Progressive messaging in media.

A better, more honest answer, but IMO still not right.

No, the point of network TV is drama, so I really don't think the Enterprise gang solved too many stories 'without breaking a sweat.' So from a storytelling perspective, clearly not right.

And no, Starfleet doesn't have a long running theme of everyone in Starfleet being stupid or evil compared to the cast of the show we are watching.

It has a long running theme that space is dangerous as hell and only the very best can weather all the different ways the future can kill you.

Hell, remember Matt Decker? Kirk was clearly shocked by what happened to him, a man he respected. But then he fought a millennia old doomsday machine from an intelligence beyond our own galaxy and it broke him. Even then, in his madness, he helped 'save the day' and they wrote a log concerning his death that was compassionate and kind for what happened to him.

Not too many Trek episodes, certainly not the ones best remembered, cariacaturize their antagonists even when they wore the Starfleet uniform.

I just watched Silicon Avatar. The Doctor in that who lost her son and her quest for vengeance is a character clearly portrayed as morally in the wrong but has depth and you understand why she hates the Crystalline Entity, and how she could even see herself as doing the right thing by making sure it couldn't destroy yet another colony.

Even the red shirts are rarely stupid or evil. They just are in the wrong place in the wrong time, and are all too human and mortal.

Most of the problems that the crews encounter with other humans are outside of Starfleet itself, or at worst a bureaucrat trying to impose their authority in a condition they don't understand as well as the main crew, who are repeatedly shown as the best and brightest.

Very few of them could be stated to be stupid. Ignorant? Sure, misguided, often.

But once again, if you don't understand that Rodenberry's vision was about humanity being simply better than we are now, at least in the way he viewed that future, clearly you missed one of the primary drivers of its popularity.

Again, you are welcome to like what you like.

But these repeated statements that the only reason you don't like X or Y is because of some personal character defect seems more driven by personal agenda than an attempt at honest dialogue.

Sure, plot armor is a thing, and within universe that often can be explained by luck.

But these are also the best crews that the best space service has. The template, TOS - Kirk, Scotty, Bones, without a doubt they are all considered experts at their jobs. Spock is superhuman in many ways.

If your ship runs into the Planet Killer or your colony is overrun by invulnerable parasites, that doesn't mean you are stupid or evil. You just didn't have the finest crew in the fleet to protect you.

And after speech after speech about the ethos, ethics and standards of Starfleet from Kirk and Picard and Janeway, you'd need a lot of time devoted to justify the plot of a bad news bears ship.

But fine, it's a cartoon. It's not in my personal canon.

Data. It IS possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is LIFE.

With some critics, some sort of character defect or projection of their own issues seems like the most reasonable explanation. People that love McCoy for mouthing off constantly hate Raffi for doing the same thing. People that love Kirk and Picard for ignoring orders and saving the day anyway hate Mariner and Burnham for doing the same thing. People that love Luke Skywalker and Han Solo for defeating Vader and Tarkin in ANH complain that it's unrealistic and woke for Rey and Finn to defeat Kylo Ren similarly in TFA.

I get that part of it is some people watching the originals as kids and viewing newer stuff through a different lens, but at some point you see enough complaints when the characters are female or minorities or female minorities to notice a trend.

Oh yeah, thinking about it on the toilet I decided the best analogue to Lower Decks is MASH. They might have interpersonal conflicts, and none of them are perfect people, but when it's time to work they're all consummate professionals. Make fun of Winchester all you want, he's still an excellent surgeon. Make fun of Ransom all you want, he can still defuse a diplomatic crisis with his abs.

is the Cerritos crew actually that much of a shitshow-or even unorthodox- compared to other Trek crews? Humour aside, the bridge crew are shown as competent enough to rise above their mission requirements on multiple occasions.
the lower deckers themselves may be half way clueless, but there's a whole episode about that...

