• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds

jason10mm

Member
Good grief, I can tell they are trying for a high budget version of a campy low budget 50's schlock but damn.....I fear all the issues I have with STD's migraine inducing cinematography are gonna appear in this show as well. Plots aside, I have little confidence that I will get a classic trek from this feel outside of "hey look, Uhura now has 300% more stuff to do!" .

And Pike's hair, WTF? Subliminal ads for hair gel pompadour?
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
Dumbest comment I've read in a long time. Trek has always been about universal humanistic values and enlightenment, which are pretty much the opposite of being woke.
Kindly f*ck off with this revisionist bullcrap!
It doesn't matter if you define Star Trek originally being about "universal humanistic values and enlightenment" as it falls under the exact same umbrella that today most would describe as "woke". You may have a certain definition for "woke", but what is universally accepted to be "woke" by most was included in Star Trek from the get-go: a diverse cast, LGBTQ representation, a utopian society, political themes. Hell, DS9 literally quotes Karl Marx. Whether the real definition of "woke" is a different one doesn't matter in this situation (the official definition is completely different from yours too, just to let you know). People call it "woke" out out of sheer principle. Their definition of "woke" is already made up, so whenever they see a piece of media with a diverse cast, LGBTQ representation and the likes, they will call it out for being "woke".

I'll take any bet that if the original Star Trek from the 60s would release in the todays climate it would be called out for being "woke". Even further, if Roddenberry was here today as a young and upcoming writer, he would be called out for being a SJW libtard. 100%.
Problem with modern Star Trek isn't that it is "woke" (according to the definition of "woke" most use). It's the shit tier writing.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
It doesn't matter if you define Star Trek originally being about "universal humanistic values and enlightenment" as it falls under the exact same umbrella that today most would describe as "woke". You may have a certain definition for "woke", but what is universally accepted to be "woke" by most was included in Star Trek from the get-go: a diverse cast, LGBTQ representation, a utopian society, political themes. Hell, DS9 literally quotes Karl Marx. Whether the real definition of "woke" is a different one doesn't matter in this situation (the official definition is completely different from yours too, just to let you know). People call it "woke" out out of sheer principle. Their definition of "woke" is already made up, so whenever they see a piece of media with a diverse cast, LGBTQ representation and the likes, they will call it out for being "woke".

I'll take any bet that if the original Star Trek from the 60s would release in the todays climate it would be called out for being "woke". Even further, if Roddenberry was here today as a young and upcoming writer, he would be called out for being a SJW libtard. 100%.
Problem with modern Star Trek isn't that it is "woke" (according to the definition of "woke" most use). It's the shit tier writing.

No.

There is a difference between a progressive narrative and being “woke”. ”Woke“ is inherently not progressive, it is *regressive*. Diverse casts, representation of minorities, political themes - none of this is “woke”. Woke is simply another word for slacktivism. It is activism with zero effort, thought, or care. Done by people who care more about how they *appear* rather than genuinely push progressive concepts and ideals to make a better world.

NuTrek is not “progressive” and never has been. It is a sad series of miserable writers and actors who want to put forth the least amount of effort in order to pretend that they care because they just want to get the praise by mindless folks who don’t want to put forth the two brain cells to critically think.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
There is a difference between a progressive narrative and being “woke”. ”Woke“ is inherently not progressive, it is *regressive*. Diverse casts, representation of minorities, political themes - none of this is “woke”. Woke is simply another word for slacktivism. It is activism with zero effort, thought, or care. Done by people who care more about how they *appear* rather than genuinely push progressive concepts and ideals to make a better world.

