4th Star Trek movie officially announced

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Galactus

You could have written you're own rebuttal rather than quote a site which is essentially an alt right front that regularly report rumours that any idiot could see is untrue to stir up alt right types against media and creators they don't like.

"Everything I don't like or can deny without using insults, is alt-right".
Good job, kid.

Originally Posted by Galactus

There's also been people of more right leaning persuasion that picked up that Star Trek was a very left leaning show and enjoyed it anyway. That's fine as a work of fiction it doesn't have to align with your real world views. Star Trek has definitely changed over the decades but the Conservative 'movement' has changed way more that if any of the classic shows were aired for the first time today the political right would be in meltdown.

"Everyone who disagree with me are Fasicsts".
You are brining an A game, kiddo.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Utopia is achieved by abandoning capitalism, hard borders are seen as bad. I can only imagine how the early episodes of Next Gen were it was shows men cross dressing was normal would be recieved. All the issue episodes would be seen as preachy.

ST'verse had abandoned Capitalism, because, they've found improbable solution, which is ability to create anything in any quantity, if I am not mistaking. It makes a good explanation, but a lousy and lazy plot device. It certainly was not propaganda of Communism as understood by the modern Left. Or Left in general.

Originally Posted by Galactus

Calm down. You don't even know what woke means. What does any of what you have to do with Star Trek anyway? Is there any version of the property new or old that advocates getting trophies for failing? You do these rants about everything whether it fits or now. Calm down.

It is almost like his rants aimed at problems, which have become core of the modern Left movement, which had transformed it from a reasonable political force to movement of squealing authoritarian lunatics, trying to destroy or main everything they see, seeing offense at every corner and looking almost like a comical parody of fascists, they like to invoke so often.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Sumac

"Everything I don't like or can deny without using insults, is alt-right".
Good job, kid.

That's the whole point of the site; it's nerd culture stuff reported from a very right wing perspective. However they do go beyond just commentary they attack specific creators and their tactics are straight out of the alt-right playbook. One well known example is they reported about a tweet by comic writer Alyssa Wong saying some very bad things about Stan Lee after he died which of course caused a lot of angry people to go bully her online. Problem was this tweet was completely fake. There is little doubt in my mind they knew it was fake but even if they didn't the moment that people started telling them it was photoshopped and someone was being harassed for no reason they should have issued a retraction and an apology but they didn't they wanted the harassment to continue. They are genuinely bad people.

"Everyone who disagree with me are Fasicsts".
You are brining an A game, kiddo.

What does this have to do with what I wrote? We know from interviews with writers, producers and actors the intention behind almost every Star Trek show. So Conservatives who interpret them as pro-Conservative allegories are wrong. I didn't call them fascists...just incorrect. I don't take these debates too seriously but you're clearly not bringing you A game either.

ST'verse had abandoned Capitalism, because, they've found improbable solution, which is ability to create anything in any quantity, if I am not mistaking. It makes a good explanation, but a lousy and lazy plot device. It certainly was not propaganda of Communism as understood by the modern Left. Or Left in general.

The idea is that if we could end scarcity by some method then we should work world with no need for money were everyone would be equal. You don't have to agree that's a good idea to enjoy Star Trek after all it's science fiction but that's still the message.

I should also point out that while we don't have replicators we do have in the real world the ability to adequately feed, clothe and provide healthcare to every person on the planet, We don't do that out of a sense that capital comes first.

It is almost like his rants aimed at problems, which have become core of the modern Left movement, which had transformed it from a reasonable political force to movement of squealing authoritarian lunatics, trying to destroy or main everything they see, seeing offense at every corner and looking almost like a comical parody of fascists, they like to invoke so often.

