Star Trek will go to Strange New Worlds in new spinoff series

The possibility of a Star Trek 4 definitely not looking good, first Anton Yelchin dying apparently killed momentum, and then the Marvel Movies raised the bar sky-high for what these kinds of movies need to make to ROI. Chris Pine, Chris Hemsworth being in and out of negotiations and ultimately backing away, just a big mess.

At this point it would probably be better to just reboot or move the movies up toward the TNG era and do Kelvin Next Generation. Hemsworth and Pine are big enough actors now that they will demand pretty big pay days and Trek movies really don't have the money making potential for it to be worth paying them several million dollars each.
 
I know what you are saying. I don't completely disagree with you but from the art perspective in the 60's they worked with what they have, in the 80's they worked with what they have, and in 2020 they are going to work with what they have.

The only "modern" art style that I absolutely can't stand is the touch screen stuff in Picard. I don't mind any of the other graphics of the new series.

But are you are suggesting you won't want a tv series because the art is too good?
It isn't about art style. You cannot "boldly go where no one has gone before" when you already know the next 100 years where they "boldly went to where no one went before". Everything was already seen. You also certainly cannot invent new technology to fit your narrative when that new technology doesn't exist even 100 years in the future as established in the other shows.

Unless you just make it a new universe.

But the point is that all you had to do was change "klingon" to "species blah" and Discovery would fit in modern Picard time. That is how terrible the continuity is.
 
The amount of people in this thread who seem to absolutely not get what star trek is about kind of amazes me.
There is no leeway in "what star trek is about" that allows for Spore Drive 100 years ago.

There is also no leeway in DS9's section 31 being something no knows about and Discovery's Section 31 that everyone knows about!
 
The possibility of a Star Trek 4 definitely not looking good, first Anton Yelchin dying apparently killed momentum, and then the Marvel Movies raised the bar sky-high for what these kinds of movies need to make to ROI. Chris Pine, Chris Hemsworth being in and out of negotiations and ultimately backing away, just a big mess.

yup. It’s a fucking mess. Its a bummer because I enjoyed all of those movies. They had a good thing going there..
 
I actually thought Picard was pretty good take at unfucking the mess that JJ Abrams made. Discovery was just absolute shit. It fucked with the continuity of the "universe" and didn't give a shit.

To anyone whining about SJW...yeah Discovery took it way overboard there in some cases but at its core Star Trek was always very progressive so that's less of a big deal than the shit writing/acting that surrounds it. Think about it a show made in the 60s that had all of the following:

A black woman as an officer
A black woman kissing a white man
Asian women serving as officers (personnel officer)
Asian men as officers
A Russian officer (big fucking deal during the Cold War!)
The IDIC mantra of the vulcans
Women in short skirts (this was progressive for the time...that kinda leg was scandalous)
Women leaders (T'Pau of Vulcan)
The Prime Directive (a direct statement against the Vietnam war)

I could go on but anyone who understands Star Trek knows its always pushed the boundaries. Yeah the show wasn't always that great acting/story wise but overall it was enjoyable.

P.S. Enterprise could've been good...if we had only gotten one or two more seasons I think it would've found its pace...it was getting good until they had to rush to wrap it all up.
 
Star trek movies should be budget feature films that are distributed online via Netflix, Amazon or Hulu. Forget big budget theater releases, after Covid-19 the theaters will be on life support anyway. We don't need big time Hollywood actors either, just decent special fx, well made sets and new decent actors who are looking to establish themselves.

JJ Abrams type movies with Chris Hemsworth would be bad for Trek because it would make it more and more generic and stray from what made it appealing in the first place. Why not do a new type of trek that focuses on multiple crews kinda like how expanse does? You could have a white male starship captain named Chaddeus Trump to please the right wing white dudes who whine about SJW and minorities, you could have a space station with a black tranny who is married to a lesbian white female and a mexican starship mechanic to placate the liberals and if the story is good, you'll get everyone else. :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Going through those list of names producing this show, a quick google result says the first four I bothered checking are all Jewish, most Star Trek actors are Jewish, even the Vulcan salute is secretly Jewish, and yet as far as I know there has never been a Jewish character (by name like Goldstein/Cohen or otherwise) in the ultra-diverse Star Trek.
 
