this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
544 points (98.2% liked)

News

33025 readers
4234 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 249 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Furthermore, Variety claims that Ellison’s goal is to turn Paramount into a MAGA-friendly environment, with content in the TV and movie divisions expected to be more “America-centric” and geared toward “the middle of the country.”

RIP any future Star Trek property.

[–] AreaKode@lemmy.world 148 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"OMG, when did Star Trek get so political?!"

Um... 1966.

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 22 points 1 day ago

So hilarious and so apt... I will absolutely laugh at the idea of, well what's effectively been a socialist utopia for the vast majority of contexts in it, and the show that broke the interracial kiss barrier. (on top of inter species/galaxy ones... but obviously far more shocking at the time that a white guy kissed a black woman, than a white guy sleeping with a bunch of green aliens.

[–] TeamAssimilation@infosec.pub 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Political in the non-conservative sense, mind you.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

About the only time they notice "activism", too.

They can have activism like Project 2025 or the decades-long effort to overturn Roe, and none of that counts as "activism".

[–] CityPop@lemmy.today 39 points 1 day ago (1 children)

America-centric?

Mother fucker it’s already America-centric, just look at the space Christian angels episodes of discovery to see how American it is.

Oh well, more Americans shooting themselves in the foot for foreign media to step in and replace them. Guess this is the century of China if America is giving up.

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Wasn't that supposed to be her mom?

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The first Red Angel was Burnham's mom. The second Red Angel was Burnham, because of-fucking-course it was.

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 5 hours ago

Ok so definitely no Christianity stuff, just star trek being like ... temporarily mysterious-ish

[–] wiccan2@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I reckon we could get 4 seasons into a Terran Empire based series before the MAGAs figure out they're being made fun of.

[–] pheonixdown@sh.itjust.works 53 points 1 day ago

You could get away with a Starship Troopers Star Trek Terran Empire series literally forever, The Colbert Report ran 11 seasons and people still think it existed to balance out the liberal bias of The Daily Show.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Star Trek: Ferenginar will probably be on the list to be made and the pilot episode will be called Make Fereginar Great Again.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (3 children)

MAGA would see the Ferengi aversion to war, xenophobia, and genocide as "too woke".

[–] SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one 20 points 1 day ago

The Ferengi actually know how to run a functioning economy.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 5 points 9 hours ago

"Let me tell you something about Hew-mons, Nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people, as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people...will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon."

[–] altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

They would like the idea of permanently unclothed women though. Those on the younger side especially.

[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago

Star Trek: The Final Front Ear

[–] ZeroPoke@fedia.io 16 points 1 day ago

My first thought when reading that as well.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

RIP any future Star Trek property.

I'm sure they will find new ways to try to reboot it, completely stripped of any social commentary or social thought experiments, devoid of all optimism and inspiration for what our species can become. Probably like, another retelling of a plucky crew getting into space battles with generic, non-stereotyped-but-kinda alien terrorists who don't have relatable reasons for being bad guys.

It won't have heady concepts and wild ideas about how civilizations can develop and what humans can become, but that's okay because it will have a roguish captain who likes to break the rules and a strict, by-the-book 1st officer that he has sexual tension with.

[–] balance8873@lemmy.myserv.one 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)
[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Scientists predict that by the year 2120, the entire solar system will be nothing but cop shows.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

I remember having multiple discussions with a guy I knew who was adamant about various works of fiction, including the original Star Trek TV series, and how, in his view, if they have any kind of subtext to them, that it was not intentional and it's entirely in the eye of the beholder, meaning, that people just make it up as they go.

These included, but were not limited to: OG Star Trek, Dune (book), LoTR (books), and even the NARNIA series. I mean, Narnia. I think I first read them around the age of 10 or 11, and the Christian parallels practically hit you between the eyes it is so obvious. Even to a kid...I mean, I'm pretty sure Lewis has gone on record with the clear intent on proselytizing his faith via that series.

I wish I was joking, and this guy read most everything when it came to old sci-fi stuff. If that is his take on reading all those classic sci-fi stuff, I was just gobsmacked as to what he was getting out of it.

I have the feeling that there might be more people like him, but I just don't get it. Even things like WWE have the basic outline of the hero's journey to them, FFS.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

He's not wrong that the reader/viewer can take what they will from a work and translate it through their own lens... but come on, that is some neutron-star density if you can't read the deliberate social commentary in Star Trek. Roddenberry himself has spoken about it.

It makes me pretty convinced that person, and those who share his views, are people who feel called-out or attacked on some level by whatever social issues are being highlighted, or feel insecure that they don't "get it."

