I wonder if actually owns it or if it's even his, he probably just rents it when he needs to do these interviews, he's probably too afraid to let people see his real home because it'll probably vandalized
There are so many horrible scenes to pick from, but this scene might be the worst scene in all of New Trek because it shits on three targets (none of which deserved the abuse): it disrespects the dead, it belittles a junior crew member, and it mocks Gene Roddenberry.
@@XRichardUptonPickman The Wrath of Khan: [McCoy looks an image of the Genesis Planet, where Spock is buried.] McCoy: "He's really not dead, as long as we remember him."
It's simple. Kurtzman doesn't want to write a Star Trek story. He wants to write his own story but consume the goodwill of the fans who like Star Trek to boost the number of viewers his garbage gets.
The art bit reminds me of the Mr. Bean movie where he applies paint stripper to the Mona Lisa after drawing over it, then draws a stupid face on the now blanked canvas, and finally replaces it with a poster, that's what abrahms and kurtzman did, just wiping what was there, then placing an entire fake in its' place...
Each time a new series with a new setting and new characters has been introduced, there has been resistance followed by acceotance, and the fans have stayed. But there was a reason that they stayed. From series to series, the ethos of Star Trek remained. The feel of Star Trek remained. The question was always of acceptance of new characters and a new setting WITHIN STAR TREK. That is what has changed. It is not merely a question of what timeline Discovery and Picard are in -- the disaster that is JunkTrek is not within the Star Trek ethos, not within the scope of anyone's understanding of what Star Trek is. The JunkTrek now being churned out in Canada fails not only as Trek, but in basic terms of writing, acting, continuity, and cohesion. It is garbage even taken as generic sci-fi. It is chaotic and incoherent, sadistic and ugly. It takes beloved characters from previous series -- Spock, Icheb -- and destroys them. Fans are not being asked this time to accept a new set of characters and a new setting -- it is demanded of us that we reject Star Trek itself and accept a completely different program in its place. This the fans will not do. The viewership ratings for JunkTrek are so abysmal because it has driven away existing fans and very few new fans have arrived to take our place. No one who has watched an episode of JunkTrek will ever want to see that episode again. Imagine settling down to enjoy again that wonderful moment when Icheb's eye is gouged out. Yet all over the world, TOS, TNG, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager are watched and loved. People play individual episodes over and over the way they play fine music. This is nothing like the arrival of previous new series. The makers of this dystopian trash have produced something the fanbase will never accept.
The pettiness of the shovel scene irritates the crap out of me... Kurtzman thinks people have forgotten about Gene Roddenberry and he should instead have the kind of admiration Gene has.
Well of course he should. He's Alex Kurtzman, after all. He did... All those umm... Things. For sci fi. Before he was given control of one of the 2 most beloved sci fi franchises in existence. We should absolutly admire him. He's so cool. We as life long star trek fans should just be greatful he has come to give us all awesome DIVERSE Star Trek stories full of dispair, greed and human failing. Its what Star Trek was always missing. Obviously.
I was kitchen help... did a bit of cleaning toilets, mopping floors, plenty sweeping up, in my youth. I have to struggle with resentment when people act like that. So darn self absorbed and important! Annoying.
@@elanderan1104 Wow, it's like when you pick up someone else's legacy and pretend that you care about it as much as they did (ironically comparing yourself to them), people would tend to compare you to them. Kurtzman is dumb as hell.
I just keep telling myself that what goes around comes around... We'll get classic Trek again someday soon. That vision may not be living in Star Trek now, but the true fans who still yearn to see that future again keep that vision alive in their minds and hearts.
Many considered Roddenberry's vision as pollyannish or unrealistic, but the heart of his idea was that if we can be less cynical and we can do and be better. Those are universal themes no matter your skin or color or religion we all aspire to. That's why Trek has endured for a half a century. That sense of hope which inspires that separates Trek from every other sci-fi. Kurtzman has to be either blind, deaf and stupid or all 3 not to realize that.
Kurtzman wants to be 'edgy' because that's what you do these days. We all remember Gene's vision, Rick Berman worked with and respected the man, and never tried to put his own personal stamp on another man's creation. Kurtzman doesn't respect Gene. Doesn't care about his wolrd. And he very much wants to put his stamp on this other man's creation. He's a little man standing on the shoulders of a giant, trying to be a giant himself.