His rants are often not relevant to the subject being discussed. What the hell does Star Trek having a diverse cast have do with participation trophies? Unless he's suggesting that people of colour don't deserve roles in these shows in which case their casting is the participation trophy...I certainly hope that's not what means because that would be pretty damned bigoted.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Galactus

That's the whole point of the site; it's nerd culture stuff reported from a very right wing perspective. However they do go beyond just commentary they attack specific creators and their tactics are straight out of the alt-right playbook. One well known example is they reported about a tweet by comic writer Alyssa Wong saying some very bad things about Stan Lee after he died which of course caused a lot of angry people to go bully her online. Problem was this tweet was completely fake. There is little doubt in my mind they knew it was fake but even if they didn't the moment that people started telling them it was photoshopped and someone was being harassed for no reason they should have issued a retraction and an apology but they didn't they wanted the harassment to continue. They are genuinely bad people.

And having right wing site is bad, even though they are crap-ton of much more influential left wing sites which harass people as well?

I am against harassment, but I am not against existence of sites that provide alternate point of view. It is healthy and normal in a free society, which you oppose.

Also, do you have any proof that all people who work on this site are "bad people"? Like all of them are just in it to harass people they don't like? Would you say the same about sites like Kotaku or Huffington Post, which is guilty of harassing people as well? Will you consider all of people working them to be "bad people" or this definition works only for those who explicitly oppose or connected to those who oppose your views?

See, kid, life is not a comic book or a fairy tale. This is something that people like you can't get. For whatever reason, be it fear or lack of education or ability to process complex systems, you've stuck with the notion, that world is strictly divided between good and bad people.

But that's not how it works. People are rarely strictly good or bad. Much less they are motivated by doing good or evil out of explicit desire to do good or evil. People motivated by personal motives, be it desire for money, glory, revenge e.t.c.

And just before you discount my opinion, because, I don't lap left cool-aid, let me remind you that I was born in the totalitarian country, where many people had supported inhuman system for decades. Some of those people were my relatives or people who I know one way or the other. Even though they've hated that system they had no choice, but to support it, to provide for their family or just to stay on the good side of the party.

The same thing happens now, when we have another tyrant in power. A lot of people support him out of fear, not for themselves, but for their families. And I understand them. Should I consider them monsters just, because, we have opposing views or, because, they value their families and lives more than anything else?

Originally Posted by Galactus

What does this have to do with what I wrote? We know from interviews with writers, producers and actors the intention behind almost every Star Trek show. So Conservatives who interpret them as pro-Conservative allegories are wrong. I didn't call them fascists...just incorrect. I don't take these debates too seriously but you're clearly not bringing you A game either.

You specifically mentioned that "conservative movement had changed". In your circles it usually means "Republicans went all Fascists and there's barely anything stopping them from creating Gestapo and Death Squads to kill all Black and Gays on the streets".
Hence my reaction.

Originally Posted by Galactus

The idea is that if we could end scarcity by some method then we should work world with no need for money were everyone would be equal. You don't have to agree that's a good idea to enjoy Star Trek after all it's science fiction but that's still the message.

It is a good message, which is impossible to implement in real life, due to multiple reasons.

Originally Posted by Galactus

I should also point out that while we don't have replicators we do have in the real world the ability to adequately feed, clothe and provide healthcare to every person on the planet, We don't do that out of a sense that capital comes first.

Ah, yes, like all those un-capitalist socialist countries, which put humans first and provided them with food and medicine they needed did!
Everyone were well fed and had their own apartments and there were never any scarcity, class division, hungers and the like.

Lay off your Mao, kid.

There are too many reasons why your scenario won't work and capital is like not even in a top 10 reasons for that. If anything capital was a thing that enabled Western society to feed and give comforts to people, they previously didn't have.

Originally Posted by Galactus

His rants are often not relevant to the subject being discussed. What the hell does Star Trek having a diverse cast have do with participation trophies? Unless he's suggesting that people of colour don't deserve roles in these shows in which case their casting is the participation trophy...I certainly hope that's not what means because that would be pretty damned bigoted.

Once again you drinking too much cool-aid.
How about the case, that people should receive something for actually accomplishing something or being talented at something, not just being there and being of certain sex, skin color or sexual orientation?

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Calm down. You don't even know what woke means. What does any of what you have to do with Star Trek anyway? Is there any version of the property new or old that advocates getting trophies for failing? You do these rants about everything whether it fits or now. Calm down.

That's nonsense. Complete and utter garbage interpretation. You should try addressing what I said on it's own merits. What I wrote specifically addresses much of the state of Star Trek nowadays as represented by Discovery and Picard.