I watched the first season of Rings of Power and the fact that I watched all eight episodes should tell you that I enjoyed it. I'm not into hate-watching, so if I hadn't liked it, I would have quit after the first episode. Having a diverse cast didn't bother me, since I wasn't looking for an excuse to be outraged, either as a Tolkien "purist" or a conservative outraged by...whatever culture war issue has them fired up at the moment. There were some questionable writing choices, but they could have made a series that was totally aimed at satisfying the "purists" and made a show that was completely unwatchable. I watched because I was interested and kept watching because I was entertained enough to keep watching. I also watched the first season of "Foundation" and ignored "Wheel of Time" and "Game of Thrones". I basically agree with UA up to a point. If something entertains me I'll keep watching. Where we differ is that I make up my mind after watching it. It's kind of like a little kid saying I hate * insert yucky food here*, before they've ever tried it.

The opponents of diversity, aka bigots, are just there to harm others because they are bigots who long for the days when no one but WASPs were allowed. It made @Uncle Albert feel great because most of the time he knows he is the slimy trash at the bottom of the white trash dumpster after the fire and rain.

As I have seen over the years selling shit with diversity still means you are selling shit, and many hollywood and music producers market shit. You just cannot make shit taste good by throwing a new sauce on it. I watched a christmas rom com with gay guys instead of the straight couple and it was still the same old formula. Maybe if I was a teenager and had never seen a christmas romcom I might have enjoyed it more, but christmas romcoms always suck ass.

Something like black little mermaid, if the movie has similar quality to the white one, is something for the little girls who are seeing it for the first time. It did not take away the old movie, disney does that on it's own to fleece their customers. Little white girl ariel is still there. As long as the black version is not lower quality that drives away the new audience of children, then it is a new version for the kids of today, and it will bring in some adults.

Way back when Ellen let her show be ruined because lesbian replaced any quality it had. That does not mean that GLBT humor and diversity did not open up a whole new unexplored area that threw some new charm into sitcoms and dramas. The inclusion of GLBT people excited them and most straight people. The trans experience is one that is barely explored. People loved the trans woman aspect of Laverne Cox in Orange is the New Black. Since Hollywood ignored it for so many years because people are interested in hearing what is a new fucking story for a damned change. That is why straight people are also excited about diversity.

Uncle Albert can hide in his closet. He can cuddle with all his old media because none of it is gone, and people are tired of the same old white bread. If he wants to eat white bread for the rest of his life like the picky eater little spoiled toddler he is, then good. No one took it away. It is like a little kid, and every damn restaurant makes hamburgers for them. However, some of us adults want diversity and new things, even if we might taste it and it is shit.

I have watched fussy kids have tantrums on the floor because there is nothing on the holiday table they want to eat while all the adults are chowing down. Just get the shitty microwave nuggets out for them so the rest of us can have peace. We have our new shows and characters, and we have remakes for the new generations. All the old shows are still there every fucking moment with new tech. You do not have to wait for TV to have your favorite show anymore. Just put albert in his high chair and put the old little mermaid on for him. I did not even realized he gave a shit about disney princess fodder. If little laord fauntl;eroy still wants to have a tantrum we do what most adults do and tune it out.

If disney is not going to get diverse princesses I give my money to Netflix anyway. Disney is late to the party anyway, and I hope the black little mermaid does not suck because Disney always puts less quality and effort into a project because gimmick. If this sucks it is not because a black little mermaid sucks, like albert claims, but because Disney is a shit company rebooting it's old ideas with gimmicks rather than quality.

Careful with the word "fairies" you'll piss off Uncle Albert. You know how he feels about fairies.

I think there's a logical disconnect there when UA tries to suggest that the existence of "wokeness" or "diversity" as a selling point for some media somehow means that the creators completely stopped caring about quality because of it. That might be true in niche porn, where if you've got three midgets or a busty Japanese lady in your production you know your target audience is going to buy your product regardless of quality, but in regular movies or television? Nah. Pretty sure everybody keeps trying their best no matter how many groups are represented onscreen.

