[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 13 July 2026 - 09:33 PM, said:

Link for that? The sources I've found discussing the Critical Drinker podcast don't include that claim about the original series, but several do cite a 2018 Futurism interview in which he said:

https://gizmodo.com/...ount-2000739724

Quote

“You’re a little more severe than I am—I’ll give you my opinion, and I’m just a consumer. I like Strange New Worlds. I think it’s pretty good. I didn’t hate Enterprise. I thought it was kind of weird. Lower Decks, I thought, was entertaining and fun. All the others, they can go,”
“And here’s another thing: I pitched a Star Trek show to Paramount, and I was in Zoom with the showrunners with all the shows and spent a lot of time talking to [executive producer Alex Kurtzman],” the writer continued. “I don’t like a lot of the new Trek. He, as a person, is a really nice guy. But at the same time, those shows are shit. He is a nice guy. But they didn’t accept my pitch, so, you know, fuck ’em.”
“I dislike social commentary. Like… I really hate it. When I’m reading a book, I just want to be entertained, not preached at by the author. Plus, it ruins the wonder of the story if I know the author has a political or social axe to grind. I no longer speculate about all possible outcomes of the story because I know for a fact that the universe of that book will conspire to ensure that the author’s political agenda is validated. I hate that,”
“I put no politics or social commentary into my stories at all. Anyone who thinks they see something like that is reading it in on their own. I have no point to make, and I’m not trying to affect the reader’s opinion on anything. My sole job is to entertain, and I stick to that.”
“For instance, as a lifelong Star Trek fan, it’s always bothered me that there is a presumed ‘responsibility’ within Star Trek shows to talk about social issues,” the writer added. “I just want to watch Romulans and the Federation shoot at each other.”

I obviously paraphrased, but the glut of the notion that he's a GenXer who didn't know what ne was watching and liked the splodey splodey fighty fighty...is right there.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 14 July 2026 - 11:14 AM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 13 July 2026 - 09:33 PM, said:

Link for that? The sources I've found discussing the Critical Drinker podcast don't include that claim about the original series, but several do cite a 2018 Futurism interview in which he said:

https://gizmodo.com/...ount-2000739724

Quote

"You're a little more severe than I am—I'll give you my opinion, and I'm just a consumer. I like Strange New Worlds. I think it's pretty good. I didn't hate Enterprise. I thought it was kind of weird. Lower Decks, I thought, was entertaining and fun. All the others, they can go,"
"And here's another thing: I pitched a Star Trek show to Paramount, and I was in Zoom with the showrunners with all the shows and spent a lot of time talking to [executive producer Alex Kurtzman]," the writer continued. "I don't like a lot of the new Trek. He, as a person, is a really nice guy. But at the same time, those shows are shit. He is a nice guy. But they didn't accept my pitch, so, you know, fuck 'em."
"I dislike social commentary. Like… I really hate it. When I'm reading a book, I just want to be entertained, not preached at by the author. Plus, it ruins the wonder of the story if I know the author has a political or social axe to grind. I no longer speculate about all possible outcomes of the story because I know for a fact that the universe of that book will conspire to ensure that the author's political agenda is validated. I hate that,"
"I put no politics or social commentary into my stories at all. Anyone who thinks they see something like that is reading it in on their own. I have no point to make, and I'm not trying to affect the reader's opinion on anything. My sole job is to entertain, and I stick to that."
"For instance, as a lifelong Star Trek fan, it's always bothered me that there is a presumed 'responsibility' within Star Trek shows to talk about social issues," the writer added. "I just want to watch Romulans and the Federation shoot at each other."

I obviously paraphrased, but the glut of the notion that he's a GenXer who didn't know what ne was watching and liked the splodey splodey fighty fighty...is right there.

The only quote in there that's referring specifically to the original Star Trek series is the last one, which as the Gizmodo article states is from a 2018 Futurism interview, not the Critical Drinker podcast. And that quote actually implies that he did know what he was watching: "as a lifelong Star Trek fan, it's always bothered me that there is a presumed 'responsibility' within Star Trek shows to talk about social issues". The claim that he's a "lifelong" fan (granted, "lifelong" is probably hyperbole---was he watching it as a baby?) and that it has "always" bothered him implies it bothered him when he was a child too.

