You should post this in I Made This

I’ve lived in 20 different cities/towns/villages across five States, and I can tell you that no one really knows how to define these things accurately, at least in common parlance.

Tappahannock VA is absolutely what I’d consider to be a rural town, but when compared to a place like Waterboro ME, it feels positively metropolitan.

I think, in general, a “rural town” is usually understood to be a relatively small, centralized area of mixed-use zoning in typically agricultural regions; a population under 10,000 with a few main streets with things like general stores, a few diners or restaurants, a grocery market, and single-family homes. These places almost always grow around farmland.

A “village” might be something more along the lines of Pleasantville NY or Cornish ME. They don’t rely on agriculture and have centralized social dynamics.

There’s also, wildly, a difference between “rural towns” and “small towns.” Golden CO is not a rural town, even though it shares many of the characteristics of one. It’s a “small town.”

That being said, people from New York City will often refer to Boston as a “town” so I guess a lot of this is relative.

Respectfully, there is absolutely nothing typical about New York City. There isn’t a single other city in the entire country that even begins to compare to NYC’s size, scale, and complexity.

A “typical” American city would be something like White Plains NY, Scottsdale AZ, or Richmond VA.

Almost every day. Whether I’m skipping a step, avoiding a puddle, panic-flailing away from a sudden pile of dog shit, or trying to grab something from a too-high shelf in my small apartment, living in Brooklyn means you’re idiot-floating more often than not

I guess what I mean by Star Wars is they want to be doing what Disney+ is doing; serialized Cinematic Universe that’s all boom boom pow pow?

Absolutely. Ideological consistency =/= stagnation; my two favorite pieces of Trek are The Voyage Home and the Dominion War arc, and while they may not share almost anything on the surface, their core thrusts are wholly aligned!

The fundamental lack of understanding of the purpose and point of Trek as an idea that Kurtzman et al have consistently demonstrated clearly illustrates not simply a schism in taste, but one of worldview, politics, and values.

These guys just wanna be making Star Wars - and there ain’t anything wrong with that! It’s just that Star Wars and Star Trek are for, and accomplish, different things!

Is this in regards to the Skydance acquisition? I thought that had gotten canned!

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 subsequent showrunners have been incapable of wielding, or even of understanding.

A major part of this 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.

TMBG? Teenage Mutant Binja Gurtles?

Oh, hush. My answer was about all of it.

It’s a little tough to explain without sounding glib, but the gist is that 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.

Oh, and 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.

Long answer woops!!

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.

RogerEbert.com - Star Trek: Section 31 (one star out of four)

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!

Are you fucking insane?

I have a job, you fucking loser

I don’t expect anything. That’s why I’m asking if anyone has any ideas I haven’t thought of.

I wish i could qualify for a loan, or had rich relatives, or had something like that I could sell. Maybe I could sell a kidney

I’m not sure my ass is powerful enough

This is an absolute nightmare scenario

$40,000 would pay off all debts for me and my wife, and allow us finally catch our breath. The monthly payments have been annihilating us for years, and neither of our careers have recovered since COVID.

It feels like an endless tunnel.