While the bolded part might be true, it doesn't change the fact that this is what most consider to be woke, and it is what most mean when they moan about something being woke. Therefore I repeat it. People call things "woke" out out of sheer principle as they already have a clear picture in their head of what is "woke". This means whenever they see a piece of media with a diverse cast, LGBTQ representation and the likes, they will call it out for being "woke" (nothings beats a simple world view I guess) - However, whether it actually is woke, according to the official definition or your definition, doesn't matter in that situation, because, as said, they do it out of sheer principle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jason10mm

Member
It doesn't matter if you define Star Trek originally being about "universal humanistic values and enlightenment" as it falls under the exact same umbrella that today most would describe as "woke". You may have a certain definition for "woke", but what is universally accepted to be "woke" by most was included in Star Trek from the get-go: a diverse cast, LGBTQ representation, a utopian society, political themes. Hell, DS9 literally quotes Karl Marx. Whether the real definition of "woke" is a different one doesn't matter in this situation (the official definition is completely different from yours too, just to let you know). People call it "woke" out out of sheer principle. Their definition of "woke" is already made up, so whenever they see a piece of media with a diverse cast, LGBTQ representation and the likes, they will call it out for being "woke".

I'll take any bet that if the original Star Trek from the 60s would release in the todays climate it would be called out for being "woke". Even further, if Roddenberry was here today as a young and upcoming writer, he would be called out for being a SJW libtard. 100%.
Problem with modern Star Trek isn't that it is "woke" (according to the definition of "woke" most use). It's the shit tier writing.
TOS certainly challenged the mainstream with a Russian character, a black woman on the bridge, and a meritocratic ideal society. But it also dealt with virtually all of its issues behind clever storytelling that never preached. You could just watch the ep with half black/half white guys arguing with half-white/half-black guys and just take it at face value. Or you could read the ethnic message there. Porblem with nu-trek, what I have watched of it, and "wokeism" is that the preachy message is front and center and there is no attempt to guise it in any fashion. There is no sci-fi or allegory or subtlety or any measure of creativity. It's just straight up activist writing and a canned "Fuck you you bigot and hate monger if you don't embrace it I hope you die!!!" response to any criticism or suggestion of disapproval.

Hell, even Orville can handle slipping in their preach just behind some legit sci-fi queries, and they are like 99% focused on the dick and fart jokes!

For me though, the real problem with STD at least is the way they shoot it and the pacing. They seem to blip past the "star trek" stuff of scientific exploration, wonder, and overcoming obstacles to instead focus on interpersonal conflict, intrapersonal whining, and lots of panning shots showing everyone smugly smiling 'cause "the right thing was just said.....we are holding for audience applause". It's just a hard show to physically watch even if the messaging was appealing to me.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
While the bolded part might be true, it doesn't change the fact that this is what most consider to be woke, and it is what most mean when they moan about something being woke. Therefore I repeat it. People call things "woke" out out of sheer principle as they already have a clear picture in their head of what is "woke". This means whenever they see a piece of media with a diverse cast, LGBTQ representation and the likes, they will call it out for being "woke" (nothings beats a simple world view I guess) - However, whether it actually is woke, according to the official definition or your definition, doesn't matter in that situation, because, as said, they do it out of sheer principle.

No, it *isn’t* what most consider “woke”. That is your own strawman argument and ignorance pushing that onto others.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
Porblem with nu-trek, what I have watched of it, and "wokeism" is that the preachy message is front and center and there is no attempt to guise it in any fashion. There is no sci-fi or allegory or subtlety or any measure of creativity. It's just straight up activist writing and a canned "Fuck you you bigot and hate monger if you don't embrace it I hope you die!!!" response to any criticism or suggestion of disapproval.
That perhaps that downside when things become successful and mainstream - It becomes a business, and companies are more concerned about keeping their numbers up as high as possible than actually delivering something of substance. Nu-Trek is too plain, too blunt. The writing just isn't good and I can't really get behind it. I truly believe that Roddenberry stood behind his work. I can't say the same thing about the current writers of the show.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
No, it *isn’t* what most consider “woke”. That is your own strawman argument and ignorance pushing that onto others.
Look up the definition of straw man please and then come back. On this forum alone there are countless examples of people calling XYZ woke because XYZ has a diverse cast, LGBTQ characters, etc., and not because of "slacktivist writing" (which ironically is your very own definition of woke and not the official one either, so save yourself from accusing me of a straw man argument). XYZ is called out for being woke from the very moment they see something that fits the shoe, which usually are things like a diverse cast among others. Very few bother to describe in detail what concerns them about XYZ. Blunt generalizations are simply thrown into the room with no nuance. Seen it a thousand times. Before anyone goes in-depth about the writing, themes, message, etc., XYZ is already declared to be woke. Again, out of sheer principle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Look up the definition of straw man please and then come back. On this forum alone there are countless examples of people calling XYZ woke because XYZ has a diverse cast, LGBTQ characters, etc., and not because of "slacktivist writing" (which ironically is your very own definition of woke and not the official one either, so save yourself from accusing me of a straw man argument). XYZ is called out for being woke from the very moment they see something that fits the shoe, which usually are things like a diverse cast among others. Very few bother to describe in detail what concerns them about XYZ. Blunt generalizations are simply thrown into the room with no nuance. Seen it a thousand times. Before anyone goes in-depth about the writing, themes, message, etc., XYZ is already declared to be woke. Again, out of sheer principle.