UA's logic is that woke or diversity always means shitty production because gimmick. That is not true overall, but we have all seen shitty ideas and production that relies on some gimmick. Yes, some producers think because they have a gay character everyone gay must love it. Sometimes that works when you are in a drought of representation or when it might be taboo or new.

The music industry had a lot of WTF bands that have no real quality outside of an outrageous stage show. Then yopu have artists like Bowie, Prince, and Elton who have a WTF image for their time, but are also quality music.

UA is just a bigot who tries to pretend diversity is always because of lack of story or quality when it isn't. However there have been plenty of productions that rely on gimmicks over quality, and if you are going to do that you rely on boobies. Boobies and nudity are the only gimmick that can overcome lack of quality for seasons upon seasons.

UA would have us believe that achieving some standard of "wokeness" is more important to a multi billion dollar industry than making commercially viable content.

I mean, if people don't vibe with Mariner (and increasingly, Freeman after this week) that's fine, but there's very little difference between her personality and that of Sterling Archer, and I haven't seen the anti SJW crowd say boo about that show over the years

Hold up, there. I don't think you can make a fair comparison between Mariner and Sterling. After all, while Sterling has deliberately engaged in acts that could have gotten his baby momma killed, Mariner has neither a kid, nor a baby daddy to put in harm's way.

Now I need an episode of Lower Decks where Mariner has a mental breakdown and somehow ends up on Earth in the 21st century working for the Space Force.

That is a hoot. It is more like hollywood learned they actually make more money with woke content. I know he claims there is some sort of loss of revenue, but perhaps the number of CHUDs who actually do not watch the movie is a lot lower, and he might want to realize SJWs suck because they cannot have any fun. Yeah, if your friend is an SHW CHUD who won't watch whatever, everyone else goes without them. It is just like that annoying vegan SJW who is picky about what they see.

Boycotts are hard sometimes. Do you really think people are not watching these shows because woke? The shows may suck and die, but if you are not watching a popular show you are a social pariah. I do not like Harry Potter. I have tried to sit through that shit and can't. Do you know how hard it is to be a harry hater who is in the geek community? Do you know what happened to all the guys who boycotted the NFL over Kappernic (SP?)? Yeah, their friends have fun without them. I had to laugh when I heard my Italian family up north stopped watching football on the holidays and was watching golf. The NFL is not missing you.

However, being a shit to women, gays, minorities and others can really drive people away, and no one actually needs it.

If you all care about the old days go watch white christian productions. Kevin Sorbo and the kid from growing pains need an audience. No one wants to watch their shit because it sucks. Don't let us stop you going to the anti-woke media. It is out there and show us all how great things can be with your bigoted jokes and WASP only casting.

Meanwhile fluffy just dropped another comedy special and I am going to enjoy some fucking spanish comedy.

No one wants your whitebread shit. (That is not saying they do not want quality media made by white people)

it's good to be black on the moon

With some. But that's hardly the only trend, is it? The antithesis is too, because people are tribal. Among some people it seems like the most reasonable explanation that it quickly morphs into If you don't like X or Y then it's because of minority representation.

Look at Enterprise. It was dogpiled and quite frankly there are a lot of good Enterprise ideas that many people found enjoyable. It like the prequel series in Star Wars were savaged on the internet, but now have had more than a bit of a revival. But it was fine to rag on Archer or Trip or Anakin, because there wasn't a subculture devoted to protecting them. One that increasingly sees things in totalitarian terms - you are either with us or against us.

Hell, look at reviews for minority led shows. Yes, white supremacist and misogynists (groups with a lot of cross over) review bombed several shows, and that's detestable.

But you also could see the reverse trend among reviewers. Sorry, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel and Black Panther were fine films, I enjoyed all three, but they weren't perfect films. Yet on their release they all had 100% positive reviews from the critics. If you think that isn't just as much an impact of the culture wars you aren't being honest with yourself.