Going through those list of names producing this show, a quick google result says the first four I bothered checking are all Jewish, most Star Trek actors are Jewish, even the Vulcan salute is secretly Jewish, and yet as far as I know there has never been a Jewish character (by name like Goldstein/Cohen or otherwise) in the ultra-diverse Star Trek.

That's because in the 24th century Judaism doesn't exist. They're all atheists.
 
To anyone whining about SJW...yeah Discovery took it way overboard there in some cases but at its core Star Trek was always very progressive so that's less of a big deal than the shit writing/acting that surrounds it. Think about it a show made in the 60s that had all of the following:

A black woman as an officer
A black woman kissing a white man
Asian women serving as officers (personnel officer)
Asian men as officers
A Russian officer (big fucking deal during the Cold War!)
The IDIC mantra of the vulcans
Women in short skirts (this was progressive for the time...that kinda leg was scandalous)
Women leaders (T'Pau of Vulcan)
The Prime Directive (a direct statement against the Vietnam war)

I could go on but anyone who understands Star Trek knows its always pushed the boundaries. Yeah the show wasn't always that great acting/story wise but overall it was enjoyable.

Yes the old show pushed a progressive agenda, but it didn't preach "white man bad" either. At least that's the vibe I'm getting from others who have watched the new CBS Trek shows.

P.S. Enterprise could've been good...if we had only gotten one or two more seasons I think it would've found its pace...it was getting good until they had to rush to wrap it all up.
Agree.
 
That's because in the 24th century Judaism doesn't exist. They're all atheists.
Judaism is an ethnicity, not just a religion, and they went out of their way to make the ethnicities really obvious with heavy Russian and Scottish accents and stereotypes galore. And heck in Voyager the super obvious native-american was having religious vision quests practically every other episode.
I could go on but anyone who understands Star Trek knows its always pushed the boundaries.
That only works if you want to promote that Star Trek has no ideals of its own, and was merely trying to piss off conservatives of the time.

I'd argue that even in that way they aren't consistent, because Star Trek was big about subtext for the most part; pushing ideals without being overtly obvious about it. That's not quite the case with the "check every box" transgender black strong womyn or having a group hug for the illegal alien middle-eastern terrorist who promises to be good now. If they were promoting a coherent consistent ideal of their own being merit based equality, no drug problems, with healthy fit people thanks to nutritional controls, Discovery doesn't fit that vision with its blatant straight white male bashing and healthy at any weight nonsense either. Its basically just pushing whatever happens to be the popular agenda of the far left, and dropping all pretense that it isn't the primary theme of the show.
 
Judaism is an ethnicity, not just a religion, and they went out of their way to make the ethnicities really obvious with heavy Russian and Scottish accents and stereotypes galore. And heck in Voyager the super obvious native-american was having religious vision quests practically every other episode.

This is such an offtopic discussion that I won't get too much into it. Jews aren't an ethnic group, you have sephardic jews, mizrahim and ashkenazis who are nothing alike apart from their shared religion. That's like trying to claim all Muslims are the same ethnicity. I get that Jews in the US and Europe want to portray that image for political purposes but in reality it's just a loose diaspora barely connected by Judaism.
 
This is such an offtopic discussion that I won't get too much into it. Jews aren't an ethnic group, you have sephardic jews, mizrahim and ashkenazis who are nothing alike apart from their shared religion. That's like trying to claim all Muslims are the same ethnicity.
Christianity and Islam are merely religions that seek to actively recruit and evangelize new followers all over the globe. Judaism is an insular tribe or ethnic religion that does quite the opposite. Like the interview with Morgan Freeman where he called Michael Wallace a "white man", Wallace was very quick to correct Freeman that he's not a white man he's Jewish.
 
Christianity and Islam are merely religions that seek to actively recruit and evangelize new followers all over the globe. Judaism is an insular tribe or ethnic religion that does quite the opposite. Like the interview with Morgan Freeman where he called Michael Wallace a "white man", Wallace was very quick to correct Freeman that he's not a white man he's Jewish.