"Many considered Roddenberry's vision as pollyannish or unrealistic ..." I find it amusing that anybody could see Star Trek's optimism as unrealistic. In truth, the progressiveness of humanity over the last ten thousand years demonstrates that optimism is realistic; cynicism is short-sighted, narrow, and self-absorbed. LLAP.
I have a question: that woman belittling the "janitor" named Gene, was there ever a payoff on that? For example, did he end up being very important later and the lady has to apologize to him? TNG had a whole episode on just such a situation where a crewmate was being ridiculed and undervalued because he was so shy and tended to retreat into his own fantasy world. In the end, that member of the crew saved the day and everyone learned to respect him. Was there any attempt at this in STD? Otherwise, what's the point of ridiculing a member of the crew, even saying their name is unimportant?
The "Gene" scene never had a follow-up of any kind. There have been many horrible scenes in New Trek, but that scene is one of the worst because it unjustly abuses three targets: it disrespects the dead, it belittles a junior crew member, and it mocks Gene Roddenberry. It is a completely despicable scene.
@PoptartInvasion Berman did the same thing, reducing Zefram Cochrane, brilliant Centauran physicist and *inventor* of warp drive, to a drunk, self-absorbed American, finally arriving at the party, in his ghetto rigged hotrod, because he thought there was a dollar somewhere. They turned him into a greedy buffoon. That was a deliberate, ritualized betrayal of the first principles of Star Trek. Everyone compares this stuff to Berman; and granted TNG looks really good, compared to something that's in most practical senses, literally unwatchable. But, Voyager was almost this bad, in its day. Though... [cringe] to its credit... it was tolIerable. I think people who think Berman was *good* , are either just imprinted on it, because they grew up with it(which is fine), or more likely Berman is just a D-, against... whatever this stuff is, they stuck 'Star Trek' logo on.
I've accidentaly caught a scene or two of some random new sci-fi series with mind-numbingly idiotic dialogue and once the credits rolled, it all made sense cause it was a Kurtzman credit. Whenever I see that name in the credits, I just don't watch whatever it is. It's like a guarantee stamp of idiocy.
And they still keep giving him work! I cant understand for the life of me why, there's nothing in his work that any student at any film director college wouldn't do better. The lense flares, the murky lighting, composition, dialog, editing, casting, picking a good script etc etc. Heck I could have taken a half assed stab at it and come up with something better then Kurtzman at his best.
I can only imagine what Gene and Majel would think of how divided the fandom has become. They did so much to unite people from different backgrounds, political leanings and personal beliefs. Their shows didn't shove a political party down your throat. Instead, they showed HUMANITY and the HUMAN spirit in the midst of exploration and hardship. Gene Roddenberry, Rick Berman, Michael Piller and others valued the message they created and nurtured the idea of a hopeful future.
We may be divided, but lovers of Star Trek must continue to defend it against the advocates of JunkTrek. This appalling Burnham character, for example, has been attached to our beloved Spock like a blood-sucking leech. Icheb has been tortured to death and Seven of Nine degraded. It cannot be allowed to stand.
I don't think the fandom is divided, quite the opposite, I think they are highly united in their opposition to Kurtzman and his ilk. Other than astro-turf troll farms and corporate propaganda there are few authentic individuals willing to defend this nihilistic psychopathic filth.
You're one of the few who I know doesn't enjoy Discovery as much like me, but I try not to be so negative when we're over at The7thRule and the like because they obviously seem to like it.
@@MedalionDS9 JunkTrek has abysmal ratings precisely because people find it disgusting. We have to call this sadistic trash out for what it is. We cannot allow this desecration of Star Trek to stand. JunkTrek must be purged from the body of Star Trek the way chemotherapy and surgery remove cancer. It can and it will be done.
Gene wasn't perfect, and I found some weird things... but the general directive and direction of Trek should still count for something... nu-trek is just so cynical and too of today than of the future
Nihilism is the complete opposite of the vision. Gene Roddenberry was weird, and I will accept that, but a hope for a future is nothing to dismiss. The fact he even managed to make an entire show based on hope, and the trials that will come with it, is outstanding on itself. But going post-apocalypse? That was Kurtzman's way of saying, "I'm not breaking canon, all of this happens after established canon LUL." And just make it nihilistic as he wants. Now this apocalypse establishes all that hopeful future we liked was just all for nothing. It's all gone. Nihilism alone does not make a man intelligent, and Kurtzman doesn't realize it.