If I call this stuff out frequently here it's because the examples are replete and poignant. I have no need to pencil whip them - they are all around us and I think an easy argument could be made that you are in disregard of the application of "woke" and it's manifested meaning-in-action as opposed to what the left wants to pretend it means.

And look bud, you might be tired of my "rants", which on it's own merits is fine that you'd feel to call me on coming to this routinely. But I don't care. My "rants" are always on point and exemplified. Meanwhile you fling words, gaslight and add-in meaning - which by the way are all three accusations that I could provide direct example of in your posting and I could do it without twisting your words or meaning at all. You should try to acknowledge what that means internally if you have the fortitude for it, bare minimum.

Telling me to calm down shows weakness on your part. Your interpretation of my typical poignancy must be trapping for you if your go-to is that I'm in some overactive state. That speaks to you and your life views, not mine.

[CyberCubed]

Remember, everyone, Gul Dukat treated the Bajoran's as if they were his own children. He did nothing wrong.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Remember, everyone, Gul Dukat treated the Bajoran's as if they were his own children. He did nothing wrong.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Sumac

And having right wing site is bad, even though they are crap-ton of much more influential left wing sites which harass people as well?

I am against harassment, but I am not against existence of sites that provide alternate point of view. It is healthy and normal in a free society, which you oppose.

Also, do you have any proof that all people who work on this site are "bad people"? Like all of them are just in it to harass people they don't like? Would you say the same about sites like Kotaku or Huffington Post, which is guilty of harassing people as well? Will you consider all of people working them to be "bad people" or this definition works only for those who explicitly oppose or connected to those who oppose your views?

See, kid, life is not a comic book or a fairy tale. This is something that people like you can't get. For whatever reason, be it fear or lack of education or ability to process complex systems, you've stuck with the notion, that world is strictly divided between good and bad people.

...
...

I cropped the quote so it doesn't take too much space.

The major problem with your opening point is saying that a right wing website is presenting an "alternative point of view". Most news outlets in the western world lean right wing. In the US Fox News is the biggest cable news network and it's no coincidence that it's the best funded by significant margin. Where I live (the UK) almost all the major newspapers are rabidly right wing and like Fox News are very well funded in a way that the more liberal or non aligned publications are not. Even down to the right wing youtube commentators like Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin and the like they all get major funding by the Koch brothers. The strange thing is that despite being the some of the best best funded and most influential news and opinion outlets in the world they position themselves as outsiders and anti-mainstream. It's a good grift that works very well but what are they really in opposition to? There is no ideological equivalent of Fox News in the US. Nor is there an equivalent of The Sun or The Daily Mail in the UK. Mainstream liberal news outlets rarely get as relentlessly partisan like right wing media does. Even an organisation like the BBC which is supposed to be impartial the overton window (as Americans say) leans quite far to the right. They are okay interviewing far right figures but never put on someone from the far left.

As for Boundingintocomics specifically; you may think their viewpoint is a necessary one but that shouldn't justify encouraging people to attack someone based on a lie. I assume you're not okay with news outlets deliberately reporting lies. This website (and similar ones) lie a lot, sometimes for clicks but other times to push their agenda, in this case their agenda was they didn't want an Asian woman working for Marvel. People do bad things sure but when they make a habit of I tend to think they are bad people.

You specifically mentioned that "conservative movement had changed". In your circles it usually means "Republicans went all Fascists and there's barely anything stopping them from creating Gestapo and Death Squads to kill all Black and Gays on the streets".
Hence my reaction.

In my estimation people on the far right tended to never like Star Trek. It is true though that in general cultural attitudes in the political right have shifted quite a bit that even the ones that haven't gone completely to the far right now have problems with things they were okay with at the time of the classic Star Trek shows.

It is a good message, which is impossible to implement in real life, due to multiple reasons.

Of course because it's a work of fiction. Are you under the impression I'm trying to sell Star Trek as a series of documentaries? But works of fiction often carry moral lessons and that's something Star Trek has unashamedly done since its inception.