And if I had an issue with those films for the writing or directorial choices they made it was inevitable that personal attacks would follow. Hell, I had one feminist that I know in real life literally follow me around on the internet for a year because she decided to 'teach me a lesson' for a review of WW I gave on my facebook page.

That review? I gave it an A-, said I loved the humor and the message on feminist issues (and I really think WW handled that far better than CM), and Gal Gadot was fantastic in the role. But rI eally didn't like the fact they took a person of such historical importance of Luddendorf and made him a cariacature, especially as so many of the ideas Hitler later used to justify the Holocaust originated in that man. He was a bad choice to minimalize in the way they did.

Can't have that. LOL. That review led to her posting to her feminist friends that it was time to, and I quote, 'put a bar of soap in a pillow case and beat him'. Her friends declined, but she still took it as a personal crusade to attack me for that review. She only stopped after other people took her to task for the inanity of it all.

And that's hardly the only time I've seen this reflexive tribalism that states that ANY criticism MUST be from a personal defect.

I'm about done with that nonsense.

Maybe that changed as the season progressed. I don't know. I wasn't watching. I watched the first episode in good faith and did see a complete and utter shit show (IMO) and disengaged.

I don't like Orville either. At least as much because the show creator as lead actor was just so fucking bad. LOL. At least the premise for it was this is a crap assignment and was specifically stated as such. But I couldn't get past Seth McFarlane, he just can't act.

Galaxy Quest I did like, because the premise supported that concept in the first place. No, you don't expect actors to have their shit together when thrown into space, but it was the ethos of the show that helped them rally around each other and become better people. I prefer aspirational to dystopian, even in my comedies, because I don't need to do more than look outside to see a crap show.

Nah, that's not it. Of course they are still trying to produce a quality show. The question is is it OK to think they didn't succeed. Disco has absolutely incredible visuals and production values. IMO the writing is below par and decided to explicitly reject a lot of things I like about Trek for 50 years.

Totally with you on the Orville. I have no idea how Seth MacFarlane is employed, let alone famous, and I wasn't much on the supporting cast either (Norm MacDOnald was especially grating as he, like Seth, phoned in his default character of playing himself).

It'd be fair to say that LD is likewise a crap assignment, or at least one that lacks built in prestige.


Disco was doing somewhere between fine to okay the first two seasons before they time jumped and became a better version of Andromeda (which is to say at least there's mustard on what was originally a shit sandwich).

Archer is SUPPOSED to be an ass. He is written as an ass. And the entire show is about him being an ass.

Are you saying Lower Decks is about Mariner being an ass?

I'll leave it to showrunners, producers and studio suits to decide how much "wokeness" they want to put in a show. As a viewer, I'll decide if I'm entertained enough to keep watching. I really don't see any point in being outraged when ultimately all I have to do if I don't like something is not watch and I'm damn sure not going to waste my time obsessing over what cultural values are being attacked.

Wow, UA really hates being reminded that minorities and women exist.

As long as they know their place it's cool. When they're being treated as something other than invisible that he gets worked up.

https://www.theonion.com/girlfriend...Bi-tNlYlnOD1AnvvtsY6AJSHZ6VGqxMtPUKFk6-ZBo15o

My point is that people are less used to seeing women with the same loveable asshole role with a few rough edges than men have had since forever.

Can anything think of a female equivalent to, say, Archie Bunker or Homer Simpson?

Linda La Hughes in the Brit series Gimme Gimme Gimme is close.

Diane Morgan's characters Philomena Cunk and Mandy Carter are good examples as well.

Roseanne once she went fuckin' MAGA.

even before...
actually, if comparing to Archie, then definitely Roseanne classic is his spiritual heir compared to MAGARoseanne. Just blue collar with limited scope... once she got on the orange line she jsut became herself :/

it's difficult because there aren't many female lead shows, and in family settings they tend to be the smart one/straight player to bumbling husbands. If they're single, they're written sympathetic... even the character flaws (thinking of Blanche in GG being more than a little racist at times-but she'd get called and do better by the third act).