@@jonathansotelo4877 If he really wanted to go post-apocalyptic, he could have set it after WW3 and focused on the post atomic horror and development of the warp drive, but no, he had to fuck up decades of established lore and destroy Gene's vision, just because he wanted to. I really despise kurtzman.
Yeah, I wasn't a fan of TNG's "The Bonding" because it perfectly illustrated how fragile this idea of a "perfect" human society was. Like, I understand wanting to remove greed and poverty, but saying that a grieving child needs to just suck it up, really? That's shortsighted as hell to me because questions of our own mortality are an inexorable part of being human. And it is natural to have fear and miss the ones we lose. It doesn't make you petty, the way Roddenberry seemed to think. That being said, at least in a highly deconstructive series like DS9, it is quite clear that they are still trying to work with the source material. The human characters are still optimistic and professional, and the real drama is that while Earth has solved its problems, the rest of the universe hasn't. That still FEELS like it's true to Star Trek than the crap Kurtzman has been spewing for years now.
SISKO: "On Earth, there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise. Well, it's easy to be a Saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise."
Clippy I agree with most of what you’ve said. I can’t hang with how gruesome Picard and Discovery are. But I do think both shows are doing some interesting things. Especially Picard.
I just hope that there's someone out there that will eventually get to oversee a new Trek series that returns to this optimistic vision :(. You can have dark moments and struggles and still manage to retain the hope for a better world. Just look at Deep Space Nine....
I just hope they get someone who understands the difference between film and TV, and that pew-pews and lens flares are all very well for whiling away an hour and a half in a cinema but over the course of a dozen or a score of episodes, they get tiresome. Episodic television allows you space to do different things and tell different stories. If you just try to be movies, you'll quickly find yourself locked into a 'threat spiral' in which every season has to step up the danger, the world is at stake, no, the solar system, the galaxy, the Universe, ALL UNIVERSES! It's the law of diminishing returns from which most sequels suffer.
"Art is basic to the fabric of society." -Gene Roddenberry There are so many videos on RU-vid explaining why Star Trek today is terrible. This is one of them. This video makes me happy about Star Trek. At the same time this video makes me angry at the state of Star Trek today.
Maybe, since some value is still placed on grown foods rather than replicated ones, an example being Sisko growing and then cooking food for his guests in DS9, i would imagine there’s still a place to go and pick up produce. For people who don’t have time or don’t want to garden.
@@JohnSmith-jz2ke for that I imagine something along the lines of co-op gardens for people to grow their own food, or a farm-to-table service for those that just want fresh produce. Grocery stores would be an unnecessary middleman in a society like the Federation.
They could have made that character an alien, and they could have named him Tkdpt - - then there would be no possibility of them abusing any real person. However, they chose to make the character a white male human, and they chose to give him the name Gene, which is a name that hasn't even been in the top 1000 most popular baby names in any of the last ten years [I checked baby name websites]. It is not a coincidence. They are mocking Gene Roddenberry.
Comparing Roddenberry and Kurtzman is a little like comparing da Vinci and some guy who threw feces at the Mona Lisa and started chanting "Me make art!" The real essence of Star Trek is there in series like TOS and TNG, and that will never be tainted or tarnished. Let them pump out this new stuff as much as they like: it's all just bad fanfiction as far as I'm concerned, and it won't change how I feel about Gene's vision.
About the teleporting and shooting scene aren’t the scanners and transporters super advanced like couldn’t they teleport them behind cover or surrounding them? Like I can imagine on a ship it may be different but not in a open field it looks likely they are teleporting people in to die
Anyone who likes Star Trek Discovery/Picard needs to be shown this video and others like it. But they wouldn't understand the significance and meaning behind the video. Anyone that _really likes_ Discovery/Picard is a lost cause. I know some people who like it only because of the special effects.
I see Gene Roddenberry as a small scale version of Disco Elysium's "innocence", a person so visionary that they can induce cultural changes in the span of decades that would otherwise take centuries. only afterwards their impact on the world is fully understood and all that remains of the experience when they are gone is the sense that now "we are all alone".
It's just impossible to believe that every civilization that had developed time travel said something like The Burn was not worth ignoring the treaty and dusting off their time travel tech to undo, or that no one from before the time travel ban went forward a hundred years and was like woah why aren't there any starships anywhere?
I wish Gene could have stuck around. I see him as a father figure in some ways. He taught me humanism, the value of working hard for worth while things, and the importance of valuing people and our environment. I wonder if he ever knew the true impact he had on millions of peoples lives. I can't even imagine who I would be if it wasn't for him.