Riiiggghht, is that why my ex-gf who was a Russian Jew was blonde with blue eyes? Where in the middle east did those genes come from? If Jews remained an insular tribe, they'd all be brown skinned w/dark hair and brown eyes.
 
Riiiggghht, is that why my ex-gf who was a Russian Jew was blonde with blue eyes?
Exceptions prove the rule, and uncommon intermarriage doesn't mean it has never happened in thousands of years. "Japanese" is an ethnicity and a very obvious measurable genetic cluster with a common culture distinctly different from say the Dutch or Nigerians, but you will find half-white and half-black Japanese people on the island as well which hardly invalidate this obvious ethnic group.
 
Going to hate to say this, but.
Take the religious discussion to Gab guys so this thread doesn't get locked. I'm banned on Facebook again, and Youtube likes to delete my comments for wrong speak. ;)

That's because in the 24th century Judaism doesn't exist. They're all atheists.
IDK, there was atleast 1 ep that talked and praised-ish. Don't know if it was before or after Kirk kissed what her name, I forgot. The deep South didn't like that one bit. The Sulu guy wanted to come out gay but after the kiss so, Rod told him they would shut the show down.
 
Yes the old show pushed a progressive agenda, but it didn't preach "white man bad" either. At least that's the vibe I'm getting from others who have watched the new CBS Trek shows.

Agree.

Yeah thats why I said Discovery pushes it a bit too far. I was being polite.

Going to hate to say this, but.
Take the religious discussion to Gab guys so this thread doesn't get locked. I'm banned on Facebook again, and Youtube likes to delete my comments for wrong speak. ;)


IDK, there was atleast 1 ep that talked and praised-ish. Don't know if it was before or after Kirk kissed what her name, I forgot. The deep South didn't like that one bit. The Sulu guy wanted to come out gay but after the kiss so, Rod told him they would shut the show down.

Yeah I dont need to get banned from there...been banned in twice in the last month from FB for supporting the Constitution and asking people to think rationally...but lets put a nail in that coffin right now:

Gene Roddenberry himself is said to have rejected the idea of religion lasting into Humanity's future. Ronald D. Moore commented regarding the fate of specific religions in Trek history: "Gene felt very strongly that all of our contemporary Earth religions would be gone by the 23rd century, and while few of us around here actually share that opinion, we feel that we should leave this part of the Trek universe alone." (AOL chat, 1997) "It was a core tenet of Gene's Trek." (AOL chat, 1997)

Brannon Braga said that "In Gene Roddenberry's imagining of the future [...] religion is completely gone. Not a single Human being on Earth believes in any of the nonsense that has plagued our civilization for thousands of years. This was an important part of Roddenberry's mythology. He, himself, was a secular humanist and made it well-known to writers of Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation that religion and superstition and mystical thinking were not to be part of his universe. On Roddenberry's future Earth, everyone is an atheist. And that world is the better for it." [1](X)

Michael Chabon commented: "It’s not just Jews who are absent; it’s any kind of explicitly religious characters. I can’t think of any explicitly Christian or Hindu or Muslim characters in “Star Trek.” We get Vulcan religion, Klingon religion and other [alien] religions, especially the Bajorans [on “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”], sometimes discussions of godlike beings, but I don’t think the absence of Jews is significant in itself". [2]

There are at best very weak lines that could be construed as a writer trying to contest this but by and far there is no human religion in Star Trek.
 
If you want to see a space series far better than any Star Trek, check out Another Life on Netflix.

(...snorts uncontrollably under breathe)

Give it 3 or 4 episodes though to get you hooked.

(....erupts into unstoppable laughter)
It is indeed the most god awful sci fi show I've watched in quite a while


on track. Its the new series is Episodic then it'll be awesome
I really liked the Pike character. Great charisma
 
I actually thought Picard was pretty good take at unfucking the mess that JJ Abrams made. Discovery was just absolute shit. It fucked with the continuity of the "universe" and didn't give a shit.

