Red Letter Media

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Favorite recurring character? (Select 4)

  • Jack / AIDSMobdy

    Votes: 257 24.0%
  • Josh / the Wizard

    Votes: 77 7.2%
  • Colin (Canadian #1)

    Votes: 460 42.9%
  • Jim (Canadian #2)

    Votes: 230 21.4%
  • Tim

    Votes: 386 36.0%
  • Len Kabasinski

    Votes: 208 19.4%
  • Freddie Williams

    Votes: 274 25.5%
  • Patton Oswalt

    Votes: 27 2.5%
  • Macaulay Culkin

    Votes: 541 50.4%
  • Max Landis

    Votes: 64 6.0%

  • Total voters
    1,073
I mean you're not wrong but....

What was the lifespan of Avatar? Game of Thrones? Westworld?

I could go on but there's plenty of examples right now of proto-franchises crashing and burning before they can reach the decade mark - if they even make it past 1 year.

Maybe it's not lifespans. Maybe it's almost like writing quality has taken a turn of late...
Dunno about that. It seems more likely to me that the current generation of film executives aren't competent.

Why that should be so is debatable, but it's striking that even people who made excellent work in the past are no longer able to do so.

I suppose it's possible that the film production process itself is broken, but I still think that tearing down the Phantom of the Opera set has cursed everyone involved.

On the flipside, you raise a very good point and I almost addressed that in my post as well, but I didn't want to get too long winded.

There does seem to have been a huge downward swing in quality of writing in media over the last ten years, this affects not only long running things but more recent things as well, so I don't know.
 
On the flipside, you raise a very good point and I almost addressed that in my post as well, but I didn't want to get too long winded.

There does seem to have been a huge downward swing in quality of writing in media over the last ten years, this affects not only long running things but more recent things as well, so I don't know.

I think the best examples are Doctor Who and Marvel Comics. Doctor Who is almost 60 years old, and it had plenty of ups and downs over the decades, but it's only now that it's been damaged seemingly beyond repair, with plot developments that will be difficult if not impossible to repair, and, worse, a thoroughly alienated fanbase. Similarly, Marvel had plenty of periods of low quality during roughly the same period of time (if we date modern Marvel from the birth of the Avengers and Spider-Man), but it's only now -- ironically, while movies based on their material are the biggest entertainment juggernaut in the world -- that the quality is so damaged it's practically on life support.

There's something uniquely corrosive about identity politics. I think it may be because it's nearly a religious conviction. The people responsible will not abandon what they're doing to these properties no matter how badly it affects the bottom line. The only hope is for them to collapse completely and, maybe, get resurrected by someone who still cares about the core values of the original product. But I can't even think of an example where that happened.
 
On the flipside, you raise a very good point and I almost addressed that in my post as well, but I didn't want to get too long winded.

There does seem to have been a huge downward swing in quality of writing in media over the last ten years, this affects not only long running things but more recent things as well, so I don't know.
I was just thinking this after watching the video. How fucking bad is it that Mike spitballing ideas comes up with more compelling plots for Star Trek than the show writers? Threw out similar stuff in the old star wars reviews where his dumb ramblings are more interesting than the multi million dollar movies.

How creatively bankrupt is the TV and film industry that all they are able to churn out is this vomit.
 
I was just thinking this after watching the video. How fucking bad is it that Mike spitballing ideas comes up with more compelling plots for Star Trek than the show writers? Threw out similar stuff in the old star wars reviews where his dumb ramblings are more interesting than the multi million dollar movies.

How creatively bankrupt is the TV and film industry that all they are able to churn out is this vomit.

Their Re:View pitching a theoretical "Star Trek: Galaxy" was far and away the most fanboyishly desperate thing they've ever done, but it was also a great idea for a show.
 
I did a capture and extraction of the best segment of Plinkett's review.
 
Maybe its just me, but I think there was some pretty heavy irony when Plinkett recommended Westworld for a compelling show on Synths when that also became dumpster fire after the first season.
That show was shit in the first season, the entire first season was.

"OH NOES THE ROBOTS ARE GANING SENTIENCE DOES THAT MAKE THEM PEOPPPLE?"
8 Episodes Later
"YES IT DOES!"

The Episode with Data's Trial did that plot better in an hour than Westworld did in the entire season.
 
That show was shit in the first season, the entire first season was.

"OH NOES THE ROBOTS ARE GANING SENTIENCE DOES THAT MAKE THEM PEOPPPLE?"
8 Episodes Later
"YES IT DOES!"

The Episode with Data's Trial did that plot better in an hour than Westworld did in the entire season.

but that version of Paint It, Black tho
 
I was just thinking this after watching the video. How fucking bad is it that Mike spitballing ideas comes up with more compelling plots for Star Trek than the show writers? Threw out similar stuff in the old star wars reviews where his dumb ramblings are more interesting than the multi million dollar movies.