Babylon 5 had, by my count, at least three serial killers show up as guest characters. One of whom was a real person. At least two of them were more compelling characters than much of the STD cast. And one of whom was, arguably, outright more heroic.
Brad Dourif aces playing likable sci-fi maniacs, evidently. (Technically, though, was he even a "serial" killer on VOY? He only actually _murdered_ the one guy, the rest of his kills were in combat.)
@@ranchoth He does play those characters a lot lol. I think the first time I saw him was when he was the Harokonnen's Mentat. Every time I see him I remember him in Dune.
Gene, while flawed man, had a vision beyond his years and a wisdom we no longer see in storytelling. Kurtzman focuses on how petty humanity is and wants more pettiness and conflict. No one every told that man you can tell a story that doesn't involve constant conflict with the main characters and that it can be a good story. TOS showed us a Wagon Train to the stars. TNG showed us the future is hopeful. DS9 showed us that even in the future we can over come the odds and still walk away whole. VOY showed us no matter how hard things got or how desperate they seemed as long as we work toward the same goal we can survive. ENT showed us that risk has it's costs but also it's rewards in new friendships and alliances. Gene's vision of the future is a future worth striving for. Kurtzman's vision is the same as JJ's and it's full of conflict and pettiness that is as childish as 3 year old throwing fit in store because they want ice cream for dinner. Sure it draws a lot of attention but it doesn't last long in anyone's memory.
@@Hal--bk3oc He was a married man who chased other women, even married ones. He had a problem with drinking too much alcohol and did drugs. He's take other peoples ideas and print them as his own. He had flaws.
@@jeancabaille I agree, Jean Cabaille. Rotten things (like Nutrek) die and decompose; healthy things (like Old Trek) live and grow and reproduce. Live long and prosper.
The special effects of Star Trek TOS may be dated, and even TNG...but the stories and ideas endure. That's why we watch them and they continue to draw new fans. STP and STD feel dated already and will age poorly. You can't substitute special effects, f-bombs, slang-of-the-moment and gore for good writing and expect it to hold up over time.
Star Trek is dead. The Expanse is the new Star Trek. It's not all optimistic, but at its core there is a band of people who represent different factions of humanity, but can work, love and live together. Who are out to do good. Thats so much more in the spirit of Star Trek, than any of the new Trek series...
But I hate that the pilot recently got #Me-Tooed and was kicked off the show right away. Don't know how guilty he is (I saw quotes from one of the women who sounded more like she was complaining about it being a one-night stand), but just can't foresee watching the show once his character has been replaced or just disappeared.
The days when parents sat down with their children to watch Star Trek have been put on hold by this dystopian garbage. However, the thing that will make a difference is that classic Star Trek episodes are watched over and over again whereas no one who has watched a JunkTrek episode will ever want to watch it a second time. Can you imagine settling down to relive again the wonderful episode in which Icheb's eye is gouged out? They may keep churning out this trash, but there is nowhere for it to go except into oblivion. Whereas people continue to enjoy TOS, TNG, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager and introduce their children to these timeless programs. The next generation will watch classic Star Trek, but they won't even know JunkTrek existed.
Hello, Johnathan: There is a scene from The Search for Spock that changed my life. Kirk is in shock and despair after learning that Klingons have just murdered his son. After a minute or two, he turns to his colleagues, and he says, "I swear to you, we are not finished yet." Even in my darkest moments, I hear Kirk's voice, expressing his determination to save the day. Live long and prosper.
@@dandeliondown7920 I can only hope I see a real Star Trek series again, like the wonder and amazement I saw as a kid watching new episodes of TNG before I die. It’s so sad to watch so many beloved IPs go down in flames.
By the way, has anyone seen that new ad for Paramount+? It’s the one where various live action and animated characters from the streaming service climbing a mountain to dramatic music and a narrator. Who is representing Star Trek? Well, the good news is there was no Michael Burnham which is telling despite the fact they announced a season 4. But the downside is that they had digitally inserted Zachary Quinto’s Spock and Anson Mount’s Pike. No one from Classic Trek (1966-2005) was represented. Except for maybe Patrick Stewart. But not as Picard. He was the narrator. I didn’t know that until he was on camera because his age has rendered his voice unrecognizable. His booming baritone is gone. Probably moreso than in STP. He sounded like David Attenborough. In fact, it would have made sense to have Attenborough do it since Stewart was describing the commercial like a wildlife documentary. But nope. No digital insertion from any TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT characters. They ain’t having me for a customer.