To anyone whining about SJW...yeah Discovery took it way overboard there in some cases but at its core Star Trek was always very progressive so that's less of a big deal than the shit writing/acting that surrounds it. Think about it a show made in the 60s that had all of the following:

A black woman as an officer
A black woman kissing a white man
Asian women serving as officers (personnel officer)
Asian men as officers
A Russian officer (big fucking deal during the Cold War!)
The IDIC mantra of the vulcans
Women in short skirts (this was progressive for the time...that kinda leg was scandalous)
Women leaders (T'Pau of Vulcan)
The Prime Directive (a direct statement against the Vietnam war)

I could go on but anyone who understands Star Trek knows its always pushed the boundaries. Yeah the show wasn't always that great acting/story wise but overall it was enjoyable.

P.S. Enterprise could've been good...if we had only gotten one or two more seasons I think it would've found its pace...it was getting good until they had to rush to wrap it all up.
Again, this? How many times do I have to debunk this disingenuous false equivalency?
Discovery is not bad because it has a black female officer. That's only being used as an excuse to blame racism / strawman those who dislike it.

A black woman as an officer, who has no redeeming value apart from being black (which is only a redeeming value if you are an overt racist) = Discovery
A black woman as an officer, who is a professional, and good at her job, who just happens to be a black woman instead of anything else = TOS.

And you can replace black with asian / russian / etc to debunk all of your other statements yourself.

Those who say people dislike discovery because the lead is female and black are either being deliberately disingenuous, or simply refuse to hear why people hate it, which is kind of disingenuous in of itself. Not hearing the other side, just plain assuming they are a bunch of racists.

Michael in Discovery proves only one thing: She is not starfleet officer material, she is selfish, arrogant, disobedient, impulsive, puts her ego above the needs of ship and crew. She could be an asian male, or a white buffalo, I'd still hate her guts. Oh, but since she's a black female, you are not allowed to hate her. That's why people scream SJW, because you are supposed to like her for social justice reasons. Well there is no such thing as social justice, only justice. And if justice was served she'd never have made it into starfleet academy, let alone come out of it.
 
There are at best very weak lines that could be construed as a writer trying to contest this but by and far there is no human religion in Star Trek.
Star Trek IS whatever the writers have made canon and put in the show though. Roddenberry died ages ago, and Star Trek Voyager happened, but in any case I was referencing even the names of characters but we can leave it at that.
 
Again, this? How many times do I have to debunk this disingenuous false equivalency?
Discovery is not bad because it has a black female officer. That's only being used as an excuse to blame racism / strawman those who dislike it.

A black woman as an officer, who has no redeeming value apart from being black (which is only a redeeming value if you are an overt racist) = Discovery
A black woman as an officer, who is a professional, and good at her job, who just happens to be a black woman instead of anything else = TOS.

And you can replace black with asian / russian / etc to debunk all of your other statements yourself.

Those who say people dislike discovery because the lead is female and black are either being deliberately disingenuous, or simply refuse to hear why people hate it, which is kind of disingenuous in of itself. Not hearing the other side, just plain assuming they are a bunch of racists.

Michael in Discovery proves only one thing: She is not starfleet officer material, she is selfish, arrogant, disobedient, impulsive, puts her ego above the needs of ship and crew. She could be an asian male, or a white buffalo, I'd still hate her guts. Oh, but since she's a black female, you are not allowed to hate her. That's why people scream SJW, because you are supposed to like her for social justice reasons. Well there is no such thing as social justice, only justice. And if justice was served she'd never have made it into starfleet academy, let alone come out of it.

Maybe you should reread what I posted. It was not what you think it is....In no way did I attack discovery for having a black officer. Get off your high horse and read a little closer.

What I SAID was Star Trek TOS was progressive because in the 60s its contained all of my examples. In no way did I ding Discovery for doing it. I actually did not state WHY I thought Discovery was bad for pushing the SJW initiatives a bit further than I thought it should...but you went ahead and jumped straight to a conclusion rather than asking.

Which if you bothered to read a later post you'd see it was more of the "white man bad" agenda that I disliked. The rest I could give a shit about. Including a black officer...which has been in Trek since gee I dunno every fucking series.
 
