I like to talk about many things on my Channel. Madonna, Star Trek, Horror, Sci-Fi, Hollywood News on TV & Movies & my own personal stories too. Most channels like to pick 1 Subject & just focus just on that but life & people are more complicated than that. I like more Variety, so join me & let me know what you think about it all.
It had a super fast spinning top. Literally I was smack bang under this thing, looking at it from underneath. In 85 I was 8 years old, but, it may of even been 84. I ran home to get my toy binoculars, and that's all I can recall. Nothing before or after can I recall anything. After chatting with s fellow school friend from that period, and hearing your accounts on ufo history, it seems Georgetown may of been a hotspot for these things. The more one thinks about it, the more mind blowing it really is. And even moreso that the pentagon came out and denied their existence (who are they trying to kid!) Lol
Hi mate. 1985 when I lived in Windowson Street one was hovering on the road, I lived directly over from the park that's there, we were playing there and all I can recall is standing directly under it - on the road. It was such a long time ago that the memory of it itself is become hazy, but its something I think about over the years since. I've done potential background article research from that period of time (The Examiner, etc), but there is absolutely nothing to my shock.
forget the Acolyte being under attack its the fans from people like you. Oh no the show cant be bad its just toxic fans that are the problem lol. That my friend is called gaslighting.
What the h, Steve? As a ST fan who has had to suffer with Kurtzman ruining ST, my sympathy is 100% on the side of Star Wars fans who are seeing their franchise torn down in a similar way. And I don't mean "woke" is the problem. Star Wars was always on the side of diversity. The good guys were a diverse alliance of many species, genders, races, etc. while the villains were all white men in matching uniforms. The message couldn't have been more clear. But it's also clear that, as with nuTrek, the writers of this show are bad storytellers and don't value canon. They don't value the things that made Star Wars popular. Their aim is to tear all that down. And it's working. The fanbase is shrinking, just as the ST fanbase has shrunk. The wrong people are in charge. BTW, are you aware that Star Wars has a huge expanded universe of stories (novels, comics), the best of which could be made into great productrons.
Lee was the most generous and ego-less person. Absolutely he would have discussed with you how he got started and shared some links or contacts. He was not a gate keeper at all, which makes his loss even more heartbreaking. He is so missed by so many, he was a beautiful soul
He was in a couple of the CSI TV series, so that's probably where I saw him first. He also played one of the Vengence's bridge officers in Star Trek Into Darkness.
Don’t take our moment, sweetheart. I appreciate your historical context, but Burnham is the first to give us a series that was in human form. I love my Trek family. Let us have this.
Come on man. It was ridiculous, but, it was self satire self sendup. Man it's just a bloody TV series: get over it and don't rewatach that episode if you don't like it: there are more important things in life to worry about and broadcast about on RU-vid than this my friend! Women getting screwed in Holiwood for favours is the real violation.
I had so many thoughts about this episode watching it, but now I'm just stuck on wtf was Book trying to do with that honeycomb. He put it in coffee and...acted surprised and upset when it melted? Wtf!?!
@stevearts85 I asked on Reddit. The best explanation I got was that he was trying to squeeze the honey into her coffee, and dropped the comb by accident, but I don't think that was communicated well.
What are you talking about Strange New Worlds is wonderful. The cast is good and they have phenomenal chemistry. The plots are fun and emotional and a bit goofy. If you don't like it don't watch it and ignore it. Focus on what you do like about Star Trek and ignore what you don;t like.
Are people actually watching SNW in large enough numbers? Google Trends shows that Star Trek from 2017 to 2024 has been on a downward trajectory, little to no merchandise and the main studio is up for sale. If you like SNW good for you but a lot of people want good Star Trek back that was produced from 1966 to 2005.
Does it get any better than dancing and singer Klingons? I don't think so. I loved this episode. In fact I really like where they have taken Strange New Worlds with character development, especially Spock. If you try to frame the current Star Trek series against cannon of the original you are going to be wildly disappointed. If you instead take the current series as using the STOS as a touch stone to define the starting point for carryover characters relationships you will enjoy the new series much more. What is not to like? The sets are better, so are the special effects. The acting top to bottom is far better than Shatner ever could have been, and the new Spoke is far more interesting a character - not that Nemoy's wasn't interesting, but we've been watching the cold silent eye brow raising Spock for 60 years now. I like it. New moral tales to tell. New explorations of what space does to a tightly confined group and how those relationship intermix.
Wow, you are clueless aren't you. According to Your Fan Groups. The show is a direct canon continuation. Lol. Fans don't want a "Touchstone" they Want STAR TREK. Star Trek- the Serious Sci-Fi show with a Optimistic Future where starfleet is our home & everyone is equal & there is no war just exploration. Not a bland Melodrama about contemporary stereotypes pushing back against the patriarchy that just happens to be in space. Pecks Spock, isn't even Spock. They have Retarded & infantalized him.