And now you are doubling down, I am not surprised. Your sad need to make disingenuous assertions and wide spread generalizations is not a new thing, but For some reason I was hoping you would actually *learn* to do better here. Sadly that is not the case.
 
S

SpongebobSquaredance

Unconfirmed Member
And now you are doubling down, I am not surprised. Your sad need to make disingenuous assertions and wide spread generalizations is not a new thing, but For some reason I was hoping you would actually *learn* to do better here. Sadly that is not the case.
Not an assertion, that's just how it is and it is easily verifiable, but I guess you like to ignore the numerous examples of this exact thing happening across this forum, other forums, YT, twitter, reddit. :lollipop_winking:
Truly ironic.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Not an assertion, that's just how it is and it is easily verifiable, but I guess you like to ignore the numerous examples of this exact thing happening across this forum, other forums, YT, twitter, reddit. :lollipop_winking:
Truly ironic.

 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
It doesn't matter if you define Star Trek originally being about "universal humanistic values and enlightenment" as it falls under the exact same umbrella that today most would describe as "woke". You may have a certain definition for "woke", but what is universally accepted to be "woke" by most was included in Star Trek from the get-go: a diverse cast, LGBTQ representation, a utopian society, political themes. Hell, DS9 literally quotes Karl Marx. Whether the real definition of "woke" is a different one doesn't matter in this situation (the official definition is completely different from yours too, just to let you know). People call it "woke" out out of sheer principle. Their definition of "woke" is already made up, so whenever they see a piece of media with a diverse cast, LGBTQ representation and the likes, they will call it out for being "woke".

But it does matter, because wokeism and enlightenment are two very different schools of thought. That's like saying hot-dogs and hamburgers are the same thing, because both have meat and bread.
  • Enlightenment values express a sort of universalism in the sense that people are seen as having things in common upon which modern society can be founded. As such everybody is equal and has access to the same rights.
  • Wokeism is the complete opposite, it highlights personal differences based on certain identity traits which are then hierarchized.

It is not relevant whether DS9 quotes Marx, this is not question of right vs. left. Enlightenment values try to transcend political divides through its universalistic approach and recognized that political opposition is a good thing because it facilitates societal progress. Wokeism in inherently political hence why it vilifies and alienates its political opposition.

It is exactly that vilification of the audience that is not working in NuTrek. Enlightenment formulated messages that would appeal to audiences as a whole by go beyond mere partisan gripes. Classic Trek addressed humanitarian issues, NuTrek is framing these universal issues as inherently identitarian, hence the reason why its messaging does not work.
 
Dumbest comment I've read in a long time. Trek has always been about universal humanistic values and enlightenment, which are pretty much the opposite of being woke.
Kindly f*ck off with this revisionist bullcrap!
I was laughing at that ridiculous comment. No matter what woke is bad. And stuff like this and The Handmaids Tale and other woke shows stinks of regressive propaganda
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom