Real Talk: we tell people all the time that they can like shit with flawed elements, so long as they understand that you should criticize those flaws. So it's really sad that, when someone does it, everyone flips out about their precious Star Trek being attacked. And this is in spite of the fucking creator of the comic coming out multiple times and saying he likes Star Trek.
If TV executives are responsible for Star Trek having its diversity watered down, then Rosenberg is attacking those executives. In fact, I bet Rosenberg is a big enough nerd to be well-versed in Star Trek's production history and all the bullshit that went on behind the scenes. To take this comic and see it as an attack on Saint Roddenberry means you're tilting at some huge windmills and making up subtext where it doesn't exist.
What you're doing right now is tepid "fair for its time" shit that we don't need. Star Trek hasn't been a progressive franchise in decades, and giving today's stuff a free pass because of the ground it broke fifty years ago doesn't get us anywhere.
I didn't seen anyone flipping out at all
at least not in this thread
Some people on Twitter are *very* upset.
Well, no change there then!
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
@RoyceSraphim Furry comics aren't the answer! Turn back, man!
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I think the very fact that such a completely banal and obvious Star Trek joke made the kind of people who defend racists mad was reason enough for him to make the comic.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
The problem with that comic is that it's making fun of a thing from forty years ago for not being progressive enough by today's standards. It is the definition of lazy, fish in a barrel work. You could take literally any fairly progressive work from over a generation ago and do the same thing. What's the point? Why not criticize something actually being produced right now, or at least in recent memory?
I think the very fact that such a completely banal and obvious Star Trek joke made the kind of people who defend racists mad was reason enough for him to make the comic.
If his level of discourse is "What will make racists on twitter angry" then I guess so. It doesn't exactly seem like much of a goal to set for oneself though.
Unless you're trying to say that Star Trek was racist, and anyone who argues about context is defending that racism.
in which case [loud fart noise]
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+9
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The problem with that comic is that it's making fun of a thing from forty years ago for not being progressive enough by today's standards. It is the definition of lazy, fish in a barrel work. You could take literally any fairly progressive work from over a generation ago and do the same thing. What's the point? Why not criticize something actually being produced right now, or at least in recent memory?
Like the new star trek movies? Which have almost the exact same casting?
The problem with that comic is that it's making fun of a thing from forty years ago for not being progressive enough by today's standards. It is the definition of lazy, fish in a barrel work. You could take literally any fairly progressive work from over a generation ago and do the same thing. What's the point? Why not criticize something actually being produced right now, or at least in recent memory?
well, it could be a criticism of the recent reboot which did nothing at all to improve on what was progressive 40 years ago?
Hell, if anything the reboot films are worse, having whitewashed a Sikh character in the second
+11
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
The problem with that comic is that it's making fun of a thing from forty years ago for not being progressive enough by today's standards. It is the definition of lazy, fish in a barrel work. You could take literally any fairly progressive work from over a generation ago and do the same thing. What's the point? Why not criticize something actually being produced right now, or at least in recent memory?
well, it could be a criticism of the recent reboot which did nothing at all to improve on what was progressive 40 years ago?
Hell, if anything the reboot films are worse, having whitewashed a Sikh character in the second
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. Yikes.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
The problem with that comic is that it's making fun of a thing from forty years ago for not being progressive enough by today's standards. It is the definition of lazy, fish in a barrel work. You could take literally any fairly progressive work from over a generation ago and do the same thing. What's the point? Why not criticize something actually being produced right now, or at least in recent memory?
well, it could be a criticism of the recent reboot which did nothing at all to improve on what was progressive 40 years ago?
Hell, if anything the reboot films are worse, having whitewashed a Sikh character in the second
The problem with that comic is that it's making fun of a thing from forty years ago for not being progressive enough by today's standards. It is the definition of lazy, fish in a barrel work. You could take literally any fairly progressive work from over a generation ago and do the same thing. What's the point? Why not criticize something actually being produced right now, or at least in recent memory?
well, it could be a criticism of the recent reboot which did nothing at all to improve on what was progressive 40 years ago?
Hell, if anything the reboot films are worse, having whitewashed a Sikh character in the second
It could be, but I think you would need to make that more clear, like by referencing the whitewashing that was done.
The problem with that comic is that it's making fun of a thing from forty years ago for not being progressive enough by today's standards. It is the definition of lazy, fish in a barrel work. You could take literally any fairly progressive work from over a generation ago and do the same thing. What's the point? Why not criticize something actually being produced right now, or at least in recent memory?
well, it could be a criticism of the recent reboot which did nothing at all to improve on what was progressive 40 years ago?
Hell, if anything the reboot films are worse, having whitewashed a Sikh character in the second
Well, an evil sikh. Who was played by a Mexican. And whose entire sikh identity consisted of little more than a single passing line, as far as I remember.
Plus they replaced him with Benedict Cumberbatch.
Which is pretty diverse, as Belladona Cumberbund is an actual alien, posing as an Englishman!
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Like the new star trek movies? Which have almost the exact same casting?
You've managed to find a way to make an already stupid comic make even less sense.
So now the criticism is that it's not progressive enough because most of the cast is white, despite the fact that most of the casting decisions for the new movies were made to emulate the casting of the original series! That is not an improvement!
...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
0
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
If the target of the comic was the reboot then you'd think that the author would be pointing that out as his response to people defending the original series. But that's not his response, it's that hey guys I loved Star Trek too.
And you'd think he might've drawn a captain Kirk that looks more like the new guy instead of classic paunchy William Shatner if he was going after the reboot.
I mean, you guys are coming up with way better critiques than his comic, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that's what the comic was actually saying the whole time.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+2
Options
Clint EastwoodMy baby's in there someplaceShe crawled right inRegistered Userregular
I literally have nothing else to post that isn't shit posting....um....
Party makes a massive jump in political power and is suddenly trapped in a small village, what game or show have I seen this in?
Posts
Well, the archives are.
Well, no change there then!
here ya go
WEEP NO MORE BOBKINS
wink
wink?
If his level of discourse is "What will make racists on twitter angry" then I guess so. It doesn't exactly seem like much of a goal to set for oneself though.
Unless you're trying to say that Star Trek was racist, and anyone who argues about context is defending that racism.
in which case [loud fart noise]
Like the new star trek movies? Which have almost the exact same casting?
kiss them then
well, it could be a criticism of the recent reboot which did nothing at all to improve on what was progressive 40 years ago?
Hell, if anything the reboot films are worse, having whitewashed a Sikh character in the second
Oh yeah, I forgot about that one. Yikes.
I have some single goat friends you may want to meet
well not goats satanists really
same difference
It could be, but I think you would need to make that more clear, like by referencing the whitewashing that was done.
Well, an evil sikh. Who was played by a Mexican. And whose entire sikh identity consisted of little more than a single passing line, as far as I remember.
Plus they replaced him with Benedict Cumberbatch.
Which is pretty diverse, as Belladona Cumberbund is an actual alien, posing as an Englishman!
So now the criticism is that it's not progressive enough because most of the cast is white, despite the fact that most of the casting decisions for the new movies were made to emulate the casting of the original series! That is not an improvement!
And you'd think he might've drawn a captain Kirk that looks more like the new guy instead of classic paunchy William Shatner if he was going after the reboot.
I mean, you guys are coming up with way better critiques than his comic, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that's what the comic was actually saying the whole time.
hawkguy
Steam | Twitter
They are delicious.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
We can never be free
it's just a discussion
it's only an argument if I'm wrong
Party makes a massive jump in political power and is suddenly trapped in a small village, what game or show have I seen this in?
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534