And I made a bit of an error in only saying that the original series alluded to social issues; I'd forgotten that it also included one of the first interracial kisses on US television, which was very controversial at the time. I had also remembered it as the first interracial kiss on US television, but it turns out that's not actually true:

Quote

despite being the most famous early example of interracial kissing on television, it wasn't the first. In fact, technically it wasn't even the first time for Shatner.

In 1958, Shatner shared a kiss with Asian American actress France Nuyen while performing a scene from the play "The World of Suzie Wong" on "The Ed Sullivan Show." Then in 1967, Shatner kissed BarBara Luna, who is half Filipino, on an earlier episode of "Star Trek." There had also been several interracial kisses on television at the time that didn't involve Shatner, including Lucille Ball smooching Desi Arnaz on "I Love Lucy" and Lloyd Bridges and Japanese actress Nobu McCarthy sharing a kiss on an episode of "Sea Hunt."

Those examples, however, didn't have the cultural impact of Shatner and Nichols, which was considered far more daring with America still dealing with upheaval surrounding the Civil Rights Movement and the fallout of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination just eight months prior. Shatner and Nichols are still generally considered the first Black and white actors to kiss on screen in a scripted show.

https://www.tvline.c...rek-kirk-uhura/

[Abyss]

The Weir quotes are not actually as bad as i was expecting, more ignorant/dumb than right-wing. The Trek pitch thing is classic sour grapes with a dose of 'bet they feel dumb now!'. The 'i don't put messages into my work, that's the reader' point is especially wild, considering. It's all very smart person being stupid.

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 14 July 2026 - 12:34 PM, said:

The only quote in there that's referring specifically to the original Star Trek series is the last one, which as the Gizmodo article states is from a 2018 Futurism interview, not the Critical Drinker podcast.

and? Is everyone's goal here just to pick apart my statement to defend "Random author they like says stupid/shitty things"?

Jeezus. Sorry I bought it up.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 14 July 2026 - 01:03 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 14 July 2026 - 12:34 PM, said:

The only quote in there that's referring specifically to the original Star Trek series is the last one, which as the Gizmodo article states is from a 2018 Futurism interview, not the Critical Drinker podcast.

and? Is everyone's goal here just to pick apart my statement to defend "Random author they like says stupid/shitty things"?

Jeezus. Sorry I bought it up.

I don't like Andy Weir. Just from the title "Project Hail Mary" and the types of praise the movie was getting I guessed it would be too conservative (and too-several-other-things) for my personal taste. In fact you've persuaded me to dislike him.

As I've mentioned, I rarely read science fiction. (Though recently I've been listening to Ken Liu's translation of Liu Cixin's Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy, perhaps better known by the name of the first book, The Three Body Problem.

Spoiler

I love how it engages with the anti-science tropes of mainstream science fiction... it's an alien conspiracy to stop our scientific and technological development, lol.

) I've never read any of his books, and most likely never will.

It seems like you made an honest mistake based on a misconception; there's ultimately no harm in that, provided that it's quickly corrected. Though I'd suppose I'm sorry if I made you hate him any less, if hating him more sparks greater joy in you.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 14 July 2026 - 01:32 PM

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 14 July 2026 - 01:27 PM, said:

It seems like you made an honest mistake based on a misconception;

No, I stand by what I said and how I paraphrased it.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 14 July 2026 - 01:43 PM, said:

Azath Vitr (D, on 14 July 2026 - 01:27 PM, said:

It seems like you made an honest mistake based on a misconception;

No, I stand by what I said and how I paraphrased it.

You wrote:

QuickTidal, on 13 July 2026 - 04:58 PM, said:

He claimed that "political commentary was not needed or desired for successful Star Trek and that his childhood watching the OG show was just "Fun action"....it's about the worst take on Trek I've heard. The remarks drew public pushback from other authors, prompting Weir to issue a public apology to Kurtzman."