How creatively bankrupt is the TV and film industry that all they are able to churn out is this vomit.
Let's not forget that the final product isn't even the intial pitch that Kurtzman and Goldsman wrote to convince Stewart to play "Picard" again. If I'm not mistaken, originally Picard was about Jean-Luc going on an archeological hunt with a small group of people. One of Stewart's requests was that the show would not feature the cast from TNG.
When you watch the first season, it really feels like 3 different shows. The first 3 episodes are trailer-bait, then it becomes Firefly (until the Riker episode) and it ends with Mass Effect.
 
You could say the same about the nihilistic cynicism of 70's cinema too ...and then Starwars became the biggest thing in the world.
Sometimes, particularly in these times, I feel like people are eager for something that just makes them feel optimistic in the same way a heavily divided society after the Vietnam war was eager for something to come along that was fun and just made everybody feel good.

The 2010s was just a repeat of the 1970s weirdly enough, except our version of Stars Wars was cynical, ironically reflecting the 70's more than the actual 70's Star Wars.

History has a weird way of repeating itself like that, you could compare the 2000s and the 1960s for example what with JFK and Vietnam and 9/11 and Iraq.

I'm hoping the 2020s will be a repeat of the 1980s where people will get back in touch with their humanity, the 1980s started with a crisis too, the Iran hostage crisis (and arguably also the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) that snapped people out of their cynical complacency and brought them back to reality, hopefully COVID 19 will have a similar effect.
 
Star Wars and Star Trek won't be going anywhere and they are not ruined forever. The sequel trilogy and the Star Trek sequels are shit but the idea that they're somehow ruined 5ever and will never be loved or enjoyed again is quite ridiculous. Mike pointed out in the review that people should absolutely go back and watch the old shows. People should also go back and watch old Dr. Who shows and the original trilogy.

Who cares if the new iterations of the old stuff fail? They can't destroy the stuff that made it good. That was the thing that annoys me the most about people whinging about the new Star Wars trilogy -- "LUKE SKYWALKER'S CHARACTER IS RUINED REEEEE"

You fools. You morons. Just ignore the stuff you don't like. Not even George Lucas at the height of his power could destroy the OG version of the OT.

If nothing else the Plinkett review reminds us what of we should already know: that we already have everything we love right in front of us.
 
But it managed to do so while not being overly preachy. Mostly because the liberal things that the current generation of moronic writers would have made a focal point were written as accepted by that point. It's a lot easier to say "we've evolved beyond money" than writing a bunch of hamfisted, hairpulling screeds against the GOP disguised as story.
I would say that it wasn't that older Trek wasn't preachy. Because it could get preachy af. But the message that they had captain's preaching was never about hating on well meaning people with a different culture or opinion. Older Trek would get drug through the mud now for daring to sympathetically portray sexist Ferengi and colonialist Cardassians, and suggesting that the way toward peace is convincing them to change their society from within, and isn't to shout stupid slogans at them.
 
The clips of the writers and producers explaining why Star Trek is what it is just crack me up. They know all the magic words to describe Star Trek like ideal and optimistic but don't know what the words mean or even understand why they apply to older Star Trek and need to be used to get people on board for Picard. I don't even think they are lying when they describe Picard like its old Trek I think they are just that out of touch.

I also like Plinkett digging into Ryker for the whole acting captain thing. Why was he in charge of the giant fleet? Didn't they have any actual captains or like an admiral or something? What was Admiral Fuckface doing during this?


I think Mike is playing with fire daring them to make Picard gay though. It wouldn't surprise me if they already entertained the idea.
 
Star Wars and Star Trek won't be going anywhere and they are not ruined forever. The sequel trilogy and the Star Trek sequels are shit but the idea that they're somehow ruined 5ever and will never be loved or enjoyed again is quite ridiculous. Mike pointed out in the review that people should absolutely go back and watch the old shows. People should also go back and watch old Dr. Who shows and the original trilogy.

Who cares if the new iterations of the old stuff fail? They can't destroy the stuff that made it good. That was the thing that annoys me the most about people whinging about the new Star Wars trilogy -- "LUKE SKYWALKER'S CHARACTER IS RUINED REEEEE"

You fools. You morons. Just ignore the stuff you don't like. Not even George Lucas at the height of his power could destroy the OG version of the OT.

If nothing else the Plinkett review reminds us what of we should already know: that we already have everything we love right in front of us.

I'm not saying we can't still go back and enjoy the past of these franchises of course, just that they may be done putting out anything new that is worthwhile.
 
