Edit: this is meant to be a shitpost. I don't care about your favorite series/universe. You do you.

top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 33 points 10 months ago (22 children)

Wait until you hear about stargate.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 10 months ago (17 children)

    Babylon 5 wants a word out back. And Farscape is waiting to surprise them both

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    Oh my, I couldn't get into that show. I still haven't finished it. It has been sitting in my "Up Next" for months, and will probably remain there for months to come...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I don't get the love for Farscape at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    You are not alone. I just don't understand how people can watch that and think "good". The puppets were neat and some of the concepts had possibility. But characters wildly changing their personality episode after episode just turned me off. It just had no consistency.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I really like the premise of Farscape, but the execution was lacking. It can still be fun in small doses, but I find a majority of the episodes are just too cheesy for me (same reason why I could never get into Doctor Who).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I watched like 2.5 seasons of sg1 a few months ago and i gave up waiting for it to get good. It definitely had redeeming moments and even episodes but by and large i found it pretty mediocre.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I think a lot of the love for it comes from "growing up" with it and having nostalgia blinders on.

    I really loved SG1 when it was airing, but rewatching it nowadays I'm more in your camp -redeaming moments and really good episodes here and there, but for the most part it's fairly mediocre and a background watch type show at most.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 49 points 10 months ago (21 children)

    With exception of the scifi label and being well known they are not even comparable.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    I watch Star Wars for spaceships and laser sword fights.

    I watch Star Trek for courtroom episodes.

    (Although Andor is one of the best political dramas out there and must-see TV.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (17 children)

    Star Wars is an action/adventure/drama series that happens to be in space (they called it “space opera” for good reason).

    Star Trek is a science fiction series, at least until Fuller/Kurtzman (where it strayed more to action/adventure). You kind of have to bisect Star Trek into pre and post Roddenberry/Berman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    I think the best label for Star Wars is probably “Science Fantasy”. Personally, when it comes to this sort of differentiation, I draw the line at: is there magic?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Q is more "magical" than anything in Star Wars.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    even in Trek, it's openly acknowledged that there must be a scientific explanation for Q, even if it's beyond humanity's current understanding. they also mention several times that any sufficiently advanced technology would appear to be magic to those who lack the ability to rationally explain it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Star Wars tried for a scientific explanation for the Force, too, with midichlorians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    It's not magic, it's midichlorians!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It's not midichlorians, it's heroin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Yeah, Star Wars is a fantasy that is set in space.

    There are aspects of Sci-Fi but the galaxy often blurs the line between magic and technology.

    It has space opera elements, but Star Wars anymore is a setting rather than a story.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    There's not much actual sience behind the technobabbel of Star Trek tbh. It's just as much of a magic system as the force is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    Bormanis was given a hard task, to be fair. So many scripts just had (TECH) written where the writers needed help and Bormanis would have to shoehorn something in (and before Bormanis, the actors probably just made a lot of it up).

    Thankfully most of the science fiction isn’t in that technobabble but in the plot lines; questioning what it is to be human, to be civilised, and what meaning there is to life, post-scarcity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Thankfully most of the science fiction isn’t in that technobabble but in the plot lines; questioning what it is to be human, to be civilised, and what meaning their is to life, post-scarcity.

    This point needs more acknowledgement. Star Trek isn’t a sci-fi show because it does or doesn’t have magic, it’s because it tends to follow the genre conventions of a (very soft, pop) sci-fi show. Easy example, Star Wars doesn’t tend to focus on questions like “hey are these robots sentient? How could we know?” while Star Trek can’t stop litigating that issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I think it's a dumb debate personally.

    I love my space exploration show. I also love my space wizard drama, and my space politics show, and my wibbly wobbly spacey wacey show. I just like goofy shows in space.

    Except Picard. I don't care for Picard.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    Eh, they both have their place. I can't get behind Jedi being emotionally stunted or the federation not using it's tech to the fullest.

    My one exception is pre-Disney Mandolorians. Nothing is sexier than freefalling from orbit on the back of a 6 legged robot dragon with nothing but your platemail and a vague goal of scaring the shit out of locals.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    My one exception is pre-Disney Mandolorians. Nothing is sexier than freefalling from orbit on the back of a 6 legged robot dragon with nothing but your platemail and a vague goal of scaring the shit out of locals.

    My knowledge of Star Wars is almost entirely pre-Disney, but I am completely lost here. What is that describing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    the federation not using it's tech to the fullest.

    Funny you say that, since the Federation arguably doesn't.

    Just look at warp drives, for example. A galaxy-class can go from reverse to full forward in a third of a millisecond. Smaller, newer ships like the Intrepid, of the Sovereign, would be both faster and even more agile.

    Federation starships should be zooming about the battlefield like dragonflies instead of slowly flying around each other like star wars ships. Though it makes some sense why they won't, since the viewers would have a fit about it being unrealistic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    My biggest grievance is that the threat of death exists when, between replicators and transporter errors, they could populate their ships with unending clone armies to explore without ever risking anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Not having clone armies at least makes sense, since the Federation isn't exactly that fond of cloning sapients, inorganics aside. Too many ethical issues involved.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Ok, so instead of staffing a ship with 1000 duplicates of one guy who volunteers to go out and risk his life, they could add some extra storage to the transport buffer and require weekly backups of all crew. Then if redshirt #3 dies planet side they just spin him back up and tell him what went wrong. They have video game style save points on every ship and they're using them to save on gas.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (7 children)

    You'd enjoy the opening to Starship Troopers.

    The rest of the book is neonationalist garbage but the openinging sequence is good. And the likely inspiration for the drop you described.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    The rest of the book is neonationalist garbage

    Just have to ask...you do realize it's satire, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    The book? Or the movie?

    The book is 100% serious. It's fucking ridiculous. But Heinlein is pretty sincere and uses it as his philosophical treatise. There's more than one section where he sits everyone down in a classroom for a lecture.

    The movie is satire. It takes the themes presented and makes sure that everyone who espouses the virtues of the militant fascist state is horribly disfigured.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    I have a hard time getting a read on Heinlein because he also wrote Stranger in a Strange Land which is as left as Starship Troopers is right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    As I understand he wrote SiaSL to be deliberately provocative. It read to me as if he was just dreaming up the most bizarrely counter culture things he could think of and mushing them together.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago*

    Stranger was considerably more thoughtful and deliberate than you've described, but even still how is that different than Starship Troopers? Heinlein used his novels to explore worldviews, not really to endorse them. If you start trying to pin down his sincere beliefs with any one book, you're pretty quickly going to run into inconsistencies with the others.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Star Trek is one of if not the most prominent Science Fiction series in our culture.

    Star Wars is one of if not the most prominent "Science" based Fantasy series in our culture.

    They really aren't at all similar on the most fundamental level. They just use similar set dressing.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (17 children)

    Post TNG and Voyager, they've been fairly blah with a handful of decent standout episodes.

    Maybe it's because I grew up with these shows, and now I'm old I just want something with a bit more heft.

    It's just all seems like light entertainment these days. Something akin to The Expanse is what I'm after.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    Post TNG and Voyager, they've been fairly blah with a handful of decent standout episodes.

    Lower decks! Lower decks! Lower decks!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (12 children)

    not gonna sub to paramount not gonna sub to paramount not gonna sub to paramount.

    I don't subscribe to disney either. so I've basically missed out of anything that wasn't on netflix. and I'm probably going to cancel netflix too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    You have an objection to sailing the high seas?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    yeah I'm one of those idiots who think artists should be paid for their labors :|

    I know, it's like... so last century. I did some arrrrrgghmatey kinda stuff when I was younger but not since like... newsgroup releases back in the protoweb days.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

    artists should be paid for their labors

    I get that, but if you'll never pay for paramount, I imagine if you asked the artists whether they'd rather have their work stolen or never viewed at all I suspect they'd choose the former.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    not gonna sub to paramount not gonna sub to paramount not gonna sub to paramount.

    There, I've fixed it for you.

    Now do like the rest of us Orions and watch the best Star Trek since TNG.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (4 children)

    ech.... I'm one of those ancient weirdos who want artists to get paid for their work. and I'm already in front of screens too much for work and gaming, corpulent etc.,.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    And you think production is going to share their profits from a finished series with the artists?

    and I'm already in front of screens too much for work and gaming, corpulent etc.,.

    That I get 100%

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    And you think production is going to share their profits from a finished series with the artists?

    I don't know if it's still applicable to productions taking place today across the board, but SAG still exists so I have to believe a large number of hollywood productions still give residuals to people........?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual_(entertainment_industry)

    I know for many it's a pittance but better something than nothing at all.

    I'm probably thinking too much into all this and will catch up sometime in the future after the apocalypse. thanks for the insight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    If I'm getting this article correctly, they're only getting paid for the success of the show within 90 days of release on a streaming platform. Everything else is based on the streaming service buying the license to show the series.

    So the only way to maybe get them some additional pay would be for you to purchase it through some non streaming method like buying a dvd from amazon, or to wait for paramount to sell the license to a new streaming service and you take part in the whatever percentage of the service is required to watch the show within 90 days for them to get a bonus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago*

    um.. I think there's more to this (for sag/aftra productions) -

    residuals come into play when the project you worked on is distributed and exhibited beyond the remit of the original release, which includes the following:

    Worldwide theatrical releases for films 10 exhibition days within 1 year on subscription-based TV 1 exhibition and a week of advertising-based video on demand (AVOD) 90 days of high-budget subscription video on demand (HBSVOD), which include platforms like Hulu, Netflix, Max, etc.

    that beyond term is the key - and these properties have long tails.

    but at the end the amounts are paltry compared to how syndicated residuals used to keep artists afloat.

    yeah it's all fucked

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    🌎🧑‍🚀🔫👩‍🚀

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    The only real comparison I can draw between the two is both have disappointed me by moving away from their established brands and disappointing me.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    Strange new worlds is amazing and reclaims that established spirit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    What happens when a stormtrooper shoots at an unnamed redshirt?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    Storm trooper still misses, but red shirt dies of heart attack. Or they dodge, slip on a replicated banana and hit their head on the Conn and die, while sending the enterprise on a spin near a black hole. Now Chewbacca has to charm nurse Chappel or the Kryptonians will take advantage and board the ship.

    Take that AI, this is human made slop. You're not better than me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    It's like the toast with jam and a cat. The fabric of existence itself will be in danger.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Is that like the buttered bread thing always landing down so you strap it to a cat thing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    Depends on which star trek and which star wars

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›