Competent admirals don’t make for exciting stories though. We don’t see toilets often in TV either, not because they don’t exist, but because we only see toilets when they relate to the story. Admirals in Star Trek are like Chekhov’s gun, we don’t see them unless they’re necessary for the story. Boring competent level headed not traitorous Admirals are just rarely necessary for good story telling unless they happen to be the protagonist dealing with drama elsewhere.
There’s this one admiral in The Orville third season, spoilers!
spoilerhttps://startrek.website/pictrs/image/d5732328-2b16-40b2-b7fd-68472f3c40b5.pngAdmiral Thomas Perry. He betrayed The Union to give the Krill and Moclan the weapon that can destroy Kaylon because the Union considered the weapon as a last resort for they deemed it to be a weapon of genocide, they believe the Kaylons, despite being artificial intelligence have the capacity of change. But Thomas Perry doesn’t see this and wants to destroy the Kaylon. We can see here that this is one of a captain’s traits that exists within, even after being promoted to admiral. One of the examples in Star Trek is Captain Maxwell, a decorated captain who destroyed Cardassian ships and outposts because he believed the Cardassians were re-arming and re-equipping themselves, having himself go rogue until his arrest. Admiral Perry here is an example of such a captain who managed to be promoted to admiral. And when he faced the dilemma that we’ve seen in Star Trek, that was the path he took. That’s whats awesome about the admirals in The Orville. They’re not politicians, they’re former captains and leaders each in their own way. P.S. I keep referring to him as Michael throughout the 3rd season because he’s such an actor in the sitcom “The Good Place”
Indeed, this is one of the areas where Star Trek has consistently fallen short of its "Utopian future" ideal. I understand that it's often done for storytelling purposes, but Orville shows how that's an unnecessary shortcut - it's still possible to write compelling stories and have the hero be a hero even if his superior officers are actually competent and in his corner.
Never watched Star Trek but in The Orville, it is explained that you get promoted to the higher job if you have a lot of honor and respect from society
So yeah I don’t see how a corrupt politician could rose to admiral. They should either be military expert that already proven great success at a lower rank or as you said ancient captain.
One day we will probably have an episode one day with all the higher ups to see their struggle when they where younger, like a big battle flash back or something like that, it would be cool
I’d say season 3 wraps things up pretty well for the show’s finale. But yeah, I’d love to have season 4, see what new major problems are going to be introduced.
Yeah, they borrowed a lot from Trek lore, but thankfully they seem to have left the “badmiral” trope in the cutting room with the transporters. Both of which I appreciate they omitted.
The first time I watched through The Orville, every time one of the admirals was on screen, I was like, “What’s your angle?” and just generally distrustful. Even Victor Garber, you might ask? Especially Victor Garber.
The leadership approved it, as the rail strikes proved, this means nothing. I await the outcome of the rank and file (aka people that actually matter) weighing in.
$16,000 for the credited writer of a one hour episode of a ‘big budget series’ of $30 million or more seems incredibly low. Most writers get only one or two script credits out of a 10 episode season, and many EPs take shared credit with the junior writers in the room.
And the rates for streaming residuals seem to be based on domestic uptake in the first 3 months, ignoring ‘sleepers’ and shows that sell well globally. All to say, this doesn’t get around the ‘Suits’ problem.
Yes, the writers get a base pay for being in the room, but it’s still not a lot out of a major property.
Who can live in LA on a couple of script credits a year?
Always said to see new headlines pushing the narrative that the strikes over just because there's a proposal. Until the rank and file vote, calling it a tentative deal seems like an overstatement that only serves to build the narrative to attack the workers later when they don't accept it. Use headlines to oversell how good the deal is, act like it's over, and then blame the workers when they don't accept a mediocre deal.
But the leadership is put in place by the rank and file, with the assumption that they are negotiating on their behalf. If leadership accepts it is very likely everyone goes with it.
final approval is the safeguard against a bad deal. I also trust the rank and file to understand their own interests, there is also the possibility they’ve truly won a good deal. I’m mostly concerned with the lack of statements about AI concerns that were a part of the reason for the strike.
Under the terms of the agreement, “AI can’t write or rewrite literary material, and AI-generated material will not be considered source material” under the contract, meaning that AI-generated material can’t be used to undermine a writer’s credit or separated rights.
The summary notes: “A writer can choose to use AI when performing writing services, if the company consents and provided that the writer follows applicable company policies, but the company can’t require the writer to use AI software (e.g., ChatGPT) when performing writing services.”
The company also must disclose to the writer if any materials given to the writer have been generated by AI or incorporate AI-generated material, and the WGA says that it “reserves the right to assert that exploitation of writers’ material to train AI is prohibited by MBA or other law.”