Which if you bothered to read a later post you'd see it was more of the "white man bad" agenda that I disliked. The rest I could give a shit about. Including a black officer...which has been in Trek since gee I dunno every fucking series.
Including a lead like DS9 that was generally well liked. But DS9 didn't have this going on every other minute, or the predictable plot twist that the original CIS white male captain is naturally secretly evil and starts MAGA-quoting... that's what you get for trusting white bois, hah! I also love how supposedly one of the most capable and decorated officers in Starfleet history, Pike, is crapped on constantly by the entire crew. Stupid CIS patriarchy, sit down and listen! Its like they are really just a plot device to crap on and elevate the other characters.
 
Including a lead like DS9 that was generally well liked. But DS9 didn't have this going on every other minute, or the predictable plot twist that the original CIS white male captain is naturally secretly evil and starts MAGA-quoting... that's what you get for trusting white bois, hah! I also love how supposedly one of the most capable and decorated officers in Starfleet history, Pike, is crapped on constantly by the entire crew. Stupid CIS patriarchy, sit down and listen! Its like they are really just a plot device to crap on and elevate the other characters.
i never bother watching it because of the sjw bs but holy shit those clips, WMB!!!
 
Picard was terrible, so I don’t have high hopes for this.
Picard isn't that bad from what I've seen so far, but could have been better. They made some bad casting choices IMO; particularly the main character with the boring always straight-faced Isa Briones that is painful to watch but always on screen, as they even discussed how every minute detail of her body was by design and yet Data decided, "yeah, you know what, lets give her a massive underbite!" Whenever I see her crescent moon head I picture her on the piano singing that its "Mac Tonight". Just like in the gaming scene of late, that appears to be part of the leftist doctrine to intentionally not cast any overly attractive female role models (like the redesigned fat shorter Babie), compared to previous Treks that had Troy, Tasha, K'Ehleyr to name a few from TNG, or Seven of Nine and Kess from Voyager, or Dax and Kira from DS9, or T'Pol from Enterprise, etc.
 
Last edited:
Picard isn't that bad from what I've seen so far, but could have been better. They made some bad casting choices IMO; particularly the main character with the boring always straight-faced Isa Briones that is painful to watch but always on screen, as they even discussed how every minute detail of her body was by design and yet Data decided, "yeah, you know what, lets give her a massive underbite!" Whenever I see her crescent moon head I picture her on the piano singing that its "Mac Tonight". Just like in the gaming scene of late, that appears to be part of the leftist doctrine to intentionally not cast any overly attractive female role models (like the redesigned fat shorter Babie), compared to previous Treks that had Troy, Tasha, K'Ehleyr to name a few from TNG, or Seven of Nine and Kess from Voyager, or Dax and Kira from DS9, or T'Pol from Enterprise, etc.
Yep, they think being fit is white privilege and demeans women. Sjw garbage.
 
Stop body shaming me by being fit! If only they realized the irony.
in one of the last episodes of TNG, Ro Laren comes back and first thing Picard says is "looking fit" and as far as i can recall, no one in starfleet was over weight.
 
Maybe you should reread what I posted. It was not what you think it is....In no way did I attack discovery for having a black officer. Get off your high horse and read a little closer.
No, you just dismissed the concern of those who called it an SJW show, citing that Star Trek was always progressive. But SJW does not equal progressive.
Progressive is going against tradition, and pushing boundaries. SJW, is identity politics, defining people and in this case characters by their group identity. You can't be a starfleet officer in Discovery, you must be a white male starfleet officer, or a black female starfleet officer. And if you dislike a person identity politics automatically jumps to the conclusion that you are discriminating against them based on race/gender/etc. Unless the person is a white male, in which case discrimination is not just allowed but a virtue.
What I SAID was Star Trek TOS was progressive because in the 60s its contained all of my examples. In no way did I ding Discovery for doing it. I actually did not state WHY I thought Discovery was bad for pushing the SJW initiatives a bit further than I thought it should...but you went ahead and jumped straight to a conclusion rather than asking.
I know exactly what you said. You don't realize what I was criticizing. I have a problem with using the statement that Star Trek was always progressive to dismiss concerns about identity politics. Star Trek was always progressive, but it never dabbled in identity politics in fact it fought against it many times.

