#TNG commentary

[soulerflaire]

I mean, the plan always was to kill them. Relocating them to a different planet would remove them from the radiation that’s kept them young. They would begin to age and die. Don’t act all high and mighty about not wanting to kill them, what you were doing was a death sentence as surely as destroying the planet is, just slower.

[could-they-be-a-pro-wrestler]

[biblioflyer]

To boldly go backwards?

Unpacking the attitudes behind people burned by Burnham. No, not those people. The other people. The ones who authentically seem to care about something other than protecting their image of Columbus as a cool dude.

This will be a series. If you’re reading this on the day it escaped my queue, the rest are queued for a 1 a day. If not, all will have the ‘Star Trek ethics’ tag in common. If I’m really on the ball, I’ll come back later and edit in links to the other chapters here.

I can see it now. Enterprise had its 1701-D cameos, Star Trek Picard had its Enterprise-G moment, and now Discovery’s finale will likely be controversial on the basis of Burnham placing the Progenitor’s technology out of reach of pretty much everyone. There will be many different ways of contemplating this, but I think you can sum it up as:

Did Discovery “give in” to techno-pessimism and in doing so undermine a core theme of Star Trek?

I don’t personally think so, but you might and I think I know why. Burnham is kind of, sort of applying a reverse Prime Directive on the Federation. She comes away believing that the Progenitor tech should not be entrusted to one person or even one civilization, and that ultimately it's unnecessary. So she “throws it away.” 

By throw it away, I mean she has it yeeted into a Black Hole where theoretically more advanced civilizations than the Federation can access it if and when it comes to it, but by that point it will likely be more of an anthropological curiosity to them rather than a new technological singularity.

Thus, the series finale of Discovery is one in which some observers might feel that a core premise of Star Trek, that of techno-optimism, is betrayed. While the grousing I think is likely to be hyperbolic, not all of it is necessarily a mask for something more nasty, feral, and likely to get a person kicked off any reasonably well moderated platform if expressed in the open.

What you think the core values of Star Trek are may actually be just that: a different understanding of what the core values are, and thus a different understanding of when they have or have not been undermined. I have my own take on those values.

For instance I despise Section 31 as a concept and storytelling device, believe it has directly attacked one of the most important core conceits of the setting: its fundamental optimism, and the damage this embrace of cynicism has done is continuing to ripple through Trek into the present day.

Yet at the same time, I also understand Trek as a set of modern fables, that the Federation is not a real place, and that it has a narrative function. That function being to model becoming aware of and confronting that which we should find repugnant and unacceptable in our own society if we were not desensitized to it.

Thus Burnham’s choice is one that can be read a few different ways, and that’s without getting into whether it was satisfying as a climax. While it is often derisively referred to as “NuTrek”, a label that both describes a worldview and a storytelling style anathema to those who prefer the more professional affectations, high regard for Classical Education, and “competency porn” of TOS & TNG or the more “neo-realist” shades of gray of DS9; Discovery is in many ways a fusion of the Treks of yesteryear. 

Sometimes it can be a lot closer to The Original Series in worldview than one might imagine in its willingness to indulge moral gray zones: “the Vulcan Hello” being a prime example. Other times it affirms the TNG obsession with personal and civilizational virtues as a thing one actively commits to upholding even when there are tremendous, even transformative benefits to be reaped by conceding. The refusal of the Progenitor tech being one of those examples.

This is something I’m going to unpack in subsequent posts in an attempt to try to sidestep some of the nastier fissures in the fandom and uncover what I think may be a genuine difference in the worldviews and orientations of some fans rather than, at best a distaste for the story structures and affectations of Discovery, and at its worst naked hostility to a crew that isn’t predominantly Anglo-European, heterosexual, and male. 

Next: What is the Kirkian ideal?

[spacedocmom]

Doctor Beverly Crusher @SpaceDocMom There can never be quality health care in any system that lets economic forces dictate care, be it for-profit care that pushes for what's profitable or underfunded care that allows insufficient care. You will all keep suffering until the money comes out of care entirely. emojis: black heart, blue heart, masked 12:47 PM · Oct 1, 2023

[star-trek-smash-or-pass]

Geordi La Forge (4x18 Identity Crisis transformed form)

"Not only is he already topless, he also glows in the dark!"

