flabberjabber

I can't comment on For All Mankind, I haven't watched it yet, so I will take your word for it. I can only speak about what's in my sphere of awareness, but it sounds like you've not had a good time with it.

I have to ask, did you not mean to level your criticism of BSG post season three, rather than post season two?

Three is arguably the best season of the series. It had so many highlights, from the devastation of New Caprica, to the climax at the end of the season that the series spent three seasons building towards. There's so much to point towards in that season that was truly excellent sci-fi.

If you made a typo/mistake, and you actually meant post season three, I can understand your view point and completely agree that from then onwards it wasn't quite the same. But where we differ is in regards to blame. I think you're missing important context.

There was a writers guild strike at the end of season three, and it completely derailed the series from then onwards. In fact, it wasn't the only series that suffered in such a fashion at that time. It's worth having s read about it if you have the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_the_2007%E2%80%9308_Writers_Guild_of_America_strike_on_television

I don't think it's just to lay this particular criticism at Ronald D. Moore's feet.

I am also struggling to reconcile what you've said about his weak portrayal of women in For All Mankind when he did such an incredible job on BSG. If that's the case I'm heartbroken.

The reason why I am so enamoured with the idea of an RDM helmed Trek is because Trek has shown consistently that it thrives when it leans more into standalone series over serialisation.

Its current hybrid approach is a strength that SNW and SFA has shown works. This is something I feel RDM has shown he can do excellently in the past. BSG was an excellent example of hybrid serialisation until the strike. And for his series work, his writing credits in TNG alone are exemplary:

"Yesterdays Enterprise" "Data's Day" "Ethics" "Disaster" "Tapestry" "Sins of the Father" "The Pegasus" etc...

You're absolutely right friend.

But I also think there's an argument for exploring the effects of trauma in modern Trek.

As a modern society, we are so much more aware of how trauma is perpetuated today. But there's also so much room for depth in that understanding. This is narrative fuel. It's definitely a topic rich with potential for exploration within Trek. But it needs to go deep and remain clever. Psychologically and philosophically grounded.

But, this is where their line of inquiry seems to stop in the writers room. Instead of coming up with novel and unique ways to create traumatic situations for our characters, that don't challenge and eventually break the universe these stories inhabit, and that delve deeply into the nature of trauma and its effects, we find our characters living in a quasi-utopia that speaks more to our time period and asks questions but gives no answers.

This utopia is one that I could imagine might have existed more in Archer's time. But in the 3100's is, even with the burn taken into account, unbelievable and disappointing.

This is where a show runner with a bit more awareness, intellect and gut could create more believable and novel scenarios for our characters.

What I wouldn't give for Ronald D. Moore at the conn.

I really would love Kurtzman to fuck the fuck off at this point.

He has never understood Star Trek at its core. The intricacies and nuances that never should have been messed with; and the superfluous excesses that could be. This is obvious in so many ways. But none more than how he has pushed the narrative in lazy directions repeatedly; yet consistently these were shown not to work. It took him the entire run of discovery to learn this lesson! And even then, never completely.

It has only been relatively recently, when the shows have embraced Trek's historical strengths in order to create a new vision, that shows have started to truly excel and grab both fans and public attention. But even then, there's a lack of bold vision and gut. These shows are timid when it comes to exploring ethics and philosophy in ways the 90s and 60s shows never were for their time.

For me, I think fundamentally it speaks to a dumbing down of story telling. It speaks to a lowest common denominator prioritisation by shown runners. It speaks to networks who never take chances.

With Kurtzman it has seemed that each iteration had a predictable path involving a big threat that must be extinguished by the end of season. High stakes with extreme predictability. Because of this prioritisation, so often it felt like the characters served the story, rather than the other way around. That's not how you get people to care for characters on a show.

Trek was never about this. Historical Trek was about exploring modern ethical dilemmas in a safe sci-fi environment first and foremost. Secondary to that it was about showing how human beings could exist in balance with each other and other species. We need this positive vision now more than ever and yet modern trek feels like a shadow of its former self. It feels too often like skin deep lip service. But, it is improving iteration to iteration.

So please Alex, fuck the fuck off and give some other splendid bastard a shot in the big chair. Unless Ellison intends to replace younwithba fascist. In which case I'm your biggest fan.

PS (and slight SFA spoilers): Did no one else briefly turn off starfleet academy after they tased Nus Braka, even though he was in court, unarmed and only mouthing off? I was outraged that SFA began in such a manner, it didn't serve the plot, and was wholly unnecessary and disporportionate. It made no sense in the context of the rest of the season.

