Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Midnight's Edge on youtube have done a fairly compelling case for my argument. That is where I got this from. I'd highly suggest you go check out their coverage of it. Suffice to say you can license individual things without owning license to the entire original work, which is how I imagine they have access to specific pieces of footage from real Trek.
I also reject wholeheartedly that in order to bring the show upto "modern standard" (low and non-existent as they may be) it was required to change them in the specific way that was done in the movie reboots. STD just abandoned everything to make up something new, and lesser. They should have been trying to bridge the gap between ENT and TOS.
Star Trek was always meant to be utopian. It was never meant to "reflect" how grim and dark real life is. Roddenberry spins on, I see. It's meant to be aspirational. If Roddenberry followed your idea then Uhura and Kirk never would have kissed. Sulu and Chekov wouldn't have even been characters. I reject this at a base level. Yes it has always dealt with real world philosophical issues, but it has never been about how crap real life is now.
Lower Decks had 1 scene of a TNG Klingon changing into the Discovery Klingon because of a dimensional rift.
It was an easter egg that way too many people went overboard on in acclaiming they made Discovery non canon..
It's also worth mentioning that they have been very explicit about the fact that LD is indeed absolutely cannon. And including that easter egg in the show very strongly implies STD is no longer cannon with what is considered the main Star Trek timeline.
Trek was liberal. Trek was never progressive to the point of transhumanism, ie you can fix your problems with gender surgery or implanting a computer chip.
That's not at all what I said.
I said that just because they put an easter egg in LD doesnt mean that Discovery is somehow non canon.
Also when did anyone working on Lower Decks say that they wanted to make Discovery non-canon?
'Any reasonable person would assume' yeah that's doing a lot of heavy lifting here, since other then a bunch of clickbait videoas declaring it true I havent seen or heard a single official statement on this beign true.
I know that my post is not what you said. I know that you said that it was just an easter egg. Then I wrote the post to which you are responding where I argued the case as to why that might not be the full truth of the matter.
"Any reasonable person would assume" is doing exactly as much heavy lifting as "I said" which is your counter arguments entire logical and factual basis.
If the show is canon then STD is an alternative timeline. That's just a simple fact based on the mechanics of what the alternate reality thingie did in the final episode. You are arguing that the show is not canon, and just has fun little easter eggs that can be ignored. I actually agree with you that this is far closer to the truth... But you and I disagree completely with the people who make LD.
No one making LD has said they want to make STD non canon. The point I was (very clearly) making was that the people who own the overall rights to Star Trek (agian, not the individuals responsible for making one of the specific Star Trek shows) should be desperately trying to distance themselves and all future Star Trek attempts from anything and everything to do with STD. Again, as I said, this is just common sense and doesn't really need any explanation.
It's also worth mentioning that in my post I never said it was or was not canon. I simply presented the other side of the argument which you were ignoring. I consider everything made after ENT non-canon anyway as it's clearly not actually Star Trek to begin with. So in my opinion it's all a completely moot point.
The key difference is that Star Trek was liberal while STD is "illiberal leftism" which is almost completely opposed to liberal values and ideas.
We agree, although in different words.
The 1960's was conservative and any shift to the left was considered progressive by liberals. Roddenberry aimed at a world where everyone was treated equally, and we got it in 1990/TNG.
Today's political activists assume that because Trek was once progressive then that must still be the case. They confuse the destination with the journey.
They do it to justify their immoral behaviour, because they don't think there should be any constraints on human boundaries whatsoever.
Certainly a salient message today.
99 Bugs, we have smashed in the game! 100 & 1 more put innnnn! Stick around, and play the ground, while Devs fix all the bugs once again!
👍👍🤠
PLEASE DONT REPORT ME FOR ACCIDNTLY SAYING THE WRONG THING IF I DID AS I MAY HAVE GONE OVERBOARD, PLS TELL ME TO DELETE THIS COMMENT AND I WILL DO IT!!!
The very last episode of Tos season 3, I think it's called "turnabout intruder" is a great example of TOS' occational terroble portrayl of women. It's a great idea... But poorely executed. When I watch it I get all sour feelings, because it basically states that a woman can't command a starship. Janice Lester in fact states "Women can't be captains in your Starfleet,". Of course this has luckily been retconned by SNW, but that is just sad to think back in the fay before official cannon was set with TNG that was the case in the original TOS universe. Janice broke under the weight of command because she was a woman, and went insane as a result. Newer shows would say it would be the stress of command from never having any expirience, but that wasn't the case in the episode, which clearly states that that it's that she is a woman, from what I can remember. Of course there is the chance I am wrong since I don't want to watch that horrendous episode again (along with most of season 3 because of how sad most of the endings were).
Another episode that is problematic is the one where you get good and bad Kirk split from himself due to the transporter in season 1, bad Kirk attempts to rape Janice Rand. At the end, Spock makes a statement that Janice might have actually liked that, which is extremely terrible. Janice was also in the room with good Kirk after bad Kirk attempted to rape her, and the crew not knowing the difference yet, would NEVER have allowed a rape victim to be this close to her agressor.
That being said, one of the episodes I love of how it portrays women, is a season 4/animated season 1 episode where Uhura and the women take command of the Enterprise because the men succome to the effects of an all female alien race that are like Sirens, and this happens in the greek Homer's the Odyssey story when Odysseus and his crew pass the Sirens and almost fall prey to their songs that almost enchant the men.
This episode I feel is one of the best portrayl of women in TOS/TAS because women are just as capable as Men and should indeed be in leading roles, but now the movement has gone a little too far I think since rights are mostly the same. Not everything is perfect snd we still have a LOT of work to do such as finally fixing unequal equal pay which is unacceptable, but the modern feminine movement, at least the way I see it, is getting strange because some women involved are demanding to almost be above men because they want to be independent, while expecting men to treat them as more traditional women like not doing certain things unharmful you would do to a man.
We're Star Trek fans. We've evolved past the need to resort to authoritarianism by using the report button to settle a debate because we're emotionally incontinent.
I don't remember the context of the episode in your first example so I can't discuss it.
The second part however. There is an evolutionary mechanism... I won't go into... which Spock could have been commenting on. Heck, even the hardcore feminists say all sex is violence, and to a degree it's true. But that episode was also exploring the shadow side of masculinity too - unrestrained violence. People often label something they don't want to admit exists as "hate".
It took them a while to find the right balance in Trek but by Voyager (if not earlier) women were completely equal.
TOS portrays women badly according to the ever-changing fact-averse anti-humanity idiocy of feminism. In reality they portrayed women as women. Nothing more or less. At a time when it wasn't mandated that all media everywhere for all time coddle and baby every women character, or indeed viewer, like a toddler watching sesame street.
BTW the whole "unequal pay" thing is BS too. Isn't real.
Of course... It's worth mentioning that "woman" doesn't actually mean anything any more. Anyone and anything can be a woman. Just by wishing it so. So it's a pointless conversation to have regardless. Sadly.
"Does TOS portray women badly?"
No idea, I haven't been able to contact any of the fictional characters on the show to ask what their pronouns are. Kirk was badass. Maybe he was a woman? Who knows?!