[gaylos-lobos]

star trek needs to decenter the west

[degrassi-ship-war]

Degrassi Character Tournament

[avoidingdestiny]

Anyone else really struggling with the dialogue on Picard?

[tngbabe]

I've got to find this bluray asap!!

The commentary from Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis on the Blu-ray version of "Insurrection" is genuinely one of the funniest things I've listened to.

Highlights include:

Marina openly admitting she hasn't watched the movie since the premiere and constantly asking things like "What's that? What's he doing? What's happening?" and Jonathan just patiently explaining the entire plot to her.

“And I played Commander Riker, Picard’s big Willy.” -Jonathan introducing himself

*regarding the non-regular actors in alien makeup* Jonathan: “They didn’t know what they signed up for.” Marina: “I know, poor things.”

constant dragging of their costars throughout.

Marina: “Who’s idea was it that Patrick sing?” Jonathan: “Michael Pillar (writer)” Marina: “Really? Had he ever HEARD Patrick sing?”

"Patrick managed to get his shirt open again, he's got his guns out."- Jonathan

*regarding Worf's Klingon pimple* Marina: "What is that pimple on his face?" Jonathan: "It's a gorch, Marina! Listen to the dialogue!"

Calling Picard "Cappy", Brent Spiner "Brento", Worf "Big, dumb, stupid Worf", and F. Murray Abraham "Fmurr"

"Lookin' a little shiny there, Patrick. Was it a hot day?"- Marina

*silently watching the Son'a ship fly through space* Marina: "...Well that's not the Enterprise."

*regarding Data* “He’s so smart. He knows things.”- Jonathan

*watching Data emerge from a lake* Marina: "Why's his hair dry?" Jonathan: "He's an android." Marina: "Why's his costume dry?" Jonathan: "He's an android."

Jonathan, groaning in disgust at a scene with some children: "This is cloying."

Wheezing fits of laughter throughout

If you need a hefty dose of serotonin injected directly into your brain, I highly suggest watching this. Plus, if you listen closely, there are even some interesting tidbits about the production of the movie.

[soulerflaire]

I downloaded an art program for this joke.

[biblioflyer]

Is Star Trek Insurrection anti-progress?

In which I take a stab at trying to be generous towards one of the Star Trek takes that annoys me the most.

This is a continuation of a series analyzing Discovery’s finale and the different worldviews in the Star Trek fandom. This is also, in part, a reaction and analysis of a discussion about conflicting values behind Trek between Michael Heaton and Tim Sandefur on the Political Orphanage podcast. For more like this, use the Star Trek ethics tag.

In the last post, I focused on the fandom skepticism of the geopolitical assumptions of The Next Generation. Another key complaint Sandefur raises is that Next Generation seems to have turned its back on techno optimism in favor of neo-pastoralism, my words not his.

Neo-pastoralism being the vague notion that not only was the pre-industrial world more ecologically sustainable, to some degree life was better for humans under those conditions. By virtue of being more ecologically sustainable, preindustrial pastoralism is morally superior to the way society would be organized at any point from the industrial revolution onward. 

I’m painting with an extremely broad brush and am almost certainly guilty of caricaturing both Sandefur’s objections to TNG’s relationship with technology and also the beliefs of people who would prefer pre-industrial ways of life for aesthetic, moral, or practical reasons.

Let's set aside the obvious contradiction that TNG takes place on a spaceship outfitted with technological doodads that render industrial scale agriculture if not obsolete, then much less necessary. That’s a point well worth litigating but the savvy thinker recognizes that these are backdrop elements intended to be observed and then quickly taken for granted until they become plot relevant.

The setting’s philosophy of technology and the intrinsic goodness of progress, in the material sense, is found in how characters react to plot devices. The MacGuffins and scenarios that warrant scrutiny by the characters and audiences rather than disappearing into the background.

I’ve got to be honest, I’ve forgotten most of Sandefur’s argument on this point, except that he really, really didn’t like Star Trek Insurrection and had nothing but contempt for the Baku or the idea that anyone would feel sentimental about taking away their unnaturally long lives to maybe confer superior medical care to people offworld, and destroy the planet’s ecology in the process.

