to divert more resources toward the Alpha Quadrant. There could be hints that the Borg still have some control over Seven of Nine, perhaps if she started behaving irrationally and became ill when Voyager went into the system where radiation disrupts the Borg collective consciousness. The telepathic capabilities of Species 8472 might also stimulate Kes' psychokinetic abilities, which could become more powerful over the course of the season.

    At the end of the season, Voyager might push their luck too far and draw the attention of a few cubes while trying to steal technology. The Borg might try to take control of Seven of Nine to try to steal information about Voyager's defense against Species 8472. They might also try to assimilate Voyager at the same time. This could lead up to Voyager properly breaking Seven of Nine's link with the collective and Kes hurling Voyager out of that region like she did in The Gift.

    There could still be uncertainty about whether the Borg acquired the technology from Voyager, which could be resolved in a later season with an episode like In The Flesh. Voyager might encounter Species 8472 and become aware that they intend to attack Earth. They might learn that the Borg had been using the technology they stole from Voyager and had started winning the war. Voyager could make peace with Species 8472 and give them the technology along with information they've learned about the Borg's vulnerabilities, hoping that it tips the war in favor of Species 8472.

    That would have been far more interesting than Voyager's actual encounters with the Borg, and it would have diminished the Borg a lot less.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, @05:12AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 26, @05:12AM (#1354603)

    A lot of people, myself included to an extent, view the TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT era through rose-colored glasses. This is a friendly reminder that at the time, many people despised Rick Berman and his influence on Trek. Some of these issues have been discussed above ad nauseum. I want to talk about how he made Trek bland. I'm somewhat of a music nerd, so please hear me out.

    Star Trek always had really powerful incidental music, until Rick Berman decided it shouldn't. When I go through this sampling of music, I actually found it somewhat difficult to find a whole lot memorable from composers Dennis McCarthy and Jay Chattaway. They scored the later part of TNG and also a lot of the later episodes of classic Trek. Most of the really distinctive music from classic Trek is either from TOS, the movies, or early TNG. Basically, Rick Berman said he didn't want the music in TNG to overshadow the story, fired Ron Jones during season 4, and made the music really bland. It was a horrible decision, because most of the music afterwards was really bland and boring. McCarthy and Chattaway were good composers, and when allowed to, they could compose memorable soundtracks. But Berman generally didn't allow them to do so, with just a few exceptions. Berman is always credited with preserving Gene Roddenberry's vision from the series, except he really didn't. Berman toned down or eliminated a whole lot of Roddenberry's vision and ideas, and this is one example of that.

    TOS is best associated with Alexander Courage, who composed the main theme and was also credited for it in TNG. But the show also had really distinctive incidental music that helped create the mood of the episodes. Take the music in this scene for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95BB2t8R4r4 [youtube.com]. I believe it was reused a couple of times later in TOS, including at the beginning of The Lights of Zetar. It conveys suspense as the Enterprise approaches the galactic barrier, along with a sense of power and danger. This type of music was fairly common throughout all of TOS.

    James Horner only composed the soundtrack for two movies, but it's quite unique and probably influenced the music in later shows. As a simple example, take the arrangement of Alexander Courage's fanfare that starts at 2:41 in this clip from The Wrath of Khan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXVqSa2l6mg [youtube.com]. I don't recall that being used at any point earlier in Star Trek, but it sounds almost exactly like a part of the TNG theme. I also liked his distinctive sound every time the Reliant attacked, which can be heard multiple times here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwkglsAgwZU [youtube.com]

    Here are the first three pieces composed by Jerry Goldsmith for The Motion Picture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj4z2Y1y2Ak [youtube.com] and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WAJSCR4A4o [youtube.com] (the final theme starts at 1:24). The first is a really distinctive overture, which I don't believe was reused outside of this movie. The second clip starts with the main title, and a different arrangement of this with a smaller orchestra became the TNG theme. It transitions into the Klingon battle theme, from which elements were reused in The Final Frontier, First Contact, and also in TNG by Ron Jones. It's also really distinctive because of its use of the blaster beam for the V'Ger sound, and Horner also reused this unusual instrument in the following movie.

