Replies

And homelessness. Not all the poverty in this country is the talking point kind, quite a bit is people really honestly being poor with lack of housing and food.

If you are crazy and wander the streets unmedicated, poverty is not your problem. If you are addicted to drugs, and you wander the streets looking for more, poverty is not your problem. Have you spent any time in "poor" areas? Try it. You won't find many skinny people.

And the Chinese in Beijing get no air to breath. And a lot of their “fix” for poverty was making the army the number 1 employer in the nation.

Check out the history of killer fogs in London in the 20th century. Air pollution is a management problem, not an inevitable result of prosperity.

Just pointing out simple reality. You’re on the outside.

Outside of what? Your secret club? Your secret cabal charged with deciding what is good and what is foul?

I know JJ-ST is good without the reviewers,

Sounds like a religion to me.

but it’s interesting to note that in spite of all the whining by the cultists it’s only the 3rd Trek movie to score better than 90 at rotten.

L Ron Hubbard's books have amazing sales, too. He told his followers to go out and buy them.

Then there’s the more money than any 2 other Trek movies. It impressed everybody except a handful of people who take great pride in how unimpressed they are.

People magazine has a readership, too, but that doesn't make it more than a sales success. Somebody is out there buying Chia Pets, too, but again, sales only indicate sales. Or as Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute.

That’s not actually thinking for yourself, that’s pretending that contrarianism has meaning.

I watched it, I didn't like it, and I decided why. I did not approach it with an attitude.

The problem with Roddenberry’s optimism is that left unchecked it’s boring.

To people who grew up watching other citizens set upon by dogs and fire hoses because they wanted to register to vote or eat at a public lunch counter, Roddenberry's optimism resonated.

That “no conflict” problem in TNG came straight from him, and drove the writers room insane, because without conflict there’s no drama. Optimism is nice, but to turn it into drama it has to be tempered.

Twice now I have described Roddenberry as NOT a sf genius. I won't do it again. I loathed TNG. The characters were bland and unconvincing. We were not discussing TNG.

JJ-ST is strong in the tempering, yeah things are good,

"Tempering"??? "Good" is an opinion. Making that statement is an assertion.

but not perfect, because perfect is boring.

No, perfect is a goal.

Unchecked Roddenberry optimism gives you Encounter at Far Point, leaving the conflict give you WOK.

None of which has anything to do with OS, which is what was under discussion.

(I recommend a fifth of Jack and a bottle of Prozac)

I can believe that.

Most homeless aren’t crazy, or drug addicted, and yeah I have spent time in poor areas, REALLY poor areas, not “poor”. The actually poor areas where everybody “donates” plasma, and those people are skinny. There’s the big dividing line between the kind of poor we complain about getting welfare checks and REAL poor, actually poor people bleed for money, and the centers of America aren’t hurting for “donors”.

I didn’t say the pollution in China was a result of prosperity, quite the opposite I was pointing it out as proof that the country hasn’t progressed as far as you’re claiming.

Outside the norm. Most folks liked it.

Knowing the movie was good regardless of the reviews sounds like a religion to you? Try that one again.

Actually Hubbard’s books sold well before he invented Scientology. He was one of the big dogs of SF. It’s kind of sad really, ruined his own history by winning a bet.

Actually my bet is you decided you wouldn’t like it, watched it, and felt proud about how “right” you were. And now years later you’re still pissing and moaning about it.

Roddenberry’s optimism WHEN tempered by Coon’s story telling resonated. Roddenberry’s optimism unchecked was boring. First 3 season of TNG, that was Roddenberry’s optimism set free, “no conflict”, no drama. And by loathing TNG you agree.

“Good” in that sentence wasn’t an opinion, it was describing the world in the movie, as in “having a lot of that optimism of Roddenberry’s”. People aren’t poor (because they have replicators) people are free to explore themselves. That good.

Actually that ALL has to do with TOS. You really seem to be having trouble following logical threads all of a sudden. In TOS Roddenberry’s optimism was checked by Coon’s storytelling, thus it had drama, that’s the combination that gave us Khan, and therefore WOK, the best ST movie (even though rotten likes JJ-ST more it’s no WOK). Roddenberry’s optimism unchecked gave us Encounter at Farpoint, boring, no conflict, no drama. That all is part of a TOS discussion because even space TV shows don’t exist in a vacuum.