@@stevearts85 There is someone "clueless" in this thread, but I assure you it isn't me. Sorry child, if I were to draw a caricature of the basement dwelling Star Trek nerd that can't let Kirk, Spook and McCoy go from 1966, he would look and sound a whole lot like you. I'm old enough to have been an older teen when the original series ran, and love every episode of it. But evolution happens and some of really enjoy where these story developments have gone. Singing Klingons made me laugh the minute they came on screen. It takes a great mind to write something like that episode and you won't dissuade me from that opinion.
It's not that the Doctor is gay that's hurting the franchise. It's the bad writing and the fact that if anyone dares to criticise the bad writing, Davies and Gatwa immediately jump up and down about the fans being "bigots" and insist they shouldn't watch the show. And when fans comply, and DON'T watch the show, Davies and Gatwa jump up and down some more claiming they are being victimised. It's the Captain Marvel thing all over again. Write a good script and act it well, and I will enjoy it. Write an agenda-driven script dripping with hate for anyone who isn't like you and I won't. Doctor Who has completely lost me at this point
Honestly, I've watched enough of this guy's videos to realize that he's just upset he's getting older. It's not just that he hates DISCO. Hell, if anyone bothered to ask me I could provide a list of issues with DISCO. But, he becomes fuming mad if you ever suggest that any Star Trek show prior to DISCO wasn't flawless. I swear to God he doesn't see how the Enterprise meeting Apollo was silly.
What are you on about? I plan to live to 100- I love the perspective being older gives us- I love having 1st hand experiences from decades others just read about & watch in period dramas. What does a show being destroyed & no longer there for people to enjoy & be inspired by have to do with ageing?
@@stevearts85 Because basically nothing has changed about the show. Every issue you have with "Nu Trek," except for maybe a bit too much focus on Michael in DISCO, was present in some earlier iteration of Trek. It just bothers you because you feel older seeing new things come out.
@@stevearts85 Who said I was dismissing it? I don't consider something being "silly" a detriment. But, I can acknowledge when I've seen something that's impossible.
Adira should have gotten more screen time. I actually forgot she was on the Breen ship until Stamets told Hugh they were going to save her. Also, I just noticed she's still an Ensign. Checking the timeline it's been 2-3 years. She deserves a promotion to avert another Harry Kim situation.
Three years later, Tilly is still fat. It's not fat shaming, it's calling out that people are unhealthy and obese. It's not her fault though, her weight, and may others who are unhealthy and fat are all due to what the bad guys feed us in our fake food.
@@stevearts85 I literally have watched every series more than once... 💁 I've been watching Star Trek since I was 12, which would be over 20 years at this point.
This video makes me crave corn. At any rate, the way it's been explained to me is Shari Redstone is a Trek advocate and actually sees the IP as a family...almost heirloom. Where am I going wrong?
@stevearts85 Ridiculous stuff has always happened on Star Trek. You just accepted it in the versions of Star Trek that you grew up with. It's hard to compare two things that are both impossible based on everything we know, but if there was a scale of absurdity I'd place "Greek God living on another planet" higher on that scale than "space anomaly that makes people sing."
Nothing Ridiculous ever happened on Star trek. It told a variety of stories- some strange & far out but they never broke the format & made a joke of Star Trek.
@stevearts85 Okay, if a God somehow existing and meeting the crew of a Starship isn't ridiculous, then what's your standard for what is ridiculous? Other than your own subjective experiences?
@@stevearts85 You are right. Another reviewer, I think his name is Burnett, said that the writers just follow the template of Buffy the vampire slayer for Star Trek scripts. It is so sad...
No- I watched multiple scenes from each episode- most of the episodes can be seen online in pieces. I was just putting my mental Health first after watching 4 years of Dis, 4 Years of Lower Decks, 2 Years of Picard & 1 year of Prodigy. I just couldn't do it.
In the Doctors past mild situations, The Doctor was always on the receiving end of advances from other characters. The new Doctor, was written as flamboyant gay man, who would be much happier dancing in gay bars in search of a nightly hookup. A few people don't mind the show being changed from a science fiction adventure show, into a drama that is focused on the Doctor being being s flamboyant gay man searching for gay hookups.
Personally, I think its the media that will title them as a "villain" ... A villain in a story is the character whose primary motivation is malicious destruction. I mean, Khan could be considered a villain, just by design. An antagonist is a role, while a villain is an archetype, and they can overlap or contrast in different ways.
