@Stamets@lemmy.world
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

Stamets

@Stamets@lemmy.world

Gay | 30s | Trekkie | Canadian

Linktr.ee

Note: I only post memes I have saved, I don’t make them.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

Not a way to make good Star Trek

And that’s what I mean by gatekeepy comments. ‘Good Star Trek’ is completely subjective, not objective. It does not fit one specific mold or one specific criteria. Just because it’s not for you doesn’t mean that it’s bad Star Trek. Just because it’s for a different demographic doesn’t mean that it’s bad Star Trek. More over, It has not been released yet. You are basing this entirely off of concepts and theories thrown around not even the content itself and holding up to a personal card as to what Star Trek is. There’s no allowance for evolution or even leeway when the show isn’t released. It isn’t “killing its own brand” to introduce people to the franchise who aren’t you or the same demographic that’s been appealed to for the past 60 years.

This is a really dangerous and negative mindset to have and one of the reasons why I have avoided Star Trek fanbases for so long. Why so many people I know avoid the fanbase. Because we’re tired of seeing people act like they’re the arbiter of Trek and like there’s some golden framing that Star Trek fits into and has never stepped outside of. It’s also the exact same mindset that went after TNG when it was released for not being like TOS, after DS9 for not being like TNG or TOS, Voyager for not being like everything else, Enterprise, Discovery, Lower Decks, Strange New Worlds, etc. It’s just another in a long line of really negative behavior and one that I genuinely never expected from you.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

Okay. Doesn’t change a single thing about what I said though. You aren’t every Star Trek fan and not every Star Trek show has to appeal to you. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

The franchise should appeal to other demographics other than the ones that are currently enjoying it to broaden its portfolio and horizons, but not at their expense.

No. Utterly wrong. A translation of this is “People should make stuff for others to enjoy but only as long as I get to enjoy it too.” Not everything is about you, not every show is going to be made to your tastes. Get over it and just don’t watch it. Just because it isn’t made for you or your demographic doesn’t mean that it isn’t worth making. Other people exist.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

You may not be trying to be gatekeepy but every single comment of yours in this thread directly fits that definition. Discovery was the only show for a time and then others came about. Just because it is going to be the only show active at the moment means nothing. Especially when Legacy has been pushed hard. Could be they’re gearing up for the release of that. Could be a thousand other things. But it doesn’t help anyone to be negative, focus on the downsides and then suggest that its not even worth it because its not for the typical Trek demographic.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

I have never at any point called you an asshole. I’m not continuing any conversation with you if you’re going to stuff words down my throat and flagrantly lie about what has been said.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

No. I did not. Your argument was that “they should make stuff for other demographics too but to not alienate the current demographic.” It does not make sense. It is centric to the core demographic and pretends that the only demographic that matters is the originating one of fans of previous Trek. That the shows should always keep them in mind and that they should be a core consideration of everything that comes forward. That does not even make sense with the core philosophy of Trek which is inclusion and always looking for the forefront. To change and to grow.

You can appeal to more than one demographic but not appealing to a certain demographic does not make the show bad. Your argument is in bad faith and is a gatekeepers argument. That is why I boiled it down to “no one else matters but me”. Because that is exactly what you are arguing for. “Make stuff for other people but you need to make it for me so I can enjoy it too.” Like I said, just don’t watch it. It makes no sense and is extremely self centered to look at a show and go “It isn’t for me therefore it isn’t good.”

I am not continuing this or any conversation with you if this if your behavior is going to be lying about what was said, stuffing words down my throat and then insulting me on top of it.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

👍

Stamets, (edited )
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

That’s… Not the point of a franchise. The point of a franchise is to continue a story or path in a world from perspectives beyond that of our originating characters. The only criteria of a franchise is that it must take place in the same world. There is nothing about a franchise that’s specifically built to cater to the same fans endlessly. Defining a franchise as “Something to leverage existing fans” is just strange.

If you wanna be negative or pessimistic that’s fine. My issue comes with the outright gatekeeping that is going on here. If you don’t wanna like the show, fine, but just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it bad. Just because it’s for a different demographic than normal doesn’t make it bad. And just because one demographic might not like it when they’ve had every other piece of Trek catered to them doesn’t make it bad. Every single complaint I’ve responded to has used demographics as the core argument by saying that its alienating the core fan base but that doesn’t matter. Not everything has to be made for that core fan base. Acting like it’s a problem if something isn’t made for them and is made for a new group of people is outright gatekeeping.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

Sounds like a way to save a hell of a lot of money on special effects

Dude some of the best Trek episodes are bottle episodes like Measure of a Man or (blanking on the name) the flute episode. Neither have flashy effects and Trek in general didn’t have flashy effects until recently. So suggesting that effects themselves being saved is nefarious when people have been complaining that the shows are too focused on effects and battles is odd. Especially when for decades Trek did not have a budget for effects in general and made them as simply and cheaply as possible. Saving money or spending money isn’t a bar onto whether the show will be good or not. Especially when Trek historically didn’t have money to use on effects and had to keep to a small budget.

" We’ve found a demographic we can tap into and save money in the process" and not " we need to make good Star Trek"

Again, the definition of “good Star Trek” is completely subjective and not an objective thing. Star Trek does not fit one specific mold and there has been plenty of bad Trek made over the years. Also plenty of very different Trek from new perspectives.

But my main problem here is the demographic line. You’re suggesting that the only reason to make for another demographic outside of the core Trekkies that have been catered to for decades is for money. Now businesses are gonna business and wanna make money but why is doing it for another demographic bad? Are they not allowed to enjoy it? Do their opinions not matter? Why is it such a bad thing that more demographics are being catered to with Trek? We’ve had 60 years. We can’t give them a single one? That is blatant gatekeeping. The opinions of other groups and demographics don’t matter as long as the core group is placated. It’s okay for everyone else to like it but only as long as that core group likes it too. That if it’s made for people other than the core group there is some inherent problem with that.

The reason I am so eagle eyed on this is because the same argument was thrown at Star Trek Discovery specifically due to LGBTQ characters. The fact that there are many meant that a lot of people kept complaining and have used the exact same argument that you have. That it was pandering to another demographic for the sake of money and that it wasn’t good. Meanwhile every LGBTQ person I know who loves the show has been ecstatic that were finally getting representation and that the show is embracing another demographic instead of just straight dude/straight woman yet again.

It’s fine to be concerned about the quality of something. Personally I think it’s extremely early to worry about that when we don’t even have the cast confirmed or any solid information about the show but quality problems is fine. Suggesting that appealing to demographics outside of the stereotypical nerd is bad or should be treated with suspicion doesn’t help anyone in anyway. It just makes people from that demographic feel like they’re alienated and don’t matter.

(I apparently didn’t hit send last night)

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

Kurtzman has actively said he’s trying to get Legacy done but that he cannot snap his fingers and make it happen because Paramount exists. I’d say that’s a pretty big sign along with two other Trek shows winding down and opening budget for a new show. Legacy won’t be cheap to make and Discovery and Lower Decks are the two more expensive shows to make. Discovery also uses CBS stages in Toronto at their newly built studio, stages which will now be available after Discovery ends.

Viewing everything through the lens of money is fine and should be done that way all the time because it is a profit driven company. But you’ve been phrasing this like even the concept of appealing to a different demographic is bad. That is my primary issue with what you’ve been saying here. That appealing to someone who isn’t a straight white dude is not a good thing. You suggested as much with your first comment saying “what, you don’t wanna watch teenage drama?” I know a lot of people that would but you’re not reflecting their opinion here. You’re just insinuating that because it’s for a different demographic that makes it immediately bad and suspicious without ever considering the perspective of someone in that demographic. You’re reducing them to a profit point and suggesting that they only matter in the sense that money can be gotten from them. No consideration has been given to whether or not they’d want that type of show or what that demographic thinks. It’s just “they’re only using them for money” which is accurate about your demographic too and extremely reductive to discussions.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

in every way like executives saying “find a way to get young people into it without costing us too much money” and not producers and showrunners saying “let’s make a really good show.”