Ah, yes, like all those un-capitalist socialist countries, which put humans first and provided them with food and medicine they needed did!
Everyone were well fed and had their own apartments and there were never any scarcity, class division, hungers and the like.

Socialist and even communist countries still use a monetary system. That's were the analogy with Star Trek has never worked. Still even within our current real world systems we do genuinely have the capacity to feed and house everyone. Much as I'm not fond of New Labour one of the things I give them credit for is genuinely reducing the level of homelessness in the UK to the point it could be said they'd almost ended homelessness. Nowadays homelessness is at record levels and politicians on both sides now argue that while bad this is a problem that will always be with us which is ridiculous.

How about the case, that people should receive something for actually accomplishing something or being talented at something, not just being there and being of certain sex, skin color or sexual orientation?

Are you suggesting the non Straight white male actors currently on Star Trek didn't get those roles because they talented and accomplished in their fields?

[Leo656]

Well, you're right that most right-leaning people were never much into Star Trek. Not because it was "too liberal", but because it's Nerd Sh*t. If you're right-wing you're historically not supposed to be into Nerd Sh*t.

I grew up in a moderately Red section of an historically Blue state. What you tend to notice about right-wingers, by and large, is that they're rather pragmatic and as such have little patience for fantasy or flights of fancy. You're supposed to apply yourself and take interest in things that are "real" over things which are not. Ergo, you're supposed to be into sports, "working a real job", hanging out at bars and chasing women, and so on, because those things have a "practical" use (making money, establishing connections, getting laid, etc.). Conversely, things like comic books, video games, and science fiction have always been looked down upon in more conservative circles, a least for the most part. You'd hear it all the time growing up from relatives, friends' parents, teachers and guidance counselors, if they were more right-leaning - "Comic books? Star Trek? How is any of THAT gonna help you in life? That's not real, it's a waste of time." And if you tried to explain that you simply didn't care for football, for example, they'd immediately reply "At least football is REAL." It's only very, very recently that Nerd Sh*t has become an "acceptable" form of entertainment for more conservative types, but even now you'll still see some heavy pushback sometimes.

You see this sort of pragmatism trickle into many areas of how Conservatives live their life in general, for example how fiercely they describe most liberal values as "make-believe" or "fairy-tale nonsense". It comes back to the old "If it's not tangible or realistic then it simply has no value" way of thinking that most of them subscribe to on some level.

Which admittedly does not explain why so many Conservatives still cling so fiercely to religion. Since God definitely isn't real. But, they THINK he is, so I guess under their goofy rules it's stillacceptable.t

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/s...na-1235021307/

Star Trek 4 to begin filming for a 2023 release. Chris Pine and the 2009 cast are all back besides Chekov. I wonder if they'll recast or just ignore him.

So the cast don't know anything about another film, there's no script, no budget and their announcement was just a show they put on for investors:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...B2D81ioFUHZZLY

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Which admittedly does not explain why so many Conservatives still cling so fiercely to religion. Since God definitely isn't real. But, they THINK he is, so I guess under their goofy rules it's stillacceptable.t

I think people who score highly on religiosity scales tend to find some kind of comfort for an overwhelming feeling of existential dread. It's like an inversion of the far left who find comfort in excusing life failure through inventing an assailant and calling them an "ism" or a "nazi".

Both ends of the spectrum are replete with compensating for fear by inventing an "other".



Ya like that?

[Andrew NDB]

https://variety.com/2022/film/news/p...ek-1235287048/

Where do things stand with the next “Star Trek” sequel, and why did you decide to bring back Chris Pine?

We’re deep into it with J.J. Abrams, and it feels like we’re getting close to the starting line and excited about where we’re going creatively. I’m a research nerd, and what the data tells me is that the audience wants that cast in this movie.

So basically nothing at all has changed at the top with Paramount vs. a few years ago or even 2009 and all of those possibly neat things that have been floating around in the past 2-3 years like the Noah Hawley movie or the Tarantino script aren't happening. More JJ Trek movies helps what move forward, exactly?

[Andrew NDB]

Pulled from the schedule. Good.

https://www.darkhorizons.com/paramou...from-schedule/