Discovery is not the new Picard series and new animated series. The animated series has one of the writers for Rick & Morty involved so even if it is half as good as Rick & Morty, then it is a success. Due to the hatred of Discovery on Social Media, CBS knows exactly what the problem with Discovery Season 1 is. Setting the new Picard series 20 years after Nemesis removes a few of the problems that Discovery had. As long as it is entertaining and doesn't make any extremely stupid mistakes like the Klingon redesign, then the Picard series will do much better than Discovery.
This is far too simplistic a view. CBS and Alex Kurtzman want to make Trek a mini "shared universe", with multiple on-going projects. With a proper scope ad budget, the loss of one show will not negatively impact the overall brand, or income, since CBS All Access is one subscription for multiple shows. Whether you are watching Star Trek: Discovery, or "Picard Rick" (or both), you pay the same.
Yes, it is a simplistic view, but it is almost guaranteed to be the critical aspect here.
The thing is, you don't know beforehand if your series will be loved. You can try to put in the best ingredients you want, but countless of series fail every year, even though they had a succesful actor or writer. From the point of view from CBS, they did put in some of the best ingredients into Discovery - modern effects, popular actors, good writers and producers, and the Star Trek brand. If it failed, why should they believe another popular actor or good writer coupled with Star Trek will do any better than the attempt before? The one thing they know already is that Star Trek wasn't enough.
And they also know from the movies that Patrick Stewart isn't enough of a draw, either.
Remember, it could very well be that the new series get just as much hate as DSC. Maybe many fans will hate what became of Picard (or the Federation) 30 years later. Maybe this will be Star Trek's equivalant of The Last Jedi and its "Jake" Skywalker.
It is so easy to TRIBBLE off hardcore fans, that there is no guarantee at all you can appease to them.
The thing you can hope for is that the brand Star Trek is so well recognized that people will get interested even if they aren't considering themselves Star Trek fans, and watch the show. But if Discovery wasn't succesful, the brand might very well not have been strong enough, or worse, had a reputation that actively turned off potential viewers.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
let's not be invoking any pinocchios here by calling discovery's writers 'good'
But they are! Maybe you can't see it because you don't like the story they told overall, but they did a lot of things really well. They also made a few things not so great, of course. But I'd say the entire plotline behind Voq/Tyler and Lorca's secret was well devised. They put in hints for the twists so that smart viewers could figure them out, or at least suspect that something is up, just from watching the show and being familiar with the franchise.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I know what I find most disheartening. The fact that many of those who hate DSC seem to feel to keep telling everyone that they hate it!
Look no further than just about any Trek-related FB group. You’ll struggle to find one single thread where someone doesn’t drop an ‘I hate Discovery’ comment somewhere. Doesn’t matter what the thread is, someone always manages to drop a ‘I hate Discovery’ remark in there – no matter how obscure or irrelevant it may be to the topic.
It’s like they feel some pressing need to force the fact they hate it down as many throats as possible.
And Great Bird forbid you should say you actually like it. You'd think you had just admitted to enjoying setting kittens on fire and then stomping them out!
I know what I find most disheartening. The fact that many of those who hate DSC seem to feel to keep telling everyone that they hate it!
Look no further than just about any Trek-related FB group. You’ll struggle to find one single thread where someone doesn’t drop an ‘I hate Discovery’ comment somewhere. Doesn’t matter what the thread is, someone always manages to drop a ‘I hate Discovery’ remark in there – no matter how obscure or irrelevant it may be to the topic.
It’s like they feel some pressing need to force the fact they hate it down as many throats as possible.
Someone shouting "I hate STDZ" adds as much to the conversation as someone shouting "I love Disco": Absolutely nothing.
Generally, such a declaration is followed by "why" they dislike (or like) the show. This is were the meat of the conversation lies. If your preferred social media is some kind of echo chamber (either for or against Star Trek: Discovery) then you have my sympathy. I prefer conversation and debate over having my biases confirmed.
If you do not want to engage in debate, then perhaps you should avoid threads that involve debate?
And Great Bird forbid you should say you actually like it. You'd think you had just admitted to enjoying setting kittens on fire and then stomping them out!
That's just it - I daren't even SAY I like Discovery in any of those discussions; I have no interest in addressing the numerous 'you are wrong for liking this and here is why' replies that follow such comments.
If someone is using your preference for Star Trek: Discovery as an excuse for a personal attack, they are trolls. Personal attacks add nothing to a conversation.
Posters on this forum can get heated, but I do not endorse personal attacks of any kind.