So TNG. And DS9. And Voyager. And Enterprise. And the Kelvinverse. Literally every show/movie ever made in Trek has been with money at the forefront and none of them have been made with “lets make a really good show” as the core concept. No show in history has been made with that as the core concept with maybe the exception of Mr Rogers. There are no bright eyed idealists who sit at Star Trek meetings and invent the show. Every single one of them has been calculated and tested and based 100% off of profit figures. This isn’t a new concept. Berman controlled Trek longer than anyone else and none of those shows were made with ‘Good Star Trek’ in mind which is proven from behind the scenes stories from every cast member of every single show. TNG had problems with Berman on making certain episodes to the point that they became famous for never being made as well as the casting/contract negotiations for the women who were put through hell. DS9 was a story that was outright stolen from another and creator after he pitched the idea to CBS and was meddled with so much by Berman and production that the show runner had to actively lie to producers and keep things from them to make good Trek. Voyager was largely left alone but only due to the testament of Kate Mulgrew being awful enough on set. Enterprise was purely a creation of Berman and is demonstrated through every gross decontamination shower. The Kelvinverse is largely hated by people for many reasons but not least of which being the JJ Daily Show line of him not liking Star Trek and wanting to make Trek for people outside of the core group.

Discovery was not meddled with, at least not at first. The showrunners were given a huge amount of creative freedom because it was a free-for-all at that point and they were able to do all sorts of things executives might have turned down otherwise. The entire media landscape has changed since then.

This is actually the opposite of what happened. Discovery came in originally as an anthology series to follow individual crews across individual ships per season. It was also set to have a darker and spookier theme from the show than was in other shows. Bryan Fuller actively said that he was trying to make the ‘Star Trek answer to American Horror Story’ and literally none of that DNA is left in the show. The studio then kept pressing more and more until the only thing that was left was a darker tone and 1031 being left as the registry. That ID chosen specifically because it is the date of Halloween and was supposed to reflect spookiness. The only other thing Bryan had his foot down on that didn’t shake was the lead actress. He wanted a woman of color as the role and Sonequa was his first choice but it would have required waiting for her contract with AMC to be up which led to tensions with CBS execs to the point that they asked him to step down as a showrunner. They then replaced him with two other people who were already working on the show and both of them were fired in the second season. Kurtzman then took over until Michelle Paradise (a writer on the show up until this point and a lesbian) became co-show runner in Season 3 onwards. She’s the reason why got so much more LGBTQ representation on the show in Season 3.

Discovery was heavily meddled with at first to the point that the show isn’t reflective of the original pitch and the show runners were fired. From then the show has been able to do basically whatever it wants. Helps that Kurtzman is a co-showrunner in that regard so more weight but the show is blatantly not swaying to company interests when it pisses people off to no end. Discovery gets far more negative press coverage than positive press coverage. Discovery barely got any coverage at all from Paramount themselves in the lead up to the final season of the show.

But that being said, my issue with your comments is exclusively the demographics bit. Nothing in this comment I particularly disagree with. But I’m reading your responses in other comments and will address that there. Sorry.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

Another demographic isn’t bad. Relying on that demographic as one of maybe two shows when it has not traditionally been a Star Trek demographic is a huge risk that comes entirely from bean counters.

But there’s no evidence that they’re relying on them. You are basing all of this off of assumptions. You say elsewhere that SNW isn’t going to last more than 5 seasons but you don’t know that. Moreover, they’re currently only working on their 3rd. So that’s another 3 released seasons of show over a few years which would demonstrate that this YA show would not be the only Star Trek show. Then there’s the two confirmed Star Trek movies (S31 movie and a new Prequel movie) that have been announced as well. You keep acting like the only thing that’s going to be left is Starfleet Academy but there is no evidence of that.

“We’re adding a few queer characters to get a gay audience” would be pandering, because it’s about gratification. This isn’t about gratification, this is about subscription fees. This isn’t “okay, we’re throwing you kids a bone so you’ll watch too,” this is, “we are creating this show entirely around the idea of getting new viewers to pay for Paramount+.”

