I don't think the 'audience' ratings can be fully trusted though. Any new film or TV show these days with prominent women, minority or LGBTQ characters (Discovery has all) gets routinely review-bombed by alt-right participants who likely haven't even watched it - that's just a fact of these ratings. My anecdotal discussions with irl Trek fans didn't find the same antagonism to Discovery that you find online.
Discovery wasn't the best of Star Trek, and I ended up switching off early Season 4, but much of the early hostility towards it was either that sort of bad faith, or focused on trivia (which leads me to wonder if it was just cover for the same - I cannot get my head around people who refused to watch because they didn't like the Klingon prosthetics).
Season 1 was solid, Season 2 was arguably even better (although owed a lot off that to Captain Pike). Season 3 had great promise in its premise but failed to realise it's potential, and then Season 4 just felt lost.
The shame is that the ending of Season 4 might be one of the most ’ Star Trek’ moments in the franchise. But the lead up to was so generic that many didn’t make it that far.
Came here to say exactly that - this article is bullshit. I love LD&R, but aside from it being animated there’s no similarity with HM. Some of the episodes are wildly different in theme, feel, and style. I don’t see how anyone can call it a “spiritual successor” in good faith. Hell, as a diverse collection of stories and styles, it’s hard to relate it to any one movie or show at all.
Eh, I’ve never actually sat and watched love, death and robots. But my understanding of it is it’s a non serialized episodic program often revolving around a different sci-fi or fantasy storyline from episode to episode. Spiritually it’s very in line with metal hurlant, or heavy metal in the US. But yeah unless there’s heavy involvement from either of those magazines or anyone significant from the other productions. Calling it any sort of prequel or sequel is wildly disingenuous for sure.
Eh, never hated Wesley back when the show was airing. When the episodes where he’s badly written (and there are many) are spread out over weeks or months, he’s not annoying enough to hate, and he does get some okay writing here and there.
If anything, having a younger crew member helped teenagers and kids find a more relatable character to have an in to the show if they weren’t already fans of TOS and the movies. So in that , even though he was poorly written most of the time, he’s still a valuable character.
Honestly, even back then my impression was that the writers were just crap at writing a believable “gifted” kid. That Wesley was supposed to be even more than gifted didn’t help because getting the kind of personalities that form around kids that really are that much smarter than those around them isn’t exactly a common experience even among gifted kids. The kind of genius that Wesley was described to be is just too rare for even the mensa set to have a lot of experience talking to.
That’s what I think the problem was. You had adults that weren’t used to the kind of intelligence Wesley was supposed to have, and didn’t really remember being Wesley’s age trying to write him. They just used tropes and guesswork to turn him into what amounts to a DMPC, a free check to make bad writing choices via “super genius saves the day” vs “teenager fucks up” mismatches.
The premise is ridiculous, but some of the best stories rest on something even sillier. I’m intrigued by this. Curious how the aspect ratio changes from the beginning of the trailer.
Both Star Trek and Star Wars need to kick bricks. It’s time for some new IP. Those stories have been told time and again, let it rest and bring in some fresh new stories with new IP.
The Expanse was fantastic. I’d love to see the rest of the books adapted some day…
As for other sci-fi, my god there’s so much good shit in literature that will never be seen on a screen.
The Three Body Problem is getting several adaptations, one of which might or might not fix my issues with that series, but it does have conceptual potential.
The 30th century thing of rebuilding a fallen Federation was a somewhat interesting prospect, but I think they chose the wrong angle of going at it. But I don't know what I would have done differently, because I'm not a good enough writer to have a decent opinion on it.
I enjoyed the federation reborn as well. I have an opinion.
The writers were so busy patting each other on their backs with how “deep” they were being with symbolism about the importance of communication, that they went and made the whole cause of the burn a child being lonely on some planet somewhere so they could twist the burn into a big symbolic point about how “if only we had been a little better” something like it would never have happened.
It was so fucking telegraphed that I saw it coming episodes away and was rolling eyes every time the show referenced this symbolic circle jerk.
No. Shit happens. The universe doesn’t care, and it WILL fuck your shit up, I would have been far more impressed with the crew rebuilding the federation after an inevitable natural disaster, making a point of life finding a way despite the random crap reality throws at us, and how communication and understanding is one of the things that help us do that.
Star Trek is supposed to be optimistic, not delusional, and as such the core message of that season rings hollow. It’s too hopeful. Instead of “we might not be perfect, and we might not know what’s coming, we know we are enough” it was “we’re nearly there, we just need one more step to be perfect, and nothing bad will ever happen because of this ever again”.
giantfreakinrobot.com
Ważne