And what both of you have missed is that @jonsills and @reyan01 are clearly NOT referring to the STO forums. On every form of social media where I have encountered discussion of DSC (and I don't count forums as 'social media'), people who hate DSC don't explain why they dislike it, and as @jonsills says, anyone who does like it (and admits it) is immediately and mercilessly put down as a 'SJW', 'libtard', etc. (Which probably says more about the American cultural atmosphere than DSC 'haters', admittedly). In fact, such arguments were made on these very forums when DSC launched.
It is also the case that 'haters' are much more animated by their outrage, and thus more likely to talk about their hatred of something. This encourages other 'haters' of the unassailability of their position and thus empowers them to be dismissive or abusive of those who do express the opposite viewpoint. This is a well-established social phenomenon. DSC fans are less likely to be animated in their defence of DSC because they have nothing to animate them. Contentedness is not emotive. DSC 'haters' are animated to express their dislike, because they hate it (or some aspect of it), and hate is emotive. This is not unique to DSC 'haters' either. If you follow my postings on DSC, you will find numerous cases of me expressing irrational, blood-curdling hatred for that stupidly <tribble purring> PHOTOSENSITIVE EYES!
Photosensitive eyes is my equivalent of Doug Walker's Bat-Credit Card.
If you follow my postings on DSC, you will find numerous cases of me expressing irrational, blood-curdling hatred for that stupidly <tribble purring> PHOTOSENSITIVE EYES!
Photosensitive eyes is my equivalent of Doug Walker's Bat-Credit Card.
The photosensitive eyes seemed like Discovery trying to foreshadow that Lorca was part of the Mirror Universe without there being any evidence for us to realize that photosensitive eyes = Mirror Universe due to every previous instance of the Mirror Universe didn't have photosensitive eyes. With how bright the USS Constitution and USS Defiant were in TOS and Enterprise, it should have permanently injured anyone from the Mirror Universe when they boarded.
Of course, it was used by Burnham to figure out that Lorca was Mirror Lorca, but there are far better ways for the revelation than using something that was not originally part of the Mirror Universe physiology. Then there is the issue that the photosensitive eyes ruins a part of what makes the Mirror Universe so insidious. That the darkness in the hearts of the people of the Terran Empire exists within the hearts of every Starfleet Officer. If Colonel Green and his men won World War III, then the Federation could have become the Terran Empire. With the photosensitive eyes, the Terrans are just another enemy not a reflection of 23rd Century humanity.
The 'photosensitive eyes' thing to me is an indicator that the writing never intended to 'fit in' in the established work. They had their idea and pulled through, no matter what.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
If you follow my postings on DSC, you will find numerous cases of me expressing irrational, blood-curdling hatred for that stupidly <tribble purring> PHOTOSENSITIVE EYES!
Photosensitive eyes is my equivalent of Doug Walker's Bat-Credit Card.
The photosensitive eyes seemed like Discovery trying to foreshadow that Lorca was part of the Mirror Universe without there being any evidence for us to realize that photosensitive eyes = Mirror Universe due to every previous instance of the Mirror Universe didn't have photosensitive eyes. With how bright the USS Constitution and USS Defiant were in TOS and Enterprise, it should have permanently injured anyone from the Mirror Universe when they boarded.
Of course, it was used by Burnham to figure out that Lorca was Mirror Lorca, but there are far better ways for the revelation than using something that was not originally part of the Mirror Universe physiology. Then there is the issue that the photosensitive eyes ruins a part of what makes the Mirror Universe so insidious. That the darkness in the hearts of the people of the Terran Empire exists within the hearts of every Starfleet Officer. If Colonel Green and his men won World War III, then the Federation could have become the Terran Empire. With the photosensitive eyes, the Terrans are just another enemy not a reflection of 23rd Century humanity.
I think the part of the foreshadowing here was that in the Mirror Universe, Burnham specifically mentions that the cosmos seems less bright than at home. (My guess is because the Mirror Terrans are more photosensitive, so their windows are tinted more strongly than in the Prime Universe). If they had just put all the details in one episode, it would have been very obvious that there is a connection, but by establishing Lorca's photosensitivity earlier and using a later episode to hint at it and yet another episode for the official reveal, they gave watchful viewers something to notice and think about.
The photosensitivity is not the only physical hint, some viewers noticed that the scars that Lorca had on his body looked like from the TOS Mirror Universe hand-held agonizers.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
> @mustrumridcully0 said: > The photosensitivity is not the only physical hint, some viewers noticed that the scars that Lorca had on his body looked like from the TOS Mirror Universe hand-held agonizers.