When I was younger, I could believe in Gene’s vision of the future. Now, as an adult, I’m too much of a realist. I still love the hopeful message of Star Trek, but I don’t think we’ll ever reach it. People will always fight, whether it big or small. Still, I wouldn’t mind Kurtzman getting shoved out an airlock, so the real Trek writers could take the helm and make Star Trek good again.
You guys know that iconic episode from the original run where Kirk is put in an arena and forced to fight his mortal enemy (guy in rubber suit), but then he learns that they have basically the same goals, they're trying to help their own people? And he realizes that it's unethical to resort to violence just because you're competing for the same resources? And despite gaining the upper hand in combat, he "won't do it- I won't kill him!" I wonder how that would play out in STD or Picard. I guess the coreography and effects would be more complicated. That's what Star Trek is all about, right? Cool fight scenes with lots of realistic gore.
The congenial Roddenberry concluded what I later realized was a slow burn. “You Jews,” he snarled, “have a lamentable habit of identifying those characteristics in a society that you deem positive and then taking credit for inventing them”
The only Star Trek story Kurtzman should tell is the social/political collapse of Tanakun 4, Tasha Yar's home world. It's a Federation world where everything went to the crapper, devolving into total anarchy and never recovered. It's dark and ugly so naturally it's set to his skill set.
"It immediately feels like nothing you've seen in Star Trek before" Just what fans want when carrying on a franchise! Like going to McDonalds 2, and all they sell is Thai Salad.
To be fair Discovery (and Picard) are not the first series to paint Starfleet in a less clean way. DS9 was all about moral greyness. The difference is that in DS9 althought some morally debatable decision they made like how they "convince" the romulians to join their side or the whole genocide attempt on the founder but they where still believing in the dream and try to uphold the principles. Discovery and Picard is about dellusion of the dream and do we still have principles?
It is precisely because it has been such a disaster that there are attempts to censor criticism of JunkTrek. If JunkTrek were a success, they wouldn't care about what we say. It wouldn't matter. The very attempt to censor us is because JunkTrek's ratings are abysmal. It has failed everywhere it has been shown.
It's so upsetting how these writers use someone else work as a tool to advertise their political beliefs, ideologies, opinions instead of staying true to that person's vision. This happened with star wars & Star Trek and many others
To be fair to Discovery, all the things that go against Roddenberry's vision happened after the Federation collapsed. So it's not unreasonable to assume bad things could happen again without the overall institution that stopped those things happening being in place
@@NitpickingNerd We're all struggling to get our comments into the smaller parts -- but we'll manage it. Bless you for your dedication and persistence, Major Grin! 🖖
THANK YOU Major Grin for drawing attention to this DISGRACE. It's not just the old Trek-legacy but entertainment in general (especially being a Sci Fi show!) - that is being SHAT on by these base, moronic, fear-peddling, cretins! ↑ Comment for algorithm + 👍 'd #OldManPaxus Rating: ☆☆☆☆ ½
God why is Jet so mean! I get her character type and arc etc. , but there’s a point where it’s less character and more just being hurtful. It’s like she needs to be taken aside and told to actually be a good team player and care about feelings or at least be polite to others!
TBH I don’t mind that in the 29th century there was a huge disaster etcetc. What I don’t like is how none of the characters especially Michael uphold the federation vision and starfleet values
Like "The Expanse", "Babylon 5", "Alien" these producers are creating a new situation based on the style of writing they are used to doing. The problem with the endless New Treks since the 80s, is that to get a fan jump start, they say the new situation is Star Trek. This also let's them copy stuff very pop culture (ships, props, alien society names, terms, logos, music, character names.... ) without getting a "rip off" from the fans or a lawsuit from Paramount. This causes major misfits in the desired writing of the producers. Star Trek evolved into a series where the main characters all had deep emotions, but as professionals they learned to bury their emotions and get the job done. That was the story arc of TOS season 1 for Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Kirk had to kill his best academy friend, shake Spock out of whining about his mommy to do the intermix calculations, shake McCoy out of mooning over his old lover to get his head back into the crisis, state NOTHING is more important than my ship, learn to table his rage and revenge in the Arena and on Organia, and finally cause the death of the woman he loved throughout time to save the mission. That's all a bit dark, but it was the hard fought battle to create the stable Earth/Federation as the backdrop of characters that can shove their feelings down and get the job done. Kirk needed his pain. It is part of him. However if you want to write drama of young people that wear there emotions on their sleeve (got the T shirt to prove their outrage) then the society behind it must be messy. There is nothing to be outraged about in 1968 or 1990 Federation Earth. Instead the Good Ship Enterprise gets outraged about other planets that suck. By DS9, Voyager and Enterprise they were already starting to make a messy Earth, but it was a secret. Enterprise was just a century+ ahead of us so that's OK, but DS9 found they needed some messiness to make Sisco complete. At first they had flashbacks to the 20th century dystopian, but eventually they had it in the 24th too.