I suppose if I was going to steelman this, there are times where it is judged that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Imminent domain laws in the US are sometimes used to break a stalemate between the representatives of the many, i.e. the state, and individuals or small groups of people who are standing in the way of a major development that theoretically would improve the lives of the many. It would stand to reason that Sandefur would be unsentimental about mountaintop removal mining as long as humans aren’t directly exposed to any pollutants that result.

I guess he sort of has a point?

Except that I think it's pretty clear that Insurrection is a metaphor for the forced removal of people from their land for the purposes of exploiting their natural resources under the assumption that the more materially powerful and numerous society has more of a right to those resources than the people who are not utilizing them “properly.” Furthermore, any resistance to resettlement and “fair compensation” is characterized as irrational sentimentality. 

Although I wonder how many people who think more in terms of whether resources are being properly exploited would be in favor of demolishing the Washington Monument to build a Walmart or dynamiting Mount Rushmore to get at a newly discovered vein of platinum? Are there proponents of forcibly resettling the Baku who oppose resettling the Federation colonists who found themselves on the Cardassian side of the new borders?

Reviewing some of his recent work just to make sure that I wasn’t name-dropping someone who had undergone a massively problematic character arc since the original recording, I do find that in the present Sandefur actually has strong beliefs about private property protections. So I wonder what the threshold is at which private property rights are overridden by collective benefit.

Ultimately, I think Insurrection largely invalidates the arguments of the pro-Baku removal side. Even Admiral Dougherty’s appeal to people with chronic illness only moderately softens the overall impact of seizing the metaphasic radiation. Especially since it's depicted as a natural phenomena. An exotic one to be sure, but anything of nature ought to be something that the Federation can throw its best minds at and eventually replicate in a lab rather than having a finite quantity of whatever charged particles emit the radiation to ration. Of course to give credit to Dougherty and Sandefur, this may not be easy, timely, or even possible in the long term and many lives will be lost from chronic illness while the effort is underway.

This is where its worth talking about virtue ethics vs consequentialism. Because I do believe that TNG definitely leans more towards virtue ethics than consequentialism, but its all contextual. In the context of the Baku removal, Picard opposes it because he believes in his core its wrong. Even though the applications of the metaphasic radiation would presumably help many more people than the 600 people on the Baku planet, the removal of the Baku against their will represents a moral violation of a sort that, under virtue ethics, undermines the habit of disciplined commitment to ethical behavior and invites easier rationalizations of would otherwise be deemed unethical behavior. This is of course, something a consequentialist would likely describe as a slippery slope fallacy.

Ironically, while this is depicted as an example of TNG era Trek being all in on environmentalism to a fault and “anti-progress”, that this seems like something that could ultimately be whipped up in a lab and ultimately being deployed as a resource without practical limit seems pretty consistent with established Treknology and doesn’t seem like a reach. 

So where I end up is feeling that it's just kind of weird and icky to hate on this movie for reasons other than it not being particularly cinematic, it being another cliched “badmiral” story, or the way it utilized particular characters: Data’s emotion chip was disabled and thus his growth as a character reset, Worf was just comic relief and muscle, Beverly was in that movie too I think.

[a-continuous-cutting-motion]

Star Trek TNG S2E18: Riker is extremely horny for a space-irishwoman’s dirty feet.

[1shirt2shirtredshirtdeadshirt]

OK @t1gerlilly that addition is *legendary*.

You hit on some stuff that as someone who grew up with TNG as a young woman, it made me feel things that I couldn't quite put into words. You put it into words marvellously here.

My mother also made a comment about the Berman era, specifically ENT, that sums the feeling up nicely: "In TOS era, I felt welcome. I was excited by Uhura and she made me feel powerful with how respected she was. Then Rick Berman took over and it turned into a boy's club, suddenly I didn't feel welcome anymore. Women weren't shown as powerful like Uhura anymore."

I mean, wow. I never really thought of it that way. The guys on the Enterprise in TOS Prime universe didn't stand around and talk about Uhura's body, they talked of her expertise and talent. In TNG and onward, the women were constantly talked about in a demeaning way by male crew behind their backs and to their faces.