Personally I find that to be splitting hairs. Both are the same thing. Both are the company looking at a demographic and using that demographic for the sake of their own gain. But even then I do not understand this argument in any way whatsoever. It’s like saying “they are only doing the things people might like so they will vote for them.” Like… isn’t that the point of a for profit company? To do things people like and then get the money from them because they like it? Why is it so suspicious that they’re doing what they do to survive.

Because all streaming service tentpole shows that get greenlit should be treated with suspicion right now. It should also be treated with suspicion because there’s zero movement on Legacy, Prodigy was shunted over to Netflix and now Lower Decks, despite being super popular, is ending with only 50 episodes total.

Then be cautiously optimistic. I just find it insane that the show hasn’t been released and there’s not even promotional stuff for the show but the immediate assumption is that it sucks, will only be pandering towards an audience to get their money and should be treated with extreme suspicion. Doesn’t matter that the writers involved are people who have proven they legitimately care about the show, like Tawny Newsome.

This is not the early streaming era where anything went and people had lots of creative freedom. This is an era where demographics are everything to executives.

It’s the exact same era. Demographics have only ever been used for the sake of money. That’s just how for profit companies work. If you make something that appeals to a certain demographic then you can get the money of that demographic. That’s not a surprise or a sudden groundbreaking thing that’s only now happening. Moreover, it’s not a bad thing and has been my exact problem with the comments about demographics in this thread. It’s reductive to almighty hell and relates to another comment where I used LGBTQ in Discovery as an example. You are saying “They are only using demographic for money” but that is not a new thing. Kids shows are aimed towards a specific demographic because money can be made from them because the market is there for it. If money can be made from a Young Adult audience and they make a show for a Young Adult audience it isn’t surprising or suspicious that they’ve done that. Would you react the exact same way if another Trek show was made for the middle aged, white, straight audience? They’re a pretty big demographic and one that money can be made from which is why they’ve been milked ad infinitum. Why is it that when another demographic gets the same treatment now it’s suddenly problematic? You’re phrasing this entirely from the perspective of yourself. You’re not seeing it from the perspective of people in that demographic. You’re taking this too coldly and too calculated from solely a executives side and not considering the people who are going to get the show, whether they’d like it or whether they want it. Personally I’m not willing to make a single discussion about demographics in anyway until that demographic themselves actually weighs in. They might like it and love it and that’s awesome. Then they get Trek for them. They might hate it and the show gets cancelled. That’s just how media works. Not everything is going to be a hit, not everything is going to be safe and not everything is going to be for the same demographic endlessly.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

Edit: One more thought, since you brought up LGBT+ representation in Star Trek, something you know I support and wish had happened much earlier… If Paramount announced a show, selling it as “LGBT+ Star Trek,” wouldn’t that make you at least a little suspicious about the motivations behind the show and what executives might demand of it?

No. I would have been excited as fuck that they finally saw me and gave a fuck about me. After being ignored for years to cater to the straight white man I would have been fucking ecstatic that they were bothering to announce that they would be showing stuff aimed towards people like me. I would have been surprised that they did so because I would know it would piss off a bunch of fans who would be frustrated that it wouldn’t be made for them as well as the fans who were just homophobic/bigoted assholes. I would have thought that it was a calculated move but one they clearly were confident in which meant that the product they were going to be making would have been heavily geared towards my specific demographic (thus the announcement) which would loop into more excitement. If we’re using current DSC alum then I would be even more excited knowing that the creator of the show (Fuller) was gay, that a number of writers on the show were gay and that they were casting gay/trans/enby actors to play gay/trans/enby roles. I wouldn’t have cared about the motivations behind the show. I would only care that after 60 years of watching the same people being waited on hand and foot I finally got a tiny slice of that treatment and got to see a world with people like me in it dealing with problems like the ones I deal with and facing challenges that are reflective of challenges in my own life.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

it’s not like we didn’t have LGBTQ+ characters before,

No. We did not. There was no real LGBTQ+ representation on the show prior to DSC. Also the acronym is DSC or DIS, not STD. Not unless you’re going around saying STO for Original, STT for The next generation, ST9 for Deep Space 9, etc.