So, PHM is a solid story written by a seemingly right leaning dude who didn't know when to shut up and completely misunderstands Star Trek to boot.

Typical Boomer/Gen X "I didn't understand the media I consumed" nonsense.

So you seemed to be saying that he either doesn't understand that the OG Star Trek contained political commentary, or that he didn't understand that when he was a child. But what he actually said implies that he does and he did, he just doesn't and didn't like it, even when he was a child. Does that mean that child Weir objected to the interracial kisses? Maybe. He was probably raised by racists, so it's not all that surprising. It's wonderful how OG ST built up to it by having Kirk (iirc) first kiss aliens of varying otherworldly shades... "you're fine with him kissing a green alien, but not a Black woman?"

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 14 July 2026 - 02:02 PM

[QuickTidal]

I'm not going to argue with you about it. I stand by what I said, end of. You can post whatever you like, I'm not going to engage with it further.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

QuickTidal, on 14 July 2026 - 02:44 PM, said:

I'm not going to argue with you about it. I stand by what I said, end of. You can post whatever you like, I'm not going to engage with it further.

lol

You do realize I'm saying that your interpretation is actually too charitable towards him (from a moral standpoint, since being oblivious is less (morally) bad than disliking and knowingly opposing goodness)? So if you want to optimize your negativity...

[Abyss]

QuickTidal, on 14 July 2026 - 01:03 PM, said:

and? Is everyone's goal here just to pick apart my statement to defend "Random author they like says stupid/shitty things"?

Jeezus. Sorry I bought it up.

I was commenting further to my reaction, not yours. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Now here's the most charitable plausible interpretation---a variant on the "profit maximization" conjecture: he knows full well that his books contain implicit social commentary, but the people who most need it are those who either don't already agree with it or who are apathetic towards the relevant sociopolitical issues. Both groups might be reluctant to read books with an obvious sociopolitical agenda. So by presenting then as if they were apolitical pure entertainment, he may be hoping to reach those people and thereby maximize the ethical impact of his books, particularly within democracies where large swathes of the population are reactionary, hostile to unified international action on climate change, or obtusely or selfishly apathetic.

But he should be smart enough and well-read enough to realize that plenty of people do manage to miss---or misinterpret---obvious sociopolitical messages in media they (I usually hate it when this word is used this way, but it seems at least somewhat apt here) consume (... and transform into ultraderivative poop in the all-too-human slop factories of their tight-clenched brains). However... perhaps the actual numbers (of people who he does manage to reach---and persuade---this way) will work out to make a major (or sufficiently significant) difference?

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 14 July 2026 - 07:16 PM

[QuickTidal]

Im here to once again confess that my preconceived notions about a film were dead wrong.

THE ODYSSEY is a fucking MASTERPIECE.

Like it’s Nolan’s best and most accomplished film EVER and it’s not even close. It’s one of the best films I’ve seen in the last 5 years easily.

Also he leans into ALL the fantastical elements of the story, and refuses to ground it in reality as some of us kind of assumed he would. In fact the grounding he uses is much more bass around Odysseus himself and the meaning of war and humanity…and it’s emotional as fuck as a result. I’ve never had a Nolan film nail emotions like this for me.

The acting is incredible. Matt Damon, John Leguizamo, and Himesh Patel are the standouts though…like just award worthy performances.

And whoever they got to cut the trailers should be fired as they did NOT sell what this movie is and how amazing it looks on the screen. I could not tell it was the North Sea, it LOOKED like the Mediterranean. I never felt like I wasn’t in and around Greece.

And I can’t wait to see it again.

Go see this. Seriously.

But for now I feel like diving back into a Reread of Gemmell’s Troy trilogy.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 17 July 2026 - 08:53 PM

[Slow Ben]

Man, I keep seeing praise for it. Apparently all the pre release stuff was just jibber jabber.

Gonna see it asap.

[QuickTidal]

Slow Ben, on 17 July 2026 - 08:58 PM, said:

Man, I keep seeing praise for it. Apparently all the pre release stuff was just jibber jabber.

