tymon
@tymon@lemm.ee
Knee-deep in the muck. Filmmaker and New Cinema Club czar
- Comment on What Happened to the American Dream? 2 days ago:
ah! silly me
- Comment on What Happened to the American Dream? 2 days ago:
What is an S3 bucket?
- Submitted 2 days ago to imadethis@lemm.ee | 4 comments
- Comment on Interview: Alex Kurtzman on Section 31 and the "evolution" of Star Trek 1 week ago:
So much of the mindset expressed by Kurtzman in this interview makes me sick and sad. I typed out these thoughts elsewhere before but I’m repeating them here:
In my opinion the purpose of Star Trek, when functioning properly, is not just to be optimistic, but aspirational; it’s to show us a vision of a future in which we’ve surmounted the problems that face us today.
TNG has so far been the keenest example of this, moreso than TOS or any of the Treks that followed. DS9 may be my favorite Trek, but it’s also responsible for setting a dubious precedent of darkness in the property that I don’t think subsequent showrunners have been capable of fully wielding, or even of fully understanding.
A major part of this, for me, is the nu-Trek focus on “optimism” over “aspiration.” Yeah, it might sound like arguing semantics at first, but I really don’t think it is. Regardless of the dictionary definition of those two words, we use them in specific ways in modern parlance.
I feel like most people understand optimism as a positive attitude, a glass-half-full outlook, or even just a sunny disposition. At best, it’s understood as personal traits adhering to a broadness of vision, generosity, and kindness. Yeah, these are good and virtuous characteristics; but they’re not really the same as something being aspirational.
A future we aspire to is a very different thing than a future containing positive people. There are positive, optimistic people all over the place in today’s world, and yet… just look around. We kind of live in hell!
I guess what I’m saying is that optimism is mostly an emotion, whereas aspiration is a goal.
Star Trek, when functioning as it should, is aspirational because it shows us what humanity and society could be like once we surmount the problems facing us today.
So I guess that this, for me, is the principal failing of Abrams and Kurtzman-era Trek; in this future, humanity still succumbs to the pains and pitfalls of present-day life in a way that suggests we won’t grow out of them. Sure, they contain positive, optimistic, kind, gentle, generous people, but society as a whole has simply iteratively progressed instead of having wholly transformed.
There are so many little specific cumulative examples I can give of this, but I know once I start listing them, I’ll forget to list ten more that are better. Maybe I’ll make that list someday when I have some time to kill; but for now, the biggest offenders are the constant tropes of The Galaxy Facing a Danger Unlike Anything We’ve Ever Seen, and the handling of Section 31 as an organization + subsequent reality of the movie.
Another major problem is that the seasons are all too short, so we rarely ever get any breathing room downtime with the characters! 20+ episode seasons are a vital, crucial, fundamental component of Trek as a property, and it’s really not adapting well at all to the modern format of shows.
- Submitted 1 week ago to startrek@startrek.website | 12 comments
- Comment on "But when the phone inside her ribcage rings, it's not for me." 1 week ago:
TMBG? Teenage Mutant Binja Gurtles?
- Comment on "Section 31" early review round-up 1 week ago:
Oh, hush. My answer was about all of it.
- Comment on "Section 31" early review round-up 2 weeks ago:
It’s a little tough to explain without sounding glib, but the gist is that the purpose of Star Trek, when functioning properly, is to not just be optimistic, but aspirational; it’s to show us a vision of a future in which we’ve surmounted the problems that face us today.
TNG has so far been the keenest example of this, moreso than TOS or any of the Treks that followed. DS9 may be my favorite Trek, but it’s also responsible for setting a precedent of darkness in the property that I don’t think subsequent showrunners have been capable of fully wielding, or even of fully understanding.
A major part of this, for me, is the nu-Trek focus on “optimism” over “aspiration.” Yeah, it might sound like arguing semantics at first, but I really don’t think it is. Regardless of the dictionary definition of those two words, we use them in specific ways in modern parlance.
I feel like most people understand optimism as a positive attitude, a glass-half-full outlook, or even just a sunny disposition. At best, it’s understood as personal traits adhering to a broadness of vision, generosity, and kindness. Yeah, these are good and virtuous characteristics; but they’re not really the same as something being aspirational.
A future we aspire to is a very different thing than a future containing positive people. There are positive, optimistic people all over the place in today’s world, and yet… just look around. We kind of live in hell!
I guess what I’m saying is that optimism is mostly an emotion, whereas aspiration is a goal.
Star Trek, when functioning as it should, is aspirational because it shows us what humanity and society could be like once we surmount the problems facing us today.
So I guess that this, for me, is the principal failing of Abrams and Kurtzman-era Trek; in this future, humanity still succumbs to the pains and pitfalls of present-day life in a way that suggests we won’t grow out of them. Sure, they contain positive, optimistic, kind, gentle, generous people, but society as a whole has simply iteratively progressed instead of having wholly transformed.
There are so many little specific cumulative examples I can give of this, but I know once I start listing them, I’ll forget to list ten more that are better. Maybe I’ll make that list someday when I have some time to kill; but for now, the biggest offender is the handling of Section 31 as an organization, and the subsequent reality of the movie.
Long answer woops!!
- Comment on "Section 31" early review round-up 2 weeks ago:
I’m glad you’ve been able to enjoy it! For me, I feel like the franchise on the whole has fundamentally lost its way; Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks, and Prodigy have many virtues, but even when at their best, they’re still tacking against the wind.
- Comment on "Section 31" early review round-up 2 weeks ago:
rogerebert.com/…/star-trek-section-31-movie-revie…
I’m finding God for a moment today to pray that this debacle finally and utterly strips Alex Kurtzman of whatever warlock-ass pact-magic power he must have ensorcelled around him
Star Trek either needs to go to Ron Moore and Jane Espensen, or it needs to go back into storage for a decade.
It can be so, so, so much better than all of this!
- Comment on PVC stand to hang my bow and arrows while practicing. 2 weeks ago:
this slaps
- Comment on my new portrait painting session in Krita 2 weeks ago:
you’ve got a killer eye for shape and expression
- Comment on Why America Sucks at Everything 2 weeks ago:
Would that I were so lucky. I am, in fact, Tymon Brown, for whatever that’s worth.
- Comment on Why America Sucks at Everything 2 weeks ago:
Very much appreciate that 🖖
- Comment on Why America Sucks at Everything 2 weeks ago:
My website has links to most of my works, or my linktree for the rest. I’ll be releasing work with Jacobin Magazine soon too.
- Comment on Why America Sucks at Everything 2 weeks ago:
It was very poorly managed, and everyone got laid off
- Submitted 2 weeks ago to imadethis@lemm.ee | 25 comments
- Comment on iPod with custom shell, new screen, 512gb SSD, and a 30 day battery 3 weeks ago:
HOW DO I GET ONE OF THESE
- Submitted 1 year ago to risa@startrek.website | 5 comments
- Comment on Hexbear federation megathread 1 year ago:
Defederating is the wrong move.
- Comment on SNW is good at least 1 year ago:
This is exquisite