THIS is good writing of a prequel. The light sensitivity is not. A prequel has to be judged by different set of rules, agonizer scars are a clever hint for watchful viewers. The light thing was made up and had to be explained. A goatee would have been cleverer, honestly 😄
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
And what both of you have missed is that @jonsills and @reyan01 are clearly NOT referring to the STO forums. On every form of social media where I have encountered discussion of DSC (and I don't count forums as 'social media'), people who hate DSC don't explain why they dislike it, and as @jonsills says, anyone who does like it (and admits it) is immediately and mercilessly put down as a 'SJW', 'libtard', etc. (Which probably says more about the American cultural atmosphere than DSC 'haters', admittedly).
Eh... I thought I covered other social media in my response. I even sympathized.
Someone shouting "I hate STDZ" adds as much to the conversation as someone shouting "I love Disco": Absolutely nothing.
Generally, such a declaration is followed by "why" they dislike (or like) the show. This is were the meat of the conversation lies. If your preferred social media is some kind of echo chamber (either for or against Star Trek: Discovery) then you have my sympathy. I prefer conversation and debate over having my biases confirmed.
In fact, such arguments were made on these very forums when DSC launched.
It is also the case that 'haters' are much more animated by their outrage, and thus more likely to talk about their hatred of something. This encourages other 'haters' of the unassailability of their position and thus empowers them to be dismissive or abusive of those who do express the opposite viewpoint. This is a well-established social phenomenon. DSC fans are less likely to be animated in their defence of DSC because they have nothing to animate them. Contentedness is not emotive. DSC 'haters' are animated to express their dislike, because they hate it (or some aspect of it), and hate is emotive. This is not unique to DSC 'haters' either. If you follow my postings on DSC, you will find numerous cases of me expressing irrational, blood-curdling hatred for that stupidly <tribble purring> PHOTOSENSITIVE EYES!
Photosensitive eyes is my equivalent of Doug Walker's Bat-Credit Card.
Why does Star Trek: Discovery evoke more "negative" passion than "positive" passion?
When someone (like me) points out issues with the writing and characterization, why is the only response "well, other versions of Trek had terrible story telling so... your point is invalid"?
Why is it that many viewers like STDZ, but they have a hard time vocalizing why they like the show? The most common things I hear is about the visuals. "It looks good, instead of those garbage sets, costumes and models from the 60's". That's fine. It's a personal choice.
It does not matter how "sexy" the appearance, it has to have good story-telling or I'm just not interested. The characterization is shallow (or nonexistent), the subplots are so poorly developed that they are a waste of screen-time, the Klingon antagonists are boring, the Lorca antagonist is a major disappointment and the over-arching plot is a rushed hack-job. As a result, you are left with the individual episode plots which are a mixed bag.
The frustrating part is there is good stuff mixed in with all the trash; otherwise, I would just write the whole thing off. If there was no Tyler personality, the Voq reveal would have been much, much better. If Voq and Lorca had uncovered each other's secret, you could have had some really cool tension. If Lorca was more than a mustache-twirling villain, someone with a long-term multi-season goal, that would have been much, much better. If Burnham had even an ounce of character growth, she would have been more like-able. If Burnham was more consistent (sometimes, she acts like a human, sometimes like a vulcan; never with any consistency) she would at least be relatable, instead of an automaton that moves the plot.
And what both of you have missed is that @jonsills and @reyan01 are clearly NOT referring to the STO forums. On every form of social media where I have encountered discussion of DSC (and I don't count forums as 'social media'), people who hate DSC don't explain why they dislike it, and as @jonsills says, anyone who does like it (and admits it) is immediately and mercilessly put down as a 'SJW', 'libtard', etc. (Which probably says more about the American cultural atmosphere than DSC 'haters', admittedly).
Eh... I thought I covered other social media in my response. I even sympathized.
Someone shouting "I hate STDZ" adds as much to the conversation as someone shouting "I love Disco": Absolutely nothing.
Generally, such a declaration is followed by "why" they dislike (or like) the show. This is were the meat of the conversation lies. If your preferred social media is some kind of echo chamber (either for or against Star Trek: Discovery) then you have my sympathy. I prefer conversation and debate over having my biases confirmed.
In fact, such arguments were made on these very forums when DSC launched.
