• 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • To try to answer, succinctly (which I’m bad at): looking backward is easier than looking forward. What I mean by that is since you didn’t get into the series until 3, it makes sense that you wouldn’t have a problem with 3 and 4, since it’s harder to see what the series could have been…as pretentious as that sounds.

    Where much of the hate comes from (and I think a lot of it is overblown - I’m not trying to justify the behavior of the maniacs out there) is that the overarching progression of the series feels reset. Fallout 1 -> Fallout 2 showed a progression in a *post-*post-apocalyptic world, with society advancing again, to some degree. Shady Sands grew between 1 and 2, and was the foundation of the NCR.

    So Fallout 3 at the time was IMHO a disappointment because the setting felt more generic, and like they were just playing the greatest hits from 1 and 2. I get the arguments that the setting in-universe was hit harder, but it still felt weird that it was post-apocalpytic instead of post-post-apocalyptic.

    One reason (as always, IMHO) that New Vegas was so popular is that it continued to build on 1 and 2. We saw the NCR had continued to grow, other factions rise in importance, and generally felt less like the bombs had dropped the year prior. It’s what a lot of folks hoped Fallout 3 would be, in that sense. That’s my own biased view though, so take it with a grain of salt - there’s folks who want more humor, only isometric, more complex and branching storylines, etc.






  • Or as the Engineer from TF2 said:

    Hey look, buddy. I’m an engineer, that means I solve problems. Not problems like “What is beauty?”, ‘cause that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems! For instance, how am I gonna stop some big mean Mother-Hubbard from tearin’ me a structurally superfluous new behind? The answer? Use a gun. And if that don’t work, use more gun. Like this heavy caliber, tripod-mounted, little ol’ number designed by me, built by me, and you’d best hope… not pointed at you.



  • Also, I think it’s worth pointing out that Adira was from Earth, which at that point had left the Federation, and had become seemingly a much more paranoid place. So that Adira was uncomfortable and worried about what folks might think of them seems reasonable, since they weren’t used to living in the Federation, where being nonbinary isn’t something anyone should be worried about sharing with others.



  • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.websitetoRisa@startrek.websiteBait
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    5 months ago

    Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.

    I certainly agree that there’s more crying than I’m used to in Trek, but I wouldn’t call that wokeness (unless the crying was about a reason that was “woke”, I guess?). Mostly I chalk that up to popular entertainment dripping with CW style shows (for the worse, of course). That said there was a fair amount of crying/emotional outbursts from Sisko and others on DS9, especially if we take the Maquis into account - like Sisko said, it’s easy to be a saint in paradise. Doesn’t jive with the perfect crews we’ve seen on the Enterprises, but like DS9 being a run-of-the-mill station that got swept up in religious politics and galactic war, Discovery was “just” a bleeding edge science ship that went through hell, so it does kind of make sense that people would be more than a little traumatized and outburst-y.

    Totally agree that the casts being treated like it was normal is a great message to send without focusing on it, but they did touch on it occasionally. In the TNG pilot itself, Geordi and Crusher talk pretty openly about his blindness IIRC, and he says something to the effect of “I was born this way”, and he rejects potential “cures”, showing how comfortable he was with what others would consider a curse.

    Also there most certainly episodes reassuring Data he was part of the crew. An entire episode reassuring him he was sentient, right? It was central to his (and others’) growth over the series. Whether he was truly a sentient being or not definitely draws parallels to dehumanization in the real world, and was pretty blatant about it.

    Plenty of folks on TNG had to talk through their problems - that was pretty much the point of Guinan, in a lot of ways, and even having a Betazoid on the bridge. Feelings and emotion were being pretty openly explored in a way that’s just different to the way things are now. Mental illness has over the decades been normalized in a way that is kind of incredible. Again though, the amount of crying does irk me (that much I agree with, especially when shit is literally on fire). I just don’t consider that to be wokeness in my face, just shoddy writing.


  • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.websitetoRisa@startrek.websiteBait
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    5 months ago

    I’m not downvoting either of you, and I hope this doesn’t sound like me being argumentative, I just want to know what you’re seeing in Discovery that I haven’t seen in all the other Trek series (see me other comment in this thread, I guess). Morality lectures are central to Trek, IMHO.


  • GoodbyeBlueMonday@startrek.websitetoRisa@startrek.websiteBait
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    What about Discovery felt like it had a spotlight on it more than “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield”? Or that TOS put a diverse cast front and center on the screen, including folks hailing from nations that were currently/recently enemies of the USA at the time? I grew up watching TNG, and the way Geordi turned the concept of what it meant to be ‘disabled’ on its head felt really pointed, even for child me. Likewise the dehumanization of Data.

    I’m happy to gripe about worse writing, but if someone wrote a shoddy story that included a couple giraffes (because giraffes were more popular nation-wide), I wouldn’t get mad about “giraffe messages” in entertainment, I’d get mad about shit writing.




  • Reminds me of what Warren Zevon had to say about rich people problems, off Preludes. It came out a few years after his death, and the back half of the album has snippets from some radio interview(s?) he did. Neat musings by a complex dude: he was creative genius in a lot of ways, and a titanic asshole in a lot of other ways (he asked his ex-wife to write his biography, and to not go easy on him - alcoholism, violence, absentee parenting…it’s all there).

    Anyway, that’s a preface for the folks who don’t know about him: he probably could have been a bigger financial success had he not been a disaster of a human, but maybe his dirty life and times gave him enough material to feed his creativity…who knows.

    WZ: I was real lucky, because I always had some kind of work that came along - at the last minute, anyway.

    I was always able to make some kind of living as a musician

    I also never really got rich, and that might have been lucky too, ya know?

    Interviewer: in what way?

    WZ: Well, because the less time you spend with the issues of being rich

    they’re like the issues of being famous

    they’re not real issues

    so they’re not real life.

    Interviewer: And it leaves more time to be creative?

    WZ: There’s more of an exchange - a human exchange of ideas and feelings to be had on the bus stop than over the phone with your accountant, and if you’re rich you spend a lot of time on the phone with your accountant. it’s necessary, I believe.

    I know I’m happy and that means I must be lucky. That I know.

    EDIT: this is not to say I wouldn’t be grateful for more money, myself, but I chose the life of a biologist - in ecology and evolution, no less. I’m happy to make a living, and it’s always a little shocking to see folks make double/triple what I do and say it’s “not much these days”. Those of us scraping by have a wildly different perspective, and I’d love to give folks a tour of what it looks like long-term.



  • Yeah, I’m reminded of one of the things the Emissary himself tried to explain to the Prophets. In this case, however, the past experience guiding Pike’s choices in the present is already in the future…

    Prophet - OPS OFFICER: You have no regard for the consequences of your acts.

    SISKO: That’s not true. We’re aware that every choice we make has a consequence.

    Prophet - CAPTAIN: But you claim you do not know what it will be.

    SISKO: We don’t.

    Prophet - JAKE: Then how can you take responsibility for your actions?

    Sisko: We use past experiences to help guide us. For Jennifer and me, all the experiences in our lives prepared us for the day we met on the beach, helped us recognize that we had a future together. When we married, we accepted all the consequences of that act, whatever they might be, including the consequences of you.

    Cited from: http://www.chakoteya.net/DS9/401.htm