Has it even been confirmed he'll be playing a human? There are plenty of villains in Star Trek born outside the Federation. Khan. Shinzon. The Sphere Builders. Dukat
@@stevearts85 Elaborate? I've mostly heard negative opinions about him from Star Trek fans. I've also heard that he told the writers to make Voyager suck on purpose, but I feel like there must be more context I'm missing on that one. O.o
Pick any Generic Drama on TV. Do you not understand the term Generic? Oh, I forgot your a Troll- there is no sense to anything you say- you just want to provoke a fight.
@@stevearts85 No, I'm trying to help you. "Generic" implies there are a lot of others exactly like it. So, I'm asking you to demonstrate that by naming some.
People with any sense will go watch good sci-fi shows that were killed off before most people knew they existed. Like Invasion, Space Above and Beyond, Humans. And if you are gen m/z, you are too young to remember The New Outer Limits from the 90s. The Outer Limits and Twilight Zone were black&white shows from the 60s and have some good episodes, but of course are VERY dated now. The New Outer Limits ran for 7 seasons and has a lot of very good episodes. And the worst episodes are better than any of the new star trek or star wars garbage...
He is a wonderful actor, but if the writing is terrible, his star power will mean...nothing. Added--The Skydance/Paramount deal is kaput. The latter side is unsellable.
If Doctor Who was supposed to be asexual, then how did the First Doctor (William Hartnell) get a granddaughter? How did the Tom Baker Doctor get his wife, Romana, then? A gay, Black Doctor is no worse than two women Doctors! It's not like Dr. Who has any sex scenes! Torchwood had a mostly bisexual cast, including Capt. Jack Harkness and it was a popular adult spinoff of Doctor Who.
I have no problem with the Doctor-Rogue pairing. Yes, the First Doctor had a granddaughter, Susan, who I hope returns to the show. However, Romana was not the wife of the Fourth Doctor . Lalla Ward, who played the second incarnation of Romana was, for a while, the wife of Fourth Doctor actor Tom Baker.
In fact, The Doctor’s first same-sex kiss came almost 20 years ago (feel old yet?) during the first series of its regenerated reboot, starring Christopher Eccleston.
Jack kissed rose, then kissed the doctor, it was was for their respect and friendship, and it was shortly before a battle they were not expecting to survive. It had nothing in common with the current Doctor.
The fact that the Doctor and Captain Jack had a kiss, and no one batted an eyelid. I mean the Doctor flirted with Jack for so many episodes. The Doctor also had whirlwind (straight) romances with Mdme Du Pompadour, and Astrid, and again no one batted an eyelid. But suddenly in 2024, because progressive politics are so divisive it's becomes a reason for people to retaliate.
But it isn't. What people are actually complaining about is the bad writing and acting. But then Davies and Gatwa are protecting their fragile egos by insisting that anyone who isn't interested in their badly written and badly acted show must be a bigot
I'm hoping we eventually learn more about the history of the Archive. They seemed to imply that all the major powers agreed it was neutral ground, so I'd love to know how that happened.
@stevearts85 Honestly, yeah, I figured they were establishing the Archive so they could show it's founding in one of the shows set in an earlier time period. Probably either Legacy or SNW. I also think they've been pointedly avoiding references to Augments so they're free to do more stories set in the post-TNG era about Augments challenging their ban from Starfleet (I'm curious if Dal will be the one who gets it overturned for all Augments, instead of just a case-by-case basis like with Una and Bashir).
Too soon for me, my friend. I might look at the show 10 years from now, provided Kurtzman and the Secret Hideout/Bad Robot team are no longer in charge. I want to forget what I've seen. I fear watching STD or PIC or SNW will just further ruin my fondness for characters from real ST. It was bad enough to have seen some of the reimagining of Spock, Picard, Seven, Mudd, Sarek, etc. I only saw one clip of Beverly Crusher from PIC and I fear I can never look at her the same way again.
Ah, but you can do it well, as Roddenberry did, and just show a future where diversity and equality are so normal no one can even imagine living with prejudice. Or you can go out of your way to make Vulcans and Starfleet racist, as STD did.