There is a really wild segment of the human population who seem totally incapable of working out abstract ideas like ethics and values on their own and rely on systems like government or religion or unfortunately, content creators to guide them. This is a bigger problem than we realize and we take for granted that just because we all grew up watching the Ninja Turtles beat Shredder that we can all discern that "good is better than bad." Not everyone gets that, and this is everyone's problem.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I know the guy could be an intentional contrarian just because he thought that was the way to show his intelligence. And I think he is on the spectrum. But I don't think he was kidding or merely being contrarian about this. Probably why I talked about it to him so much. Sure, many things have multiple interpretations, and I often thought that some pretty basic English lit teachers thought there were "rules" to how to interpret literature and that there were "correct" answers to what something like Old Man and the Sea "means". I can understand rejecting that.

But rejecting that even things as blatant as Narnia and Star Trek are not intentionally conveying a message? Mind-blowing. I don't even understand why you'd be all that interested in fiction of any kind at that point.

And yeah, as you point out, this kind of obvious intelligence in one way, but a glaring of lack of intelligence in others is highly problematic in the moral sense.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I was going to suggest that he might be on the spectrum, as it's pretty stereotyped that autistic spectrum disorder can make it hard for some people to pick up subtext, nuance, overtones and other forms of communication that aren't direct. (I was diagnosed recently as an adult but I've never had problems dismantling all the layers of media or reading emotions so it's probably a different part of the spectrum.)

But this is also exactly why so many people on the spectrum identify with science fiction and fantasy, because in many of these franchises the social narrative or analogy isn't exactly subtle.

And it opens up so many questions - like, what DOES communicate social messages and life lessons? What kinds of media DO convey ideas about society? Only documentaries about politics? What about non-fiction movies? What about fiction stories and movies that aren't sci-fi or fantasy? Does he even watch stories about human emotion or abstract works of fiction that are STRICTLY social commentary? I would immediately start asking him so many questions LOL.

Honestly though, I would take this. I would prefer someone who says openly that they're disconnected from social narratives than the people who pretend that they understand ethics and values communicated to them, but are actually just horrible sociopaths trying to act human.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Yeah, I found it weird for sure and I did have so many questions. I don't see him any more. I still think about it even now, even though these conversations were maybe 10 years ago, LOL.

I think part of it was his stubbornness to admit being even a little bit wrong in a prior statement?

I mean, as you point out, OG Star Trek is something that even as a relatively young and sheltered kid who didn't see much TV, I'd watch them at relatives houses in syndication and even I could "get it". It fairly smacks you over the head now that I'm an adult. How some of this got past the censors still looking for any kind of subversive content is beyond me. I'm assuming the network censors just saw aliens and checked out mentally, or maybe were the type that cannot really handle abstractions of any sort....

As to that last paragraph, absolutely right. It's one thing if people struggle with social cues and so on and it's quite another for people just faking human emotions in order to exploit others.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

All of those series you mentioned have easily found interviews with their creators where they specifically say what subtext they were intending when they made them. You can disagree with the subtext, but was intentionally put there. That's some willful ignorance.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours ago

Yeah. I'm pretty sure I asked him about that supposed wager between Tolkien and Lewis and how they kind of goaded one another to write fiction containing new myths that had, at root, the "true myth", in their view which was related to Christ, since they were both Christians.

I also asked him about original myths themselves - do they contain allegory, etc? I think he may have conceded that, but for some reason, seemed to want to have some kind of arbitrary delineation between ancient myths and virtually everything else.

I don't pretend to understand. I was utterly baffled by it. I remember asking about The Matrix, too - was that just a lot of cool FX and well-choreographed fight scenes? The answer was something I don't remember, but I know I was baffled by it...

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Narnia and Dune are so up-front about their messages that after a couple books it stops being subtext and just becomes text, so they're technically correct there.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Well, Narnia hits one like a 2x4 square between the eyes. 🤣

I remember reading the first Dune book during the first invasion of Iraq and the parallels between the two were very interesting I have to say. Not sure how much the author meant, but it was sure weird...

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

I mean the Author meant nothing to parallel a war that happened 25 ish years after the book was released. Dune 1965 first Iraq war 1990. Any similarities are all on you.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

Ha, yeah, of course it was not about the particulars of the first Iraq war which happened decades after the book was written. I'm talking more about the struggle in a desert planet with a people that are being oppressed by colonizers while there is a struggle for a resource that the planet has a lock on that virtually everyone needs. Not to mention all the Islamic references and influences...I had not read the book before 1990 and had only seen Lynch's Dune prior to that.

[–] muxika@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

There's already an Angel Studios. We don't need another one.

[–] AppleTea@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 hours ago

Eh, it's not like the current ones were all that good anyway