Some examples off the top of my head: The whole Barclay thing? The Tasha Yar "rape gang" planet? The ooga booga African planet with lady property which makes me crawl out of my skin every time I watch it? The women commenting on their tits getting firmer in Insurrection? Leah Brahms and Geordi? Troi knocked up by an alien against her will, or forced upon by fake Riker or young Picard clone? Bev's sex ghost? The T'Pol mind rape episode and getting her whole ass out? Garak's creepy relationship with Dukat's daughter? Dabbo girls? Ferengi's insane sexism being protected by Sisko?

Who tf was writing women in that era, 13 year old boys? Why does this era keep getting pats on the back while TOS gets lambasted? 😂 That's all I'm saying. Not that Gene or TOS was perfect, but that TNG and onward did not go out of its way to at least try to be progressive the way TOS did for women, save for some stellar examples in DS9.

I have also been reluctant to say some of these things as the Berman era has had the benefit of being remembered with rose coloured glasses. I myself am guilty of it, I remember DS9 and often give it more credit than even the creators themselves give -- they regretted they hadn't done more, and for that I applaud them. To this day I feel DS9 made as many swings as TOS did, and was true to the vision of Gene's wish to push the envelope during the time period and make commentary.

I remember watching the Borg arc air live, and for us it was some of the most exciting television we saw unfolding in history! But if we are gonna keep calling TOS on being problematic, we best be taking a long, hard look at the Berman era.

My mom grew up on TOS, I grew up on TNG. Berman's era was my era. It has such a special place in my heart, and I celebrate in TNG, DS9, VOY, and ENT. But like TOS, I'm not going to forego media literacy and make excuses for or just because I love it and it is near and dear to my heart.

Sexism in TOS: Worst Offender, or Progressive in Retrospect in Comparison?

I see a lot of folks claim that TOS was the most sexist of the Star Trek shows by a landslide -- and while I agree that it definitely suffered from the sexism of the times, I also have other perspectives to share to give some food for thought.

I am of course not insinuating that TOS isn't sexist -- it is, but I have to ask folks to consider the breadth and depth of Berman's sexism in his run and ask yourself: Was Gene Roddenberry genuinely more sexist in his storytelling and delivery than Rick Berman?

I'm not telling you to feel one way or the other, but all I ask is that you hear me out and consider some perspectives and make your own balanced assessments. Nobody is obligated to share my opinion, but it means a lot just to have folks hear it and see their thoughts on the subject. So here is what I was originally responding to:

Someone's response to this photo:

"Devil's advocate. This was a part of the popular form of cardio during the production time of TNG. Yes, it was heavily sexualised by men, but so is literally every other way women work out. Men have been caught taking pictures of women while trying to do dead lifts, running on tracks and working on sled machines. They post them online to share too. The fact is, there is no way a woman can be shown working out without it going there. And yeah,t hat includes the combat forms of workout they do in Star Trek. Just look at how Dax dresses when she spars with Worf. Yes, they're dating, but still, same goes when 7 does and any other female.

Aerobics routines like this were made dirty and cringy. This was what women wore then by and large. This is how the workout was done. We make it cringy."

My response to them:

"I respect your take, but I disagree on a few fronts.

The miniskirt was chosen by the TOS female cast, not the male cast, specifically requested by Grace LW and affirmed by Nichelle and Majel who would go on to vehemently defend the miniskirt over the years as comfortable and embraced by them.

Grace said it was comfortable and seen as a symbol of female sexual empowerment during the 60s and thought it would be a progressive garment (and turns out that it was, as it was later adapted and worn by male crew as a skant on TNG) -- FYI those were designed by a gay man and Gene approved them.

This was also supposed to be Spock's TMP outfit:

Literally lingerie.

We saw both Uhura (who saves Kirk in from Marlena Mirror Mirror) and Yeoman Landon (the first to initiate combat with a classic Kirk-esque kick to help the Captain being attacked in The Apple) carry out their combat training in their Starfleet uniforms without ever being made to change into any ridiculous workout gear.