    Early TNG was scored by Dennis McCarthy and Ron Jones. Let's begin with McCarthy. Here's en example of his work for TNG, with this scene in Time Squared: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7rWi5jPehM [youtube.com]. It's not loud at all, but really effective at conveying a sense of impending doom. I don't think it would be out of place if it had been used as the music for a couple of levels of Doom, just because of the dark and foreboding feel to it. McCarthy also composed the music for Generations, including the theme for this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt3jXu4KIqQ [youtube.com]. That movie has a distinctive sound to it, . But the music works very well for this scene with the apparent death of Captain Kirk. I really can't recall anything distinctive from McCarthy in later episodes of TNG or in other series. It's a shame because the creepy music that he and Jones composed in early seasons helped to create an unsettling mood that really added to the atmosphere for early TNG. Honestly, Time Squared would be an episode I'd barely remember except it's damn creepy, and I believe McCarthy's score really enhanced that quite a bit. His work wasn't as grandiose as that of Jones, but it could still be effective.

    Some later TNG episodes and later series were scored by Jay Chattaway. I find his work on VOY: Scorpion to easily be the most memorable of any of his compositions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ho38OOqyE4 [youtube.com] and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Qle2vuGeE [youtube.com]. There's a simple but memorable melody that's used throughout the two-part episode whenever Species 8472 attacks. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a clip of the scene from TNG: Eye of the Beholder where Troi kills Worf and goes to the nacelle to commit suicide, before being awakened from here telepathically-induced dream. It's creepy, and he reused a very similar sound later on in VOY. Otherwise, there's very little that I found distinctive about Chattaway's work. He was a very good composer, but he wasn't given the opportunity to show it very often on Star Trek.

    Ron Jones scored 42 episodes of TNG before he was fired by Rick Berman. Most of the really familiar incidental music from TNG is Jones' work. Take this scene from TNG The Defector: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ddY_xgjH88 [youtube.com]. The music helps convey the imminent danger posed by the two Romulan warbirds, and reuses a repeating eight note melody that Jones frequently used for Romulan encounters. I couldn't find a good video of the clip, but I believe it originates from TNG: The Neutral Zone in a scene where the Enterprise encounters a cloaked warbird at the Neutral Zone border: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skY1DGxXGrg [youtube.com]. When the Klingon warships decloak, there's also a moment where Jones uses the same melody from Goldsmith's Klingon battle theme.

    Jones' best known work was probably scoring TNG: The Best of Both Worlds, and these two scenes are particularly memorable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBN5LxCaheE [youtube.com] and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh9GDlGZm7Y [youtube.com]. Jones also scored TNG: Q Who and had a theme for the Borg that can be heard at the beginning of this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD05IVpnwFU [youtube.com]. Here's the full scene without any dialogue or sound effects, with the Borg theme starting at 1:46: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TWKl_EGnHI [youtube.com]. It's memorable and continues Jones' style of having a distinctive theme for each species.

    Jones won awards for his work on The Best of Both Worlds, and within a year, Berman fired him. TNG and later series never had the same atmosphere because the incidental music was very plain and added very little. It's a shame because the music makes some of these scenes much more effective and memorable. This is a friendly reminder before getting too nostalgic about this era of Star Trek that people really hated Rick Berman at the time, and they had a lot of very valid complaints.

  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday May 03, @12:55AM

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday May 03, @12:55AM (#1355648) Journal

    Picardachu, I choose you!

    (actually chose that option because of Picard, but I haven't seen Discovery or Lower Decks, but all the others are great in their own way. Even Kelvin, thanks to ST Beyond redeeming that trilogy.)

    --
    This sig for rent.
(1)