3 ms·

I'm not sure you realize it, but TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager were all extremely preachy. Picard is literally known for lengthy preachy monologues about how peopl

I'm not sure you realize it, but TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager were all extremely preachy. Picard is literally known for lengthy preachy monologues about how people should be.

tjpnz 4y ago
Perhaps but what differed with those shows was how the messages were presented in the form of an allegory. I wasn't annoyed by that and had a choice about how much I felt like engaging with it. If I had a long day I could just tune out and enjoy the story at face value.
- philistine 4y ago
  Sometimes shows are just crap. Anything done by CBS since the revival has been crap. Simple as that. No need for a discussion on the value of allegory or preachiness. It's just crap.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Perhaps but what differed with those shows was how the messages were presented in the form of an allegory. Not really; I mean even when the main plot in outline could be seen as allegorical, they often had characters in-universe reference the specific “historical” (contemporary with the time of production) issue as a parallel the characters were reminded of by the events, peeling back the allegory, which in any case was only rarely not extremely heavy-handed. IMO, why people often see the earlier ones different (and which constitute the “early ones” varies a lot by person who does this) is: (1) People often will first have seen earlier series distant from the time of production, so heavy-handed framing in the terms of salient issues at the time of production will both be less likely to be politically sensitive and less likely to be a close match to current framing, (2) People will often first have seen the earlier series at a younger age when they were less aware of issues being addressed and less sensitive to the commentary even if it was current.
  - ocdtrekkie 4y ago
    I strongly agree with your opinion here: The reason people have issues with modern Star Trek is simply cognitive dissonance. They have strong beliefs and Star Trek is calling them out on it, and that hurts. Meanwhile, the Star Trek they grew up with is preaching stuff that they've already accepted, but was definitely pretty aggressive towards certain political groups at the time.
    - Teever 4y ago
      What if I've accepted all the stuff that nuTrek is preaching about, but I just disagree with how they're preaching it because I think the writing, cinematography, and overall tone is poor? And what if I'm not alone in thinking that?
TMWNN 4y ago
There is a distinct difference between earlier Trek's optimistic liberal humanism, and modern Trek's shrillness about specific political issues of the day. >Picard is literally known for lengthy preachy monologues about how people should be. His two notable TNG monologues are in * "Measure of a Man", about freedom for sentient life. * "The First Duty", about telling the truth no matter what.

I'm not sure you realize it, but TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager were all extremely preachy. Picard is literally known for lengthy preachy monologues about how people should be.

tjpnz 4y ago

Perhaps but what differed with those shows was how the messages were presented in the form of an allegory. I wasn't annoyed by that and had a choice about how much I felt like engaging with it. If I had a long day I could just tune out and enjoy the story at face value.

philistine 4y ago
Sometimes shows are just crap. Anything done by CBS since the revival has been crap. Simple as that. No need for a discussion on the value of allegory or preachiness. It's just crap.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Perhaps but what differed with those shows was how the messages were presented in the form of an allegory. Not really; I mean even when the main plot in outline could be seen as allegorical, they often had characters in-universe reference the specific “historical” (contemporary with the time of production) issue as a parallel the characters were reminded of by the events, peeling back the allegory, which in any case was only rarely not extremely heavy-handed. IMO, why people often see the earlier ones different (and which constitute the “early ones” varies a lot by person who does this) is: (1) People often will first have seen earlier series distant from the time of production, so heavy-handed framing in the terms of salient issues at the time of production will both be less likely to be politically sensitive and less likely to be a close match to current framing, (2) People will often first have seen the earlier series at a younger age when they were less aware of issues being addressed and less sensitive to the commentary even if it was current.
- ocdtrekkie 4y ago
  I strongly agree with your opinion here: The reason people have issues with modern Star Trek is simply cognitive dissonance. They have strong beliefs and Star Trek is calling them out on it, and that hurts. Meanwhile, the Star Trek they grew up with is preaching stuff that they've already accepted, but was definitely pretty aggressive towards certain political groups at the time.
  - Teever 4y ago
    What if I've accepted all the stuff that nuTrek is preaching about, but I just disagree with how they're preaching it because I think the writing, cinematography, and overall tone is poor? And what if I'm not alone in thinking that?

TMWNN 4y ago

There is a distinct difference between earlier Trek's optimistic liberal humanism, and modern Trek's shrillness about specific political issues of the day. >Picard is literally known for lengthy preachy monologues about how people should be. His two notable TNG monologues are in * "Measure of a Man", about freedom for sentient life. * "The First Duty", about telling the truth no matter what.