Saying that the representation was ‘borderline offensive’ is also laughable considering that the show and actors have won numerous awards from people like GLADD specifically for the representation of LGBTQ+ peoples.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

It’s that it’s looking like it will be the only show.

No dude, it isn’t. You keep saying this but it’s not true. They’re currently working on Season 3 of SNW and the concept of it ending after 5 seasons is pure speculation. They’re also currently working on two different Star Trek movies. They also were working on SNW long before it was announced because it takes time behind the scenes to write out the concept for a show, work on the idea, figure out the cast/crew and what not. The push for Legacy by fans is as intense as SNW but it took them almost two years to announce SNW because they had to make sure everything behind the scenes lined up.

There’s no reason to believe that it’s going to be the only show.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

I have, aside from Prodigy, never heard Paramount, Vicacom, whatever, sell a Star Trek show as ‘we’re designing this show around this group of people.’

And what happened with Prodigy? Nothing. The world carried on spinning and nothing happened because catering to a specific audience isn’t a problem or problematic. It just means that a new audience gets to see a world with reflections of themselves that they normally would not be able to see.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

I am never optimistic about these things when they’re announced this way until I find out exactly who will be involved in putting them together. I’ve seen this sort of thing go south way too many times now.

And therein lies the massive difference between us. I’m looking at this new show and I am for sure being cautious but I’m optimistic. I’m looking at this from the side of more representation for more people, more Star Trek stories told in a new light, more exploration of a new world, more world building, more characters, more time to spend with concepts and core tenants of Star Trek, more time to see parts of Trek that we’ve never seen before. I’m not blind to the fact that it could go wrong but I’m thinking about this by focusing on the good because my entire life has been dark, depressing and filled with suicidal ideation every day that I wake up. I’m also not seeing it from the perspective of “other people”. I’m seeing this as the same way I saw Discovery. That they’re showing parts of the Star Trek world to people who’ve never seen it for them before and who are finally getting attention and the spotlight put on them for a moment and get their chance to shine.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

I probably am. Stressed about a few things and yeah. I am sorry if I came off aggressive or anything here.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

I’m also just very particular about language which quite often doesn’t help.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

considering you only see LGBTQ+ if it’s a stereotype, you must think Rain-man a decent representation of ASD…

Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it a stereotype. Once again, it has won awards from international organizations that step up for LGBTQ people and talk about our representation. What do you do?

then again, I love how you pretend at some argument of consistency when all the “one word” series are known mainly by said word (Voyager, Enterprise), and TOS just meaning the original series, so you have two examples here, both of which, if we went with their naming convention, would leave it called “D”.

No, there’s one naming convention. I was chosing a singular word from the series name and using it. I also avoided D because that is the only way that one could logic themselves into the acronym supposedly being STD. I mean unless you have some better explanation as to why you use STD.

I am not continuing this discussion with you when you’re violating the rules of the community.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

You are not talking about the same thing I am. You are talking about lore accuracy and the world’s therein. I am saying that the dictionary definition of franchise does not include bowing to the whims of old fans as part it. They are not the same. Your example is based off of actual leaps from established canon and lore. Mine does not. Mine includes showing a different side that still fits with lore and expands on it without rewriting.

We really couldn’t argue about this all day

Lemmyverse historical data? (data.lemmyverse.net)

I am interested in checking out the historical growth of a particular community. Lemmy Explorer crawls for data about the Lemmyverse every 24 hours or something, and that data is made available on their website. But I can only find where to download the latest data. Is there somewhere that I can find historical data? Does Lemmy...

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

Nope, not a community I’ve ever posted in. I deleted my ST.W account in January.

jeze, to memes
@jeze@kzoo.to avatar

It does feel like that.

@memes

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar

You’re an admin of StarTrek.Website. Of course it hasn’t been your experience. You’re biased.

Stamets,
@Stamets@lemmy.world avatar
  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • khanakhh
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • tacticalgear
  • normalnudes
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • DreamBathrooms
  • kavyap
  • everett
  • HellsKitchen
  • Durango
  • mdbf
  • cisconetworking
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Leos
  • tester
  • InstantRegret
  • osvaldo12
  • cubers
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • relationshipadvice
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines