This means that the ICE-specific funding bill can be passed by Republicans in the Senate with just 50 votes. There are 52 Republican Senators.

The DNC de facto voted to approve any ICE budget Trump wants

Articles like this make me wonder if the people writing these get paid and if so, how much?

Then I wonder if it’s harder or easier than what I currently do to come up with new inane bullshit to say every week.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I have never wanted that but gosh it does sound fun!

Might be a bit rough if someone is playing The Silent and others are playing anything else 🤭

What does this functionally mean? They will stop producing cars and start producing interceptor missiles?

I largely agree with the author of the article.

It’s better for Star Trek if there’s more Star Trek coming, even if I don’t like the current Star Trek.

Yeah if the SAVE Act passes, that’s my cue to follow in my great grandparent’s footsteps and flee the burgeoning fascist regime before things get much much worse.

Framing this as a Trump capitulation seems… inaccurate.

This is a DNC capitulation on ICE as now the Senate will only need 50 votes (which the RNC can whip up easily) to pass whatever ICE budget they want.

The second season was approved in 2024, two fucking years before anyone saw episode 1 of SFA.

I just don’t really understand how television production works, so maybe all this is normal, but it seems weird to me, a layman.

I hadn’t seen anything about new films, where did you see that?

I think Trek struggles to be captured in films well. The TNG ones were… rough stuff and the Abrams ones never really worked for me, but I guess they kept public attention on the franchise long enough for them to make the Kurtzman-era shows.

Yo Shatner can’t remember if he likes Star Trek these days. I saw him at a con last year and dude just talked over fans, couldn’t even remember being on Boston Legal, and largely just delivered this canned speech that was essentially “I don’t know why you guys like this thing I did in the 60’s but I’m happy you do because I’ve made a living off it.”

I’m surprised to hear he has an opinion about SFA, and this one specifically, because he’s made some weird non-inclusive comments in the past himself.

This “people hate it because it’s ‘woke’” line has been repeated via the media over and over from when Disco started.

I’m not saying there’s zero people saying that, but whenever I talk to someone in real life who doesn’t like one of the Disco-era shows, it’s never because of ‘woke’. Maybe my circles have been blessed to be curated well enough to avoid the anti-‘woke’ folks, but because of that, it’s always felt odd that the instant one of these shows doesn’t meet the executives’ KPI expectations that there’s another article saying “people just hate progressive television”.

There’s a part of me that wonders if the PR team for the franchise is putting out these kinds of articles to try and guide the conversation away from criticism about writing, format and direction that I largely hear discussed and into this because they know a vast majority of the fans will bristle at the idea of something being criticized for being progressive and speak against that instead of voicing their other critiques.

Admittedly, that’s a bit conspiratorial, I just don’t ever run into these vast swaths of anti-progressive Trek fans. I do run into many people who have other critiques of the Kurtzman-era Trek shows, but not people mad at them including representation for minorities in it.

I struggle to think that network executives make decisions based of internet reviews and forum comments, but rather key performance indicators like viewership numbers and subscription sales.

I don’t bring this up to belittle your point, but to highlight what confuses me.

I was under the impression that this show, and the Kurtzman-era stuff in general, was doing better with the 18-34 demographic than the 35-49 (Essentially, the 90’s Trek fans) group and I would imagine that network executives would be chasing that younger group to, to use a phrase, get em hooked while they’re young. The SFA specifically seemed targetted at these younger audiences and, from what I understood, it worked!

So if it was well received by critics and the younger target demographic, then I struggle to think that the opinions of the older demographic and their lack of adoption could be enough to nail the coffin shut on the show. But also, if the executives or the showrunners did want to chase that 90’s Trek fan base, then their choices were utterly baffling.

I dunno. There’s something off about the close of this era of Trek. Then again, it’s not like the Berman/Braga-era ended elegantly, either.

Edit: Anecdotally, I know exactly one person in real life who liked SFA and it was my 74 year-old father. He’s liked every piece of Star Trek media that’s come out besides Enterprise and Lower Decks (he can’t enjoy animation, too associated with children’s media, so he didn’t even try Prodigy). Everyone else I know (other Millennial Trek fans) found it hard to watch. But, this is, like, an informal poll of maybe three or four dozen Trek fans of all the same ages, not really anywhere close to the data sample that a network like Paramount has.

I’m kinda surprised. I thought this one was critically well received and that the Kurtzman-era fan base really liked it.

I didn’t care for it, personally, but this whole era of Trek has largely been a miss for me and I figured it had a dedicated fan base of its own.

It’s sad to think there’s not gonna be more Star Trek coming out soon, but I guess I was never going to be buying a Paramount+ subscription what with the company being part of the right-wing takeover of media in the US.

I found the show utterly baffling to watch and did not care for it one bit. I thought it was a surprising decision for the show to use an established setting and premise only to reinvent what that premise meant and change the setting entirely. That decision felt like it was a bit on the nose of an indicator that it was searching for a new audience. That was confusing to me as I get the impression there’s already an established audience eager for more Star Trek that isn’t… like what this was. BUT I’ve just officially aged out of the youth demographic so maybe my eyes and interest just isn’t valuable or desirable to networks anymore. C’est la guerre.

That all said, it’s a damn shame to hear there is no more Star Trek in production. And a bit surprising to see this one canceled so early. From what I saw, it was critically well-received and the fans of the Kurtzman-era stuff really seemed to like this one quite a bit.

Like Enterprise being the end of the Berman and Braga era of Trek, it seems like this might be marking the end of the Kurtzman-era of Star Trek. I’m really glad we got Lower Decks out of it and much of Strange New Worlds was fun to watch.

Perhaps it makes sense, but it feels a bit weird to see Star Trek live or die by the vision of but a few showrunners. I would have thought that there’d be more opportunities for varied hands to give it a go.

Liking the show and disliking the show are both valid opinions worthy of discussion. There’s no need to shut down a topic just because you disagree with it.

Yaaaah I’m a nasty lil vandal!!!

deleted by creator

deleted by creator