You can defenitly start a series where starfleet has become dark and it's not what it used to be. But the series still has to focus on the light. Yes it is dark now but we strive forward, Just like Voyager, they hold on to their ideals. If we where to see that. Like the main character on the discovery united the ships, brings morale up and fights for a better future. That could work
Ye know, i do not actually mind the more apocolyptic elements of discovery when they end up in the future because well, heck, it is the future and things can go wrong and it was their fault, the ideals are expressed in the willingness of characters to rebuild respect and bringing people together again to realise roddenberrys utopian goals from the choas after a galaxy wide disaster. I do have a problem with the way bridge crew and superiors are now able to talk down and disrestect crew members though because that is a violation of the ideals of star trek, that we are a there for the same thing, amd respect must come first, and we must all support eachother, it was very disappointing to see that as humour. How the TNG crew took the time to bring Barclay into the crew was an amazing episode because it really showed the ideals of kindness, respect and understanding even to those who can't easily fit in. Today i can imagine people like that do get ridiculed a lot, he could end up being an incel nowadays, and thats the point, the star trek future is that we have gone passed base judgment to be better people to and for eachother.
All that would be required to fix Star Trek would be changed management to a more fan / Roddenberry loyal party. Then dismiss Discovery and Picard as an ‘alternative timeline’. Move forward and resolve conflicts created in the prime timeline and make the trek future great again.
This is too depressing. I don't know what upsets me more; people like Kurtzman and the Discovery writers or the TNG cast participating in what they've done. It's not like they're just dumb actors who don't know any better because we have so many recordings of the cast talking about Roddenberry and what Trek is about.
Well. I quit Star Trek after the second reboot movie. I was told Kurtzman had killed Star Trek and was currently pissing on it's corpse. I thought the reports my friends gave were exaggerated, but they were understating it if anything.
I guess whatever year Discovery is in now is fair game because that world is destroyed. Technically 25th century forward can suck because Gene was specific to the late 23rd and 24th Centuries. Guess it was nice while it lasted.
It's obvious the people Kurtzman has writing for him have zero respect for the material, and simply want writing credits and to boost careers forward by using an already established franchise. To hell with continuity or homage, his name was Gene Roddenberry but "They've already forgotten".
Gene vision of tomorrow is a great that what make old Trek so good people helping each other humanity exploring the galaxy bettering them self and the rest of humanity make peace with ur enemies and family uplifting future,nutrek has forgot or just this that in the drain or don't care because it full of murder torture Sexual assault germicide and severed baby head and it's not the bad guys who are doing it,it's the main character and her underlings because there is no starfleet with out mickyspock in the new trek or the crew solving a problem on there own
Honestly i think it's the same with new media of a lot of things, take stuff like ... oh i don't know superheroes or old adventure cartoons, maybe even cowboys and stuff. Those were made with little, colorful, optimistic stories, sure sometimes they were pretty dark and most definitely political but still they were always rather hopeful in a pretty fun way. Eventually they became cynical and violent and grey, suddenly everyone wants to say "haha world is so fooked innit?" And be all edgy and shit like that, they want to focus on more and more on blood and violence thinking "yeah all this dark stuff is going to attract all the fans!" Which to be fair, it kind of does. I mean personally i still like a couple of them, especially when they're written well and still have the fun and weird stuff in mind, and also when they make sure their darker themes were made meaningfully, but man you really start noticing them forcing themselves to be more grey and dark for no real reason. I think in recent years it's toned down a bit though.
If you think about it Gene came up with maybe only 20 percent if Star Trek, I give a lot more credit to DC Fontana, get get me wrong I respect his vision, but most of it really isn’t he’s vision good or bad