Gonna see it asap.

Full tilt jibber jabber. Ignore it all and go see this.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

What format did you see it in?

[QuickTidal]

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 19 July 2026 - 01:38 AM, said:

What format did you see it in?

Just regular this time. I’ll do imax 70mm when I get a chance to see it again

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

Good luck! I tried finding IMAX 70mm seats that were not first two rows in the Bay Area over the entire theatrical run, and I had no luck (not even for 3 AM weekday showings...)

[QuickTidal]

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 19 July 2026 - 08:49 PM, said:

Good luck! I tried finding IMAX 70mm seats that were not first two rows in the Bay Area over the entire theatrical run, and I had no luck (not even for 3 AM weekday showings...)

I feel you, all the screenings in that format around me are sold out for a while too. But I can try agains after a few weeks.

[Cause]

I saw the Odyssey I liked it a lot and was entertained. Its not Nolan's Magnum Opus and I think any such talk is hype and unwarranted. Its a good film, with a star studded cast (unnecessarily so even). Id criticize it as overly long and do not think its a movie ill rewatch often. The message at the films end is interesting but only because I cant tell what Nolan is trying to say (yes, art and the beholder and all that).




I saw Supergirl. Milly Alcock (sp?) is great but the movie itself is lackluster in every other respect. I went alone because eveyone else I know is tired of the superhero genre and they were right and I should have listened. Was not worth a trip to the cinema. The villain is boring, the plot mcguffin is contrived, lobo is only in it as a backdoor pilot for a lobo movie (maybe? if so he was boring), the moral message of the movie is just bizarre.

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 20 July 2026 - 04:29 PM, said:

The message at the films end is interesting but only because I cant tell what Nolan is trying to say (yes, art and the beholder and all that).

Spoiler

I think it's two-fold.

Odysseus is deep in PTSD and coming home was simply not something he could bring himself to do as the inhumanity he watched on display not just in Troy but ahead of Troy in the horse (that was HIS idea) wore him raw...coupled with guilt for leaving his wife and child...he has closed himself off to the notion of going home and his subconscious basically walled him off into making choices that landed him in trouble after trouble (whether the intent was to die or not is up for discussion). This part was obvious, it's a movie about guilt first and foremost. A film about "what have I done?".

It then compounds this notion by suggesting that the rumour of the "people from the sea" said to being about the end of that age...who were marauding around the Mediterranean...were them. It's not until Odysseus accepts that in the moment that Athena disappears. The age he was born into and became a supposed "hero" of...has rotted away and he's a big part of why that has occurred.

It's not a mistake in costuming that Agamemnon is attired like Greek Darth Vader...and is this "presence" more than anything else...he's the bad guy. Odysseus sees him as this...but then you see him without his armour and he's smaller, and damaged, and in Hades when he speaks he's shown for the false thing he was.

So take that and combine it with the key message in the Odyssey as a poem, that of Zeus's Law and the film is about the realization of inhumanity and how left to their own devices Circe was right, Men will do and be terrible things and forget Zeus's Law when it's convenient for them. Which is a message that resonates today with what's happening in the USA...humanity is being left behind to focus on wants and desires and not life.

Odysseus KNOWS his son will be a better man and ruler than him, because Telemachus was not raised by him but instead by his clever and stalwart mother Penelope who held off a kingdom of men for a decade...he knows this and chooses exile and making his amends in the west for his transgressions.

It actually works VERY well on the back of Oppenheimer (a narrative prologue to this) Oppenheimer is a man realizing that what he wrought made the world worse off in every way, something he could not see when he was in the throws of making it happen driven by his own science...Then the Odyssey is the post-realization atonement for that, a man who step by step realizes his error and sets about correcting it to the level he is able, and HOPING the cycle does not repeat. Hell he knows this early in the ten year trip home, but every time he tries to "save" his men, he makes things worse. And by the time he's making better decisions his men have begun making bad ones in his place.

That's my take on the ending anyways. And it IS his Magnum Opus.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 20 July 2026 - 05:02 PM