I also like Plinkett digging into Ryker for the whole acting captain thing. Why was he in charge of the giant fleet? Didn't they have any actual captains or like an admiral or something? What was Admiral Fuckface doing during this?
Word on the street is that Admiral fuckface WAS going to be the one leading the fleet.

Then at some point along the way they realized... "hm. nobody likes her." And decided to put fan favorite Riker in the chair instead.
 
I'm not saying we can't still go back and enjoy the past of these franchises of course, just that they may be done putting out anything new that is worthwhile.

oh certainly. They're done until someone gets inspiration from them and makes a new franchise or whatever from their ashes, just like the Flash Gordon stuff and blah blah blah Star Wars fanboy screeching here. I'm just trying to make a comment on how fans have been reacting to this stuff.

Picard is a brutal gutting of Star Trek and what makes good Star Trek. That's why I'm glad Mike made a point to say that people should get to know the old material (and to stop giving CBS money lol.)
 
On the flipside, you raise a very good point and I almost addressed that in my post as well, but I didn't want to get too long winded.

There does seem to have been a huge downward swing in quality of writing in media over the last ten years, this affects not only long running things but more recent things as well, so I don't know.

The rise of Identity Politics explains it somewhat, but I think a large part of it has to do with the quality of the writers' experiences.

60 years ago, most writers were war veterans - people who traveled the world far and wide or had a large circle of friends and family who did. These were men who fought in actual battles, read a wide variety of classic books, and had attended college back when it taught useful facts and required rigorous discipline.

40 years ago, writers were less likely to have personally fought in wars (unless they were old/young enough to go to Vietnam,) but they'd had family members who'd been in combat. They also grew up watching war movies. Even if they were total hippies, they could still roughly tell you how power structures and authority worked, and could competently plot out a battle. (They'd read lots of Heinlein in their youth.) They knew that cavalry was mobile, and not something you throw headlong at the enemy first thing. College was still a place where you could pick up useful facts and useful skills as a writer.

20-30 years ago, writers traveled less and were less worldwise, but had watched lots of old media growing up. The rise of the internet lead to communities of people who discussed media and literature, and created a place where aspiring writers could exchange and criticize each other's work. Online communities based around fanfiction began to spring up and tropes from Anime and other world media began making their way into Western culture. Feminism was just starting to rear it's head, thanks to shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, although women were still allowed to be pretty and sexy and men were still allowed to be strong and competent. Online fandoms were cropping up, but it rarely went beyond message board discussions, shrines to one's favorite characters and an annual trip to the local fandom convention (which probably took about 8-9 hours to get to if you lived outside of a major city.)

Now: Older writers are dying off en masse, and the fanfic writers who cut their teeth on anime and MLP fanfics are are all grown up and taking their place. Writers are chosen more for what politics they espouse than for their skill at writing. They barely have any life experience to think of, apart from their college trip to Mexico (which they spent hunched over their smartphone, tweeting,) and their SJW activism. Most of their greatest battles were spent attacking "racistsexisthomophobz" on Twitter and Reddit. Most of their relationships are narcissistic shitshows which will somehow find a way into their writing. (You can expect a show written in the modern era to become a therapy couch trip for the writers, because most of them are solipsistic and would rather write something that resonates with their experience than write something that's of interest to anyone else.) Writers are more concerned with Representation and Diversity than story and plot. Writers are more concerned with pandering to the toxic elements of their show's fanbase than with writing realistic and nuanced characters. Orange Man BAD. White Man BAD. Only Women and POC Good. Everything is Political now and politics must be pushed at all costs otherwise DRUMPF WILL DESTROY US ALL!!!!

There are other factors afoot, but I think this goes a long way towards explaining the decline of writing in the post WW2 era...
 
Writers are chosen more for what politics they espouse than for their skill at writing
This is the problem, nothing else. Like I said earlier in the thread. Look at the works of the 4 people who worked on this shit show, look at what they worked on before. That will tell you why this is bad. They took people who wrote some of the worst shit of the 90s/20s and handed them Star Trek.
 
Let's not forget that the final product isn't even the intial pitch that Kurtzman and Goldsman wrote to convince Stewart to play "Picard" again. If I'm not mistaken, originally Picard was about Jean-Luc going on an archeological hunt with a small group of people. One of Stewart's requests was that the show would not feature the cast from TNG.
If true, let's reflect on how depressing it is that fucking Alex Kurtzman had a better sense of what to do with the Picard character than Patrick Stewart. Brexit derangement has exacted a heavy toll on him.
 
This is the problem, nothing else. Like I said earlier in the thread. Look at the works of the 4 people who worked on this shit show, look at what they worked on before. That will tell you why this is bad. They took people who wrote some of the worst shit of the 90s/20s and handed them Star Trek.

Wasn't Michael Chabon an acclaimed writer, though?
 
Back
Top Bottom