Abrams did not grow up in a cultural vacuum though did he? Sure he contributes to the culture (he grew up in) and those that follow after him (in watching and buying his films etc) will have that little bit more of his personal 'culture' of influence over them (or they might push-back like i did and reject his narratives and future projections and not give him money at the box-office or tv subscriptions etc), but it is not like ALL the culture of bad modern day film making is his fault alone. He just killed Star Trek and Star Wars.

Let's not forget Michael Bay et all.

And yes despite all that background of modern-day (quasi-fascism-revivalism) cultural regression we see from our politics to our film making (and in our games!), on rare occasions something decent can be made (in film/tv) such as The Orville, or The Expanse. Sadly due to the cultural (political) bro-dudisms we are regressing under those examples will become even more rare until we all have just swill to feast on and the future will be the past.

(pro-tip: women have nothing to do with this, it's all 'us' (bro-dudes) and the influence we have on all around us (women included!), we have to own up to our own failings if we want to turn it around, bro ;) Probably we will be too dumb to be able to do that, but i hope not?)

I never said that Abrams was alone. In fact, I even said that Abrams wasn't alone even when killing Star Trek and Star Wars. But, again, those who partnered with Abrams are (just like Abrams himself) are to blame for the failure. It's people at the top (or even in the middle) who made specific decisions and those decisions directed franchises to their doom. Makin an excuse about "new culture" is nothing more than shifting responsibility.

When it comes to nature vs nurture, I personally think nurture is somewhat more dominant, but both are clearly operative.

I'm not sure what are you trying to say. Though I suspect that you confuse mass culture (that's what I usually mean by saying "culture") and social environment (that "nurtures" our behavior). In other words, Abrams and Favro (for example) have both different nature AND nurture - that's why their attitude towards creative process is different.

I'm not much a trek fan but I been starting to dig the vibe of the series thanks to the new Picard show. tempted to dip my feet into the seasons that have him has captain. my father went nuts over this show and loves it. he told me he has his tv for the first time set to record the episodes the day they come out lol.

So, these are the guys from red letter media. I've noticed them being mentioned by various other youtube movie reviewers, and I'm pretty sure I've seen some of their reviews, but I've never made the connection between the two.

Also, I've never heard of Alex Kurtzman, until now, but after going through his imdb page... MY GOD has this individual written some shitty scripts. Other than Zorro, I'd give all his films a 4 or 5.

Doesn't culture define/dictate "social environment"?

Point I'm making is that culture impacts people *and* people impact culture. It's a two-way street.

Impact =/= Define. For example, culture in general may dictate your child to be active on Twitter, but you can forbit or somehow discourage him/her to use social network. So for your child "social environment" will be different from mass culture. I know, the example is crude, but what I mean - social environment around you is formed by many different factors and modern trends (like making all entertainment meida about identity politics) are only one of those factors.

I like it; would preferred a more b5 serialized format with the episode having a beginning, middle and end with an overarching plot in the background instead of the cliffhanger to cliffhanger. Might wait for the season end too (Probably wont but consider it). Proof that he is from the mirror universe :P

Of course it's possible we could have something new and great from both franchises, however, it will be getting increasingly unlikely for Trek - which saddens me, for many reasons. I pretty sure Star Wars will get something good every now and then, purely because massive production insures you get a decent game/film/series/book eventually.

But while I do agree we could get something good out of this franchises, I am more worried about the fact that we are so focused on getting something good from old franchises, rather on getting something new and original.

In modern society the norm is for both parents to work, or you have a single parent, so what's going to have the greater impact on children, parents, or corporations and states?

Far too many of us accept being disempowered victims, who consequently fall prey to the corporate-state protection racket, and that choice is made by default because we failed to accept the responsibility for holding power accountable -- because we're philosophically impoverished. We don't understand compound interest, much less the implications of the social contract. Our culture reflects this, being shallow and vapid, and the people who rise to the top are scum, rather than cream.

So yeah, that wrong turn we took happened a long, long time ago. lol

But it's for you if you want to follow "new norm" or not. I don't want to dive deep (since I've been already banned two times for discussing social issues), but even today there are still parents who divide their parenting differently and focus more on raising and teaching their kids. Thus creating for them "social environment" different from general trending culture.

Essentially my original point is this - people who make Discovery and Picard don't know much about Trek and don't care about it either. Regardless if that lack of connection with the franchise is biological or they simply werent taught about those things, they are made new series a failure as Trek.

Point taken. ;p

We are in 100% agreement on this! :)

And just for your personal balance i would note that Kennedy was not involved in those (unlike the New Star Wars) ;)

But yes 100% we are seeing a 'generation' of people taking over franchises that either do not fully understand the true 'value' of those (for any number of personal reasons) or do not care for those values.

When the culture around changes your values change. I hold the opinion that in far-right 'culture' (where we are right now in reality) you would never have seen the 'better' Star Treks and Star Wars in the first place. It would have been New Star Trek/Discovery from the start. The more Michael Bay-esque all action/total war stuff with no concern for story or character, the violence is the point.

Star Wars is a little more complicated because that contains George Lucas own fall to the 'dark-side' in his personal life that meant we got Jar-Jar Binks and Episode 1 AND directly led to Kennedy (and her personal culture of pro-woman (over man)) as the successor the 'fallen' Lucas ordained would take over the Star Wars franchise at Disney. EVERYTHING Lucas (man) started with Episode 1 led directly to New Star Wars and Luke sucking green milk from a teat of a walrus beast while rejecting everything we knew about him from his past story. RIP Star Wars.

This is how the culture we create and accept influences our art. And we are currently on a very destructive path (culturally/politically/artistically). We are heading to peak regression as society and what has happened to Star Trek and Star Wars are just great examples of this fall.

Personally i reject it, so i never support anything with my words/vote/money that looks like it is part of this far-right cultural destruction cycle, but there needs to be more push-back from all of us, if at the very least we want to see good new sci-fi shows in the future.

What happened to Star Trek and Star Wars is just a sign of the times we live in, and if you look at the world around us, it was inevitable. Dumb, illogical and overly violent; the true path of the dark-side and the path to cultural and social regression in life and in art. We can do/be better, as the 'good' Star Trek and Star Wars shows us.

Something I've posted about in another topic:
Why is this show in 21:9? I'm pretty sure they didn't film it with ultra wide PC monitors in mind.