In fact, I'd argue Jim Kirk was sexualized even more than the ladies of the week on the show and I saw his naked body more than anyone else's on a fairly regular basis. He wore red yoga tights while topless in Charlie X while the women wore full length gymnastic suits that covered their entire body. If anything, it went out of its way to avoid sexualizing women practicing fitness in those scenes and instead focused on Kirk.

Gene confessed that he asked to have Shatner filmed in suggestive/provocative ways to "give something to the ladies", so he -- as he said -- liked to "film him walking away" or have him conveniently busting out of his shirts in just about every episode as it were, because Shatner apparently had great assets. LOL

Gene made an effort to at least sexualize both if he was going to sexualize one, and he carried that attitude forward in wanting the m/m and f/f scenes in the background on Risa for TNG. He also insisted that the men and women wear skimpy outfits on THAT TNG planet. You know the one. LOL I mean the dudes even had on less than the women:

Gene also gave permission to K/S shippers to have their conventions back in the 70s when he was asked for permission. Gene and Nimoy felt with all the skimpy outfits they had the ladies wear, why not let the ladies and gay men have their fun, too? It's how we ended up with moments like this:

Yes, those are two people dressed up as Kirk and Spock's penises doing interpretive dance. Gene didn't give two damns. LOL

In my eyes, that was a very progressive take on Gene's part for the 60s. It was actually PARAMOUNT STUDIOS who had the big problem with K/S stories and vehemently tried to shut them down. Gene literally hired slash authors on his payroll and even had several slash stories/writers published in his official Star Trek books (The New Voyages & The New Voyages II).

I feel I saw Uhura and women in TOS engaged in more physical combat/altercations defending themselves that Troi or Bev were shown holding their own.

In fact, Kirk used to get furious when someone would "dress up" his female crew members without their consent (Trelane episode, Shore Leave episode) because like his male crew members, he wanted them to be treated professionally and to also have his male crew act professionally.

Berman brought some of his own personal biases into Star Trek that in some ways regressed it. While TOS had blatant sexism and was called on it time and again, that show was made in the 60s -- a solid 21 years before TNG. We as a modern audience understood why some of it was cringe/sexist due to the time period -- look at any other media coming out in the 60s and Star Trek was miles ahead of what other shows were doing.

Compare that to Berman who was churning sexist stuff out when women like Starbuck and Scully were simultaneously on screen on other programs airing, and we had already had Sigourney Weaver and other strong women in Holywood playing respectful roles.

In my eyes, there was no need of the sexism seen in TNG but especially VOY and ENT. There was no excuse for it when other shows were writing women far better and a number of those weren't even set in the future like Trek was, making it age even faster due to having those dated perspectives frequently highlighted.

In the Center Seat documentary as well as "The Fifty Year Mission" book you will find cast members, writers and other studio alumni who attest to this. Some discussions from "The Fifty Year Mission":

"First, Berman was supposed to have been a real sleaze ball . . . According to Terry Farrel, he would go on constantly about how her breasts weren't big enough, how she should do something about it, and how his secretary was a good example to follow as she had huge breasts. She even had to have fittings to get larger bras, and that was all done at his behest.

Later Berman and Braga developed a name for Jeri Ryan's character prior Seven of Nine. They originally called the character "perineum" which if you look it up it is the area between the anus and the scrotum. Later they floated the name "6 of 9". I mean, what does it tell you about where these two were coming from in the development of this character if they had names like that put forward in all seriousness for her?"

Gene Roddenberry also had some of his own more progressive ideas for TNG cut or watered down by Berman. Roddenberry agreed TNG should have homosexual relationships and representation at a con in the 80s and insisted on it in a meeting with his writers -- something Berman later would not honor. Gene wanted the AIDS episode, showing m/m and f/f in the Riza scenes -- these were some of Roddenberry's requests to include in TNG that Berman later stonewalled.

Berman's era was sadly dated by his own misogynist bias, IMO, to the point that it can somewhat hurt the shows he worked on through his cringe egoism and blatant disrespect toward his female cast.