_"I'd say diversity and inclusivity is the epitome of Star Trek at its core"_ That is a reductive conclusion if there ever was one. _Genuine_ Star Trek is about exploration. The exploration of mankind's place in the universe by exploring the wonders and horrors of space. 1 part of that exploration is IDIC, but it is _NOT_ the epitome. It would be like someone saying science is the ultimate representation of Star Trek
It IS.... the problem with Nu-trek is that it's empty, hollow box-checking, instead of meaningful diversity and social commentary, which is something Star Trek always did well.. Before Kurtzman, Star Trek was (for the most part) an optimistic and hopeful vision of a better tomorrow for humanity... a look at what we could maybe achieve, if we pull our heads out of our asses, and work together, instead of constantly being at each other's throats.. Yes, there was still conflict, but humanity, for the most part, had gotten it's shit together, and was living in peace. The social commentary was done by way of allegory, and it approached sensitive topics tastefully, with subtlety, and nuance.... The diversity was natural, and organic....it didn't seem out of place for peoples from all over the earth to be serving together as one crew... It was popular, because of these things.. It was good television, that told compelling stories, filled with likable characters that you could relate to, and care about....it also made you think a little.. And also important was that it was a family-friendly show... people of all ages could sit down together, and it would be entertaining, and age-appropriate for everyone watching. Nowadays, with Kurtzman's nu-trek, it is the exact opposite of everything Trek was....because it's not written, produced, or directed by creative, imaginative people, who love star trek.... it's written, produced, and directed (for the most part) by activists, who just want to co-opt something popular, in order to push their political and ideological agendas... There is no optimism, no hope...everything is dark, dreary, borderline dystopian....the stories are (for the most part) dull, depressing, and devoid of the kind of heart that made what came before so special. There's no subtlety, or nuance....you're very regularly beaten over the head with the writer's social, political, and ideological views.. Nothing is done tastefully - there's nudity, foul language, violence, and gore... these new shows aren't family-friendly at all (with the exception of prodigy, which i feel is the very best thing to come out of the Kurtzman era of trek). The diversity is clearly forced, and doesn't feel natural....it feels like corporate mandates and activism, because that's exactly what it is. It's diversity for the sake of diversity, checking boxes, in order to satisfy a quota, or to cater to the hateful whims of the activists writing the stuff. Characters are shallow, soulless caricatures, or 2-dimensional tokens...it's fake representation. In a lot of ways, it's MORE bigoted than if the characters didn't exist. The characters are also often entirely unlikable, because of the way they're written. With that said, i will say that SNW is a FAR better show than Discovery....however, it's still tainted by virtue of being a spin-off of discovery... additionally, SNW DOES tend to violate canon A LOT.. However, if you approach the show, with the understanding that it IS an alternate continuity, it makes a lot of canon violations far more forgivable.
I think you're doing yourself a disservice by going back to rewatch corporate slop like STD. It's finally over and instead of moving on, you wanna dwell on this garbage that was antithetical to Gene's vision of the future? You're like a member of a monastic order who intentionally seeks pain by flogging themselves
Totally agree. We should support better entertainment, not wallow in garbage. If Hollywood can't produce anything worth watching, perhaps turn to books or indy content?
@@dramaticwords _"We should support better entertainment..."_ Exactly! Making more content on STD won't help Star Trek in any way. It would be far better to focus on other Sci-Fi right now
It may not pass as Star Trek but it is by no means "Corporate slop" The People who made it believed in it & their Agenda. It is a valid work of Art. Flawed but certainly not just corporate Content. You are listening to too much Toxic Fandom.
@@stevearts85 A show can be made by people who believe in it and their agenda... but they can still be the wrong people for the franchise. Kurtzman should have made an original sci-fi production he believed in. It might have bombed even worse, but at least it wouldn't have damaged ST.
I’m with you to a point, but then you completely lose me when you adopt the talking points of the new trek apologists. The writing was in fact bad. Admit it you have stated this multiple times when talking about discovery. You were a Star Trek fan through all that patriarchy and military hierarchy. It’s one of the things that made the show work. In fact, it made all the shows work up till Discovery to pretend that a bunch of millennials sitting around talking about their feelings is the equivalent to a well written Star Trek show is Ludacris. I have heard you literally complaining about the stupidity inherent in that show so I don’t understand why you were suddenly forgiving it or fundamentally changing the naval hierarchy premise of Starfleet I would much rather watch an original show built on the premise you speak of Ben for Alex Kurtzman to pervert a known and loved franchise. What he did to Star Trek certainly did not make it any better.
Steve has always had this sick relationship with Kurtzman Trek, where no matter how many times it hurts him, he continues going back to it. He's like an addict who can't face facts longterm
Totally agree. The problem with Kurtzman-trek is that it can seem okay at first glance. It's flashy and gushy. It's only later, when you think more about it, that you realize the values are terrible, the stories don't make any sense, the characters are mentally immature, and there's nothing behind the cheap theatrics. Sure, it sounds nice to say you're taking the military aspects out of ST. But when you replace that with gratuitous violence and gore... not to mention bickering among crew... what have you actually accomplished? Does it even work as a virtue-signal?
Yes, but indirectly. A bit of gay snogging will not hurt the show. Putting out crap and calling everyone who points out it's crap a _homophobe_ and ignoring their valid points will and has hurt the show.