SFA then ended with a slap and punch to Nus's face. The casual brutality bookended an otherwise great series. It was a baffling choice, unless it is viewed as being a means of desentising the audience to unnecessary violence from the state. Then it makes perfect sense. That, that is perhaps the thin end of the fascist wedge.

It's not even Blairism friend. It's corporate light bullshit with a dash of authoritarianism thrown in. At least under Blair, services were well provided for. There was no NHS black-hole and social care wasn't at breaking point. There was no laying authoritarian ground work for a incoming fascist frog by abandoning any pretense of personal freedom.

Whilst Blair never really challenged the status quo in any meaningful way, be that reform of either house, evolution to PR or tackling the wealthy's grip on society, he didn't actively seek to worsen it either. For many, his government levelled the playing field economically; and his funding of services benefitted generations of Britons.

Starmer's government is a thinly veiled imitation. One that wraps quasi-austerity in a spending bow whilst making one authoritarian move after another. Lurching from age verification to increased powers to stop legitimate protest.

They are not the same. We'd be better off with a lettuce. But will probably end up with a fascist frog thanks to him betraying his mandate.

I dont mind the presence of these articles. I like to be in the know. I like the opportunity to engage in a constructive nuanced discussion that you can no longer find on Reddit, and can be found in abundance on Lemmy.

What effects me most is that, whether honest (human), not (bots) or covert (intelligence agencies), the defeatism, acceptance and obeyance in advance is the fundamental barrier to meaningful change. It catches, it spreads and it demoralises. It is the boot on our collective necks.

We need to be more mindful of spreading our nihilism to each other, unless we're happy being part of the problem. More solutions, more raising each other up, less wallowing.

When pressed, he refused to declare Zionism racist in that interview. That's quite different from saying zionism isn't racist; he just wouldn't say that it was. Also, he's kind of right isn't he? From a nuanced perspective, it's Netanyahu and his party that have largely created the fascism at the heart of Israel, so I appreciate his point. But, I suppose theoretically, the fact he went to reflect before changing his position, could indicate a needed to gain permission from the person he is owned by before changing his stance.

This week he has said specifically, that zionism is racism under pressure from his party. I don't see that as the act of a committed zionist, but then again is it just verbal buttering? He's seemingly willing to go so much further than Starmer, Badenoch or Farage in his anti-Israel speech. If he was owned by Netanyahu like so many politicians are, he wouldn't be able to say this freely surely? It also shows he's willing to go with consensus of his party which is also a good sign.

That said I've been fooled before by music to my ears; so it comes down to a matter of trust doesn't it? Do we trust him? There's no telling before reaching power. He's been transparent about his finances at least; and doesn't appear to have been bought like many other politicians. But whether or not he's a Trojan horse for the left, who has a hidden master, is impossible to see at this stage.

Here's a paraphrased quote from Zack Polanski: "Zionism is Racism"

What are you even talking about? Israel owns all the other major parties, except the greens! That quote is 100% more than any leader of any UK party has ever said regarding Israel or Gaza.

Three very different sources on this:

• https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/polanski-indicates-support-for-greens-zionism-is-racism-motion/

• https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-green-zack-polanski-zionism-is-racism-motion/

• https://news.sky.com/story/israel-not-committing-genocide-in-gaza-but-casualties-and-destruction-are-utterly-appalling-says-uk-government-13427380

Concerning, it's one of the few food stuffs with very high naturally occurring levels of Vitamin D. Other major sources of it are either a lot more expensive (like Tuna or Salmon - sardines being an exception but ewww) or are usually fortified and likely processed and refined.

We really need as much Vitamin D as we can get in the UK! Can't just survive on chips, however much I wish that were the case.

It does seem to be a downward trajectory at least though. Let me cling to a little hope please :P. Perhaps the debates will swing it in Polanski's favour; he is the only one who lays out a reasonable plan for working folks.

I hope the wider British public wakes up before the election. But, pretty much all of the mainstream media encourages their base instincts to blame immigrants at some level, rather than the wealthy. They are caught in a propaganda loop. Some of that influence is obvious (The Mail), some of it is very subtle (BBC, TheGuardian - editorship).

But I'm not overly optimistic. It took them way too long to realise the Tory leopards were eating their faces.

Americans coming over here is quite laughable. Good luck guys, you'd be better off somewhere that has a relatively young democracy and/or dictatorship in living memory (Germany and Spain look pretty good from where I'm sitting - but even Germany is a little bit O.o).

Ah yes, the great purge was so wonderfully kind.

In case you can't tell, that is sarcasm.