There is a reason why Gene could keep female actresses working with him and Berman had a revolving door of women that he couldn't seem to keep working for him -- he was abhorrent to women, on and off set. Gene wasn't perfect at all, he had a lot of issues himself -- but Berman was a whole other level. Just look at what he did to poor Jolene Blalock, Marina Sirtis and his toxic commenting on her body weight which exacerbated her struggles with eating disorders, or how he treated and talked to Terry Farrell.

Anyway, just some food for thought. I'm not saying anyone is wrong regarding a take like that, but there are a variety of ways to look at this. Gene Roddenberry isn't a saint by any means, but it definitely bothers me how folks will tote the Berman era as if it were the lesser of two evils or the more progressive depiction of women when I felt there were far more concerning portrayals of women in his era with far less justification.

(P.S: I don't event want to go near the sheer amount of "creepy old dude/villain preys on innocent/naïve/scared young woman or little girl" stories there were in Berman's era, either. But that's a whole other can of worms I can write about in a part 2.)

[quasi-normalcy]

Which Star Trek series should you start with?

The Original Series: Advantages: + The one that started it all + Has some sophisticated and socially conscious science fiction that has held up exceptionally well + The lead characters all have really good chemistry and fun to see play off of one another + It's what most people probably think of when you say Star Trek (together with TNG) Disadvantages: - It can feel very dated and kind of sexist, particularly in its treatment of women - The sci-fi and social commentary may have held up, but damn it, the special effects really haven't - When TOS is bad, it's really, really bad.

The Animated Series: Advantages: + Basically just more TOS. Disadvantages: - Basically just more TOS, but substituting extremely cheap animation for bad special effects

The Next Generation: Advantages: + Probably the most popular one at this point + The crew is full of interesting characters and they're fun to spend time with + Just really smart people solving Space Mysteries + Socialist space utopia + Geordi-And-Data! + Lots of cool sci-fi concepts and social commentary + It's what most people probably think of when you say Star Trek (together with TOS) Disadvantages: - Although not in the same way as TOS, it can feel dated at times, particularly in terms of its treatment of women and it's near complete refusal to acknowledge queerness - Without wanting to bias viewer opinion, the first season is widely considered to be pretty bad - The series makes no bones about the fact that the socialist space utopia is better than every other society that has ever existed and will reiterate this point over and over again

Deep Space Nine: Advantages: + The most popular Trek series on Tumblr + Has a complete story arc, as well as arcs for all of its characters, including the extremely minor ones + Plain, simple, Garak. The humble tailor. + Garashir, if you're into that + Seriously has a really sophisticated treatment of things like post-colonial politics, anthropology, worldbuilding, and the horrors of warfare + Just the characters in general + Is the only Star Trek prior to the 2010s to even look meaningfully at queer representation Disadvantages: - Has an absolutely massive inferiority complex with respect to TNG and this drives a few poor writing decisions that seemingly exist just to poke the Socialist Space Utopia in its eye - Introduces a space religion and then just slowly turns it into Christianity with the numbers filed off - Seems to think that sexual harassment is just a quirky eccentricity - There's no women in its writers' room, and frankly it shows

Voyager: Advantages: + Probably the clearest instance of found family in space + Lots of really good episodes + Lots of fun new characters + Strong female role models + "Set a course...for home." Disadvantages: - Continuity? I never knew her! - Probably about 90% of Trek's reputation for technobabble comes from this one series - Even less queerness than TNG. - Only like...3 characters actually get arcs. - The first few seasons lean very hard into bullshit fake "Native American" spiritualism with one of the characters - How do these guys have warp drive but can't find any water?

Enterprise: Advantages: + Chronologically the first series + 90% less technobabble + The only series to plausibly frame our heroes as astronauts...on some kind of...star trek. + Still has probably the best production values of any series + Makes alien cultures of the week feel somehow richer and deeper than other series + Faith of the Heart is good, fuck you. Disadvantages: - Oh my god, the decon scenes - Seriously, if you've ever wondered what a "sexy" series written by a 14 year old boy who's only ever seen a bit of scrambled softcore porn on late-night cable would be like, this is the show for you - Somehow feels more sexist and racist than the show from the '60s - Seriously, the POC characters mostly exist to fill seats on the bridge; the women constantly have to undress themselves - Hellooooo, Bush II-era political analogies - Scott Bakula is a good actor but you wouldn't know it from this series - In season 3, they add a tambourine beat to Faith of the Heart and ruin it

Discovery: Advantages: + Noticed the lack of queer characters in the first 50 years of Star Trek canon and decided to make up for lost time + Seriously, the "Bury Your Gays" tally for this series is like...negative two + Just incredible representation in general + Some really good science fiction plots, particularly in later series + Some really fun, memorable characters + It's still running, so it has an active fandom on Tumblr Disadvantages: - Makes Elon Musk out to be one of the great visionary geniuses of history - Not really representative of Star Trek as a whole - The series swerves wildly in tone because of constant, behind-the-scenes churn in the writers' room - Offputtingly grimdark first season - Let's be honest, none of the season-long arcs have actually had satisfying conclusions - Half the cast feels like it's just there for exposition and to be killed for cheap drama

Picard: Advantages: + Has the best dramatic acting of any Star Trek series by a fair margin + Has the best musical score of any Star Trek series + Introduces a whole crew of fascinating new characters + Introduces all kinds of fascinating transhumanist concepts + AGNES. JURATI. Disadvantages: - You know all of those fascinating new characters that I mentioned? Yeah, it unceremoniously gets rid of all of them to bring back the old TNG gang. - You know that all of those fascinating transhumanist concepts that I mentioned? Yeah, it gets rid of those too so that to give us some generic action - Oh my god, someone teach the set designers to operate a fucking light switch - Grimdark - Nossssstalgia - Each season is basically unrelated to every other season - Depends so heavily on TNG that its final season is basically unwatchable if you haven't already seen a 30-year-old TV series

Lower Decks: Advantages: + It has probably the most efficient storytelling that I've ever seen; seriously, it's incredible how much it can fit into a half hour episode + It has a bunch of delightful, archetypical characters you get to know and love + You like hanging out with these people + The ship is kind of crap and you will learn to love it that way. + Basically a sitcom version of TNG. + Has a big fandom on Tumblr Disadvantages: - The art style is pretty Rick & Morty-ish - It takes most of its first season to really strike a good balance between being a sitcom and being a Star Trek series - The main character, Mariner, is kind of unlikable for the first season or so (she gets better) - Lots of callbacks to other series (though always either incidental or clearly explained) - Given that it's the first Star Trek sitcom, the comedy is honestly kinda the weakest part? Subjective I know.

Prodigy: Advantages: + Absolutely gorgeous to look at; the most visually stunning Star Trek by quite a ways + Lots of fun new characters on a cool ship + Gives you clear on-boarding notes to the Star Trek franchise if you're watching it for the first time + Can be watched on its own, but also works as a direct sequel to Voyager and a prequel to Picard (making both of them retoractively better, in fact) + Kind of like the Clone Wars or Rebels of the Star Trek universe, I guess? + Found family in space! The next generation! + Soon to be running on Netflix, so if you already have a Netflix subscription, you don't need to pay for another service + Written for a younger audience. Not necessarily an advantage, but nice if you happen to like family friendly animation or YA. Disadvantages: - *sigh* You basically need to pirate it. Thanks, Paramount. - Has a second season that we may or may not ever actually get to see even through piracy. Thanks, Paramount. - Isn't airing on the same streaming service as all of the other ones. Thanks, Paramount

Strange New Worlds: Advantages: + Basically what the original series would be if it were released today, rather than 57 years ago; all of the cool, socially consciousness sci-fi adventure, none of the weird 60s sexism + Fun, awesome characters you get to like spending time with right away + Incredible visuals + Nifty sci-fi concepts, mostly without the 90s-style technobabble Disadvantages: - A huge cast with only ten episodes a season, so many of them feel underdeveloped - Unfortunately, a bunch of its characters are younger versions of the characters from The Original Series, and they hog most of the spotlight; and the characters whose futures aren't locked in stone are kind of treated as disposable - In general, it needs to spend less time being a prequel, and more time being its own thing - "What if Starfleet ran into the Xenomorphs from Alien?" "Well, they'd probably kill them." "Okay, let's spend several episodes on this."