Which if you bothered to read a later post you'd see it was more of the "white man bad" agenda that I disliked. The rest I could give a shit about. Including a black officer...which has been in Trek since gee I dunno every fucking series.
And this statement shows that you still don't understand. Show me one person whose actual problem with discovery is that it has a black officer. You can't becuase it doesn't exist, it is a myth invented to dismiss any criticism of Discovery.
 
No, you just dismissed the concern of those who called it an SJW show, citing that Star Trek was always progressive. But SJW does not equal progressive.
Progressive is going against tradition, and pushing boundaries. SJW, is identity politics, defining people and in this case characters by their group identity. You can't be a starfleet officer in Discovery, you must be a white male starfleet officer, or a black female starfleet officer. And if you dislike a person identity politics automatically jumps to the conclusion that you are discriminating against them based on race/gender/etc. Unless the person is a white male, in which case discrimination is not just allowed but a virtue.

I know exactly what you said. You don't realize what I was criticizing. I have a problem with using the statement that Star Trek was always progressive to dismiss concerns about identity politics. Star Trek was always progressive, but it never dabbled in identity politics in fact it fought against it many times.


And this statement shows that you still don't understand. Show me one person whose actual problem with discovery is that it has a black officer. You can't becuase it doesn't exist, it is a myth invented to dismiss any criticism of Discovery.

Socially progressive views like having officers who are women....
noun: social justice warrior; plural noun: social justice warriors
a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.

Forget it youre just on a high horse and somehow I am your latest target. Got it. I am bigot in your eyes who dismisses peoples complaints against a show because black people.
 
Socially progressive views like having officers who are women....


Forget it youre just on a high horse and somehow I am your latest target. Got it. I am bigot in your eyes who dismisses peoples complaints against a show because black people.
noun: social justice warrior; plural noun: social justice warriors
a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.
^^thats he lefty/sjw definition, not the true meaning.
 
noun: social justice warrior; plural noun: social justice warriors
a person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views.
^^thats he lefty/sjw definition, not the true meaning.

Sorry but I am going to side with a dictionary on this one.
 
Socially progressive views like having officers who are women....
I just told you. SJW = Promotes identity politics. The fact that they self identify as progressive doesn't change anything.
You can self identify as an attack helicopter, it doesn't make you an attack helicopter, that's actually identity politics too so right up their alley.

Forget it youre just on a high horse and somehow I am your latest target. Got it. I am bigot in your eyes who dismisses peoples complaints against a show because black people.
Ironically, playing the victim is one prolific SJW tactic too.

In reality SJW is a mocking term coined to describe those who want equality of outcome between genders/races/other social groups regardless of individual choices and circumstances.
Some of them have been attempting to co-opt the term and wear it as a badge of honor. Hence the "dictionary" description you found.
But it is still widely used by their opponents, so they failed in co-opting it.

Now do you actually care to address anything I written about the difference between social justice and being progressive? Because it doesn't matter whet you call it, the fact is that old star trek is very different to new star trek.
 
which is that sourced from? several are altering definitions to fit the lefty agenda...
and wiki DOES NOT count.

edit: here's mw's def, totally different...
"Social justice warrior is an often mocking term for one who is seen as overly progressive or left-wing. It's often abbreviated as SJW. "
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-does-social-justice-warrior-sjw-mean
see what i mean.

Oxford English Dictionary. If you dont have a sub you can see it here: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/social_justice_warrior I have a sub through my local library.
 
Picard isn't that bad from what I've seen so far, but could have been better. They made some bad casting choices IMO; particularly the main character with the boring always straight-faced Isa Briones that is painful to watch but always on screen, as they even discussed how every minute detail of her body was by design and yet Data decided, "yeah, you know what, lets give her a massive underbite!" Whenever I see her crescent moon head I picture her on the piano singing that its "Mac Tonight". Just like in the gaming scene of late, that appears to be part of the leftist doctrine to intentionally not cast any overly attractive female role models (like the redesigned fat shorter Babie), compared to previous Treks that had Troy, Tasha, K'Ehleyr to name a few from TNG, or Seven of Nine and Kess from Voyager, or Dax and Kira from DS9, or T'Pol from Enterprise, etc.
I thought she was attractive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kju1
like this
Back
Top