[-] Indy@startrek.website 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

How about we carve a Spock or Picard or Mariner or really anyone else who isn't a genocidal dictator? Hmm? Maybe?

No? Perhaps my dream for Star Trek has too much hope for humanity's future? Not enough grit, tears, and flashy booms?

[-] Indy@startrek.website 5 points 2 months ago

Agreed. I would have loved to have that kind of callback to the story.

[-] Indy@startrek.website 10 points 3 months ago

Groundhog Day

[-] Indy@startrek.website 4 points 3 months ago

Groundhog Day

[-] Indy@startrek.website 19 points 3 months ago

Source, please?

[-] Indy@startrek.website 9 points 4 months ago

Hear, hear!!

I realize I'm not adding much value by saying this, but... I still wanted to support this with a comment and not just an upvote.

[-] Indy@startrek.website 7 points 5 months ago

This is beautiful! I love data and I'm delighted you were inspired by my post to gather the data.

Thank you for doing this!

[-] Indy@startrek.website 4 points 5 months ago

I love this! Now you need to do an analysis like this one on Star Trek and the Bechdel-Wallace test!

TOS is already a rough rewatch with some of its acting and portrayals of the future. I can't imagine how tough it would be to rewatch it through that lens. Haha!

I realize you’re not trying to predict quality, just personal enjoyability, but I do wonder how it relates to quality.

I don't mean for this to measure quality. To each their own, as they say. After all, it is just entertainment and I'm free to watch anything else or skip this or that episode. This is all just a fun observation for me, much like a discussion on the finer points of warp theory or Federation economics.

Still, I'm glad it's something that clicked for you too. I figured there would be a number of people whose appreciation of Trek relates to this "test".

[-] Indy@startrek.website 4 points 5 months ago

I like that too. I'm not sure it would counter these "rules".

How would you propose phrasing a rule for that non-Fed criteria?

[-] Indy@startrek.website 4 points 5 months ago

To be fair, I think every series has a lot of episodes that would fail this test, some of which were excellent, like DS9’s “In the Pale Moonlight”, and “Far Beyond the Stars” or TNG’s “The Inner Light”, but if used to assess a series, I think this could be a good metric.

Indeed, "In the Pale Moonlight" is one I thought of which fails as well. I still think it makes a good measure to see how many episodes of a show pass/fail overall. Only to see if it's really about the whole crew or mostly one character. (Arguably, early TNG comes really close to being Star Trek: Wesley while mid/late TNG comes close to Star Trek: Data.)

31
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Indy@startrek.website to c/startrek@startrek.website

You've heard of the "Bechdel-Wallace test" and its potential value to some people in measuring various media in a given context.

I propose a measure we'll call the "Captain and Crew Test"....

I was enduring -- yes, that's the word I'll choose -- an episode of a certain Trek show and found myself thinking that I seem to enjoy Star Trek shows where the captain isn't the center of attention for the continued story, rather the crew as a whole (including the captain as professionally and relatively required) works together on the story of the day or is portrayed in multiple dimensions without the commanding officer present.

So, here's my attempt at codifying this "Captain and Crew Test":

  • The episode/show has to have at least two crew members (i.e. not the captain) essential to the story,
  • who interact with each other without the captain,
  • about the story without specific direction from the captain

I think these "rules" could use some adjustment and addition, but I think you get what I'm proposing/suggesting/inciting.

UPDATE 2024-07-04 04:35:34 UTC: Check out the quick and amazing work by @danielquinn@lemmy.ca to compile a subset of the percentage of lines for each character in a few Star Trek shows.

[-] Indy@startrek.website 35 points 6 months ago

I don't think you need to watch Discovery to enjoy Strange New Worlds. There might be a few things established in the lore/backstory from Discovery, but any "confusion" from those references will quickly dissipate. SNW makes it easy to see it as a distinct show in a new/expanded telling of a known crew/time.

I will add that there will be stylistic choices in the production that will take a little getting used to, but remember that just about every Star Trek show has done this. Enjoy the story!

[-] Indy@startrek.website 4 points 8 months ago

I wholeheartedly agree. Well said!

98
Happy First Contact Day! (startrek.website)
submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by Indy@startrek.website to c/startrek@startrek.website

Happy First Contact Day!

LLAP

[Image source] ( < not my blog and no affiliation)

view more: next ›

Indy

joined 8 months ago