[ktempestbradford]

A Story for Star Trek Day

I've told this story on Twitter before. I tell it every Star Trek Day and whenever a Deep Space 9 anniversary rolls around. It's about me and Avery Brooks (aka Best ST Captain Benjamin Sisko).

The college my mother went to specifically started recruiting top Black students in the 60s. Due to this, the Black kids all mostly knew each other as they were in that same program. Avery Brooks went to the same college and they were good friends.

(She once told me he had a huge crush on her and I was like MOM. MOTHER. WHAT. HOW COULD YOU HE COULD HAVE BEEN MY DAD.)

Anyway, many of the students in this program remained friends long after college. So over the years as Avery was getting TV gigs & such we would all watch cuz he was my mom's friend & I thought that was the coolest. There was one particularly fun night when my best friend's uncle, Frankie Faison, guest starred on A Man Called Hawk. TWO people we know on TV!

When I was in middle school Avery was touring his production of "Paul Robeson" and it came through our town, so I got to see him perform in person (awesooooome) and meet him for the first time since I was a baby (which I did not remember, of course).

Now, backing up a little bit: I am a Star Trek fan because of my mom. She loved the original series and I remember being a wee Tempest in front of the TV watching The Wrath of Khan and us excitedly going to see Star Trek IV together.

I watched TNG from the instant it appeared on TV because of her. I watched all of The Animated Series even though everyone looked "wrong". (Man... it took me 4 months to realize that dude in the red shirt was Scotty cuz I'd only ever seen movie Scotty.)

Then... they announced Deep Space 9.

We heard Avery Brooks would be the commander and there was MUCH rejoicing around our house. DS9 turned out to be the best Trek ever and, of course, Avery was awesome. This was around the time my mom dropped that "he had a crush on me but I wasn't interested" bombshell.

I'm still bitter.

I mean, I love my dad he's great. But SISKO COULD HAVE BEEN MY DAD.

I lost my mom in 1999. She was--and I'm not exaggerating--an extraordinary woman and beloved by many. I received so many beautiful messages of condolence from her friends all the way back to those college years, including Avery. So many people remembered her fondly. <3

I kept watching Star Trek and often talked to her as if she was there during episodes. She would have LOVED Discovery. Especially since she took me to RENT the year I started college. I'm sure she would have shared my opinion of Enterprise as well. But she loved her some Scott Bakula, so she would have watched, anyway.

I got the chance to interview Avery Brooks at DragonCon back in 2013 (jeez, it's been almost 10 years omg). Before the interview, I went up to him on the Walk of Fame and I said:

Hi, I'm (name K stands for) Bradford, I don't know if you remember me...

And he looked up and said: Of course I remember you.

We talked for a bit and I asked if I could come back and interview him later and he said yes (he wasn't supposed to; his handler had A LOOK). I didn't want to hold up his line, so I said I'd see him later.

Before I could go, he reached out for my hand and squeezed it before saying: I loved your mama, you know.

And we just stayed like that for a few seconds, missing her together.

...I might have been trying very hard not to burst into tears.

That DragonCon was the last time I saw Avery. Barring an extraordinary circumstance, that's probably the last time I'll see him in person. I'm glad we got to have that moment together. And we had a great conversation!

His contribution to Trek has meant so much to me. SISKO4EVA

And I'm glad that it's another tie between me, my mom, and Trek. I can't watch DS9 without hearing her voice giving color commentary. Even the episodes she didn't live to see.

I think Star Trek is part of what gave her hope for the future. She passed that on to me. ❤️🖖🏾❤️

Happy Star Trek Day to all who celebrate.

[fate-motif]

it's something else to watch people write posts about how star trek needs to be doing more shows with original casts and leave tos and tng alone already and then in the tags they clarify that they like lwd and that's it and it's like

i'm on my knees

watch prodigy. you want a new star trek epic? watch prodigy! new cast! new species and worldbuilding! arcs centered entirely on the new characters! sometimes there are legacy characters but they are there specifically to give the new characters agency! actually new interesting ideas and concepts about where the star trek world could go beyond rehashing old villains and better made commentary on society! watch prodigy! i promise you you're not gonna die because the writing is also meant to accommodate children, it's an actually good star trek, probably the best since ds9!