This is the typical anti-union shlock that wants you to think of yourself as a consumer rather than a fellow worker. They even assert the tired cliche, “the strike might make your [X] more expensive!”, entirely without evidence, which is literally management’s line. They then proceed to quote several executives/business ghouls and their opinions without critically examining them. Not a single union voice was cited.
Every victory for worker solidarity benefits everyone else - everyone except the execs, of course.
I think this is a misread. Management is getting the blame in this article for making everyone worse off including themselves.
The unions aren’t being blamed at all in this for the strike. If anything their commitment is credited with bringing AMPTP back to the table early.
The article links back to earlier reports from May that AMPTP had a deliberate union-breaking strategy, and planned to refuse to negotiate or to come to the table before late October.
It’s not anti union to point out how management bad faith behaviour and refusal to negotiate is negative for an industry and the broader economy that surrounds it.
Strikes are a blunt and costly tool, but an essential tool. When they last for months as this one has, and one party has been refusing to negotiate on many terms for even months before the strike, everyone in the industry suffers. One of the key points in this article is that AMPTP has managed to lose the PR war of this strike, as they very much deserved.
CNN has been consistently reporting on how the AMPTP has been refusing to bargain, and it’s in this context that it’s weighing the costs of the strike. In comparison to the Hollywood-based media that are owned by the content conglomerates (e.g., Deadline) this is much more neutral reporting.
Management is getting the blame in this article for making everyone worse off including themselves.
Anti-union shlock includes chiding management for not succeeding at various goals. An anti-union lawyer could’ve written this article, for how it reads.
The unions aren’t being blamed at all in this for the strike. If anything their commitment is credited with bringing AMPTP back to the table early.
I pointed out that the framing is inherently anti-union, emphasizing readers’ status as consumers rather than fellow workers. When strikes are framed entirely by their costs to you, it already sets up the union and workers to implicitly take blame. The last section is literally titled, “the consumer”. The last sentence is, “The real bottom line: We’re all almost certainly going to be asked to pay more for what we watch, wherever and however we watch it.”
Where is the heading, “the fellow worker”?
This is in every union buster’s handbook. It happens all the time. There are actual several framings of this vein throughout the article. Another is claiming that there will be less money to go around after the strike/TA, literally in one of those lopsided quotes from management and then uncritically repeated by the author two paragraphs later.
I’m not seeing anything in the article about bringing AMPTP back to the table early.
The article links back to earlier reports from May that AMPTP had a deliberate union-breaking strategy, and planned to refuse to negotiate or to come to the table before late October.
Links back to a previous article of someone from management anonymously saying they wanted to bleed the unions with a longer strike, yes. The only commentary made by the author is the claim that it didn’t work (obvious, since there’s a TA), that it ended up being bad PR. Also a good example of the light chiding a union-busting lawyer might give, lol. Though to be clear, it may not have backfired at all. Attempting to threaten and/or scare striking workers, to decrease their morale, is always in the playbook, and I’ve never seen management lose an opportunity to lie in order to achieve this. The union will usually use it as an example of how shit management is and try to rally against it even when it succeeded in scaring and demotivating a large chunk of the workers. I’ve seen it happen many times.
I don’t think the author is knowledgeable enough nor intentionally acting like a lawyer for studio execs, I think he’s just repeating framings handed down to him by those execs - framings that went through their lawyers. What he is guilty of is using, almost exclusively, their framings.
It’s not anti union to point out how management bad faith behaviour and refusal to negotiate is negative for an industry and the broader economy that surrounds it.
The article doesn’t say that.
Strikes are a blunt and costly tool, but an essential tool. When they last for months as this one has, and one party has been refusing to negotiate on many terms for even months before the strike, everyone in the industry suffers.
Incorrect. Execs never suffer, they just see slightly less good numbers in a war chest. Striking workers face hardship, yes, but then when they win, which requires sticking out long strikes, they receive all the benefits. It’s only the “consumer” that “suffers” the aftermath. See how the framing has gotten to you!? The tropes come for all of us, which is why we have to practice recognizing and opposing them.
One of the key points in this article is that AMPTP has managed to lose the PR war of this strike, as they very much deserved.
Yes, which reads like a friendly chiding of an ally’s loss. Really, I think the author is just lazy and either doesn’t know how to analyze the issue or avoided doing it, instead relying on lines from management.
CNN has been consistently reporting on how the AMPTP has been refusing to bargain, and it’s in this context that it’s weighing the costs of the strike. In comparison to the Hollywood-based media that are owned by the content conglomerates (e.g., Deadline) this is much more neutral reporting.
CNN is corporate garbage that must be consumed with a very critical lens.
quarks
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.