It is also the case that 'haters' are much more animated by their outrage, and thus more likely to talk about their hatred of something. This encourages other 'haters' of the unassailability of their position and thus empowers them to be dismissive or abusive of those who do express the opposite viewpoint. This is a well-established social phenomenon. DSC fans are less likely to be animated in their defence of DSC because they have nothing to animate them. Contentedness is not emotive. DSC 'haters' are animated to express their dislike, because they hate it (or some aspect of it), and hate is emotive. This is not unique to DSC 'haters' either. If you follow my postings on DSC, you will find numerous cases of me expressing irrational, blood-curdling hatred for that stupidly <tribble purring> PHOTOSENSITIVE EYES!
Photosensitive eyes is my equivalent of Doug Walker's Bat-Credit Card.
Why does Star Trek: Discovery evoke more "negative" passion than "positive" passion? Someone must be passionate about this show. Where are the lengthy posts about the positive aspects of the show?
When someone (like me) points out issues with the writing and characterization, why is the only response "well, other versions of Trek had terrible story telling so... your point is invalid"?
Why is it that many viewers like STDZ, but they have a hard time vocalizing why they like the show? The most common things I hear is about the visuals. "It looks good, instead of those garbage sets, costumes and models from the 60's". That's fine. It's a personal choice.
It does not matter how "sexy" the appearance, it has to have good story-telling or I'm just not interested. The characterization is shallow (or nonexistent), the subplots are so poorly developed that they are a waste of screen-time, the Klingon antagonists are boring, the Lorca antagonist is a major disappointment and the over-arching plot is a rushed hack-job. As a result, you are left with the individual episode plots which are a mixed bag.
The frustrating part is there is good stuff mixed in with all the trash; otherwise, I would just write the whole thing off. If there was no Tyler personality, the Voq reveal would have been much, much better. If Voq and Lorca had uncovered each other's secret, you could have had some really cool tension. If Lorca was more than a mustache-twirling villain, someone with a long-term multi-season goal, that would have been much, much better. If Burnham had even an ounce of character growth, she would have been more like-able. If Burnham was more consistent (sometimes, she acts like a human, sometimes like a vulcan; never with any consistency) she would at least be relatable, instead of an automaton that moves the plot.
Another problem with Discovery could be due to the overexpectations of a new Star Trek series from not having one for over 10 years. Lots of fans only want new Star Trek series to be the same, but better. Then there is the problem with the first episode of Discovery, every other Star Trek series took at least a couple of seasons to establish the background of the series before throwing them into a war. Having the Vulcan Hello as the Season Finale instead of the Season Premiere would have helped to fix the issue of Discovery not feeling like Star Trek especially with the Shenzhou exploring various different cultures. At least Discovery wouldn't have to deal with criticism about the Spore Drive and the Klingons until much later.
you kind of hit something on the 'character growth' issue there, Redvenge, because I kind of feel that that right there is why Burnham is often termed a "Mary Sue". namely, she's always right. it's the same lack of growth we saw with Janeway, only cranked to 11, which is fine for a show made of disconnected episodes with no central arc, but in serial format, static characters are...boring.
Burnham is difficult to relate to and lacks qualities that make her likeable. You can make such a character work, but when you put her alongside bubbly cheery Tilly, the contrast is dramatic. Everyone flocks to Tilly and never warms to Burnham. Rather than appearing competent, Burnham comes across as over-confident, even egotistical. Tilly is humble and helpful. Burnham is conniving; such as using Saru to determine if the tartigrade is truely dangerous. For Burnham to work, you need to commit to surrounding her with equally flawed characters. Tilly, as a self-insert for the showrunners, just serves to make Burnham look cold and unlikeable by comparison.
Then, they messed up Burnham's "redemption" story. Burnham was supposed to capture T'Kuvma alive, so he could be embarrassed. Apparently, embarrassing Klingons will stop them from murdering everyone. Sounds iffy to me, but that is the plan. Burnham does the "emotional" thing and murders T'Kuvma. The story, as presented, makes this look like a bad thing. The story makes us think Burnham messed up. Later, when she is in a very similar position, she again makes the "emotional" choice and rescues Empress Saru-breath. So, the audience is left wondering "has this character not learned a damn thing"? If the writers wanted the audience to not facepalm, they should have set this up differently. If you wanted Empress Saru-breath to continue being a "thing", you did not need to put Burnham in the situation of rescuing the bad guy and thus looking stupid. Have the empress escape some other way.
I'm certain the writers of Star Trek: Discovery hate Burnham more than the show's detractors do.
I didn't like it because the whole premise of the series just doesn't work for me.
I'll start with Burnham. How is this woman still a Star Fleet Officer? She assaulted her captain, started a war, and caused countless deaths including her mentor and Captain. If this were a real military force she'd be discharged out of the service.
Ash Tyler, a spy with with two personalities that kills a fellow crewman with NO consequences what so ever? Again in the real world he'd be discharged from service and probably committed or jailed. I'm also bothered by the fact that everyone just shrugs their shoulders and instantly forgives him. I sure as heck wouldn't want to sleep in the bunk next to him or them (Ash or Voq).
Do I even have to mention the Klingons?
CBS All Access was just a pain in the butt to deal with and I am glad I canceled it.
If the Federation knows about spore drives wouldn't they put them on all their ships or maybe use the technology to bring Voyager home? Yes, I know the tech is unstable but Star Fleet would undoubtedly try to dust it off as tech advanced.
Just a few things off the top of my head but there are just too many things I didn't like that don't make me want more TRIBBLE.
"Live Long and Prosper but always carry a fully charged phaser, just in case!". Arrr'ow
How is Burnham still in the service? On parole at the moment, after being court martialed and being sent into the penal system. She was rescued by Lorca when the prison shuttle she was being transported on (along with three other convicts) was destroyed; it's hinted that Lorca was behind its destruction because he wanted to recruit Burnham for his little side project. After all of her work as a "specialist" aboard the Discovery (and the acknowledgement of the fact that she did not in fact "start a war", that T'Kuvma and his followers were determined to start one no matter what it took), she was considered to have paid for her crime of attempted mutiny, and accepted into service on a probationary basis - she messes up again, she's right back in the brig. Starfleet's always been kind of loose on the disciplinary front that way.
It's interesting to me that some commenters here hold that Burnham is a bad character because she's a Mary Sue, and others say it's because she's unlikeable. You see, one of the primary characteristics of a Mary Sue is that everyone loves her, and anyone who disagrees is quickly shown to have been wrong to do so, and is probably a villain. ("Always being right" isn't so much a mark of a Mary Sue as a mark of a protagonist.) So, which is it?
She's a Mary Sue who can do no wrong. If she's seen to have done wrong, it turns out to be a mis-evaluation by the observer, and it turns out she was right all along. But to give the character depth they made her an Anti-Mary Sue who nobody likes.
So, instead of a Mary Sue you have an Aunty Sue, I guess.
She's a Mary Sue who can do no wrong. If she's seen to have done wrong, it turns out to be a mis-evaluation by the observer, and it turns out she was right all along. But to give the character depth they made her an Anti-Mary Sue who nobody likes.
So, instead of a Mary Sue you have an Aunty Sue, I guess.
Add that she is the sixth or so Trek character that's supposed to be 'logical' but 'struggles with emotions'. I'd wish we bury that trait sone time.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
you kind of hit something on the 'character growth' issue there, Redvenge, because I kind of feel that that right there is why Burnham is often termed a "Mary Sue". namely, she's always right. it's the same lack of growth we saw with Janeway, only cranked to 11, which is fine for a show made of disconnected episodes with no central arc, but in serial format, static characters are...boring.
Burnham is difficult to relate to and lacks qualities that make her likeable. You can make such a character work, but when you put her alongside bubbly cheery Tilly, the contrast is dramatic. Everyone flocks to Tilly and never warms to Burnham. Rather than appearing competent, Burnham comes across as over-confident, even egotistical. Tilly is humble and helpful. Burnham is conniving; such as using Saru to determine if the tartigrade is truely dangerous. For Burnham to work, you need to commit to surrounding her with equally flawed characters. Tilly, as a self-insert for the showrunners, just serves to make Burnham look cold and unlikeable by comparison.
Then, they messed up Burnham's "redemption" story. Burnham was supposed to capture T'Kuvma alive, so he could be embarrassed. Apparently, embarrassing Klingons will stop them from murdering everyone. Sounds iffy to me, but that is the plan. Burnham does the "emotional" thing and murders T'Kuvma. The story, as presented, makes this look like a bad thing. The story makes us think Burnham messed up. Later, when she is in a very similar position, she again makes the "emotional" choice and rescues Empress Saru-breath. So, the audience is left wondering "has this character not learned a damn thing"? If the writers wanted the audience to not facepalm, they should have set this up differently. If you wanted Empress Saru-breath to continue being a "thing", you did not need to put Burnham in the situation of rescuing the bad guy and thus looking stupid. Have the empress escape some other way.
I'm certain the writers of Star Trek: Discovery hate Burnham more than the show's detractors do.
I'd rather we see more Tilly.
Burnham, I'd rather see get shoved into an airlock.
Tilly has become unbearable due to the hype. I liked her at first, but seeing her 'quirkyness' become one of the leading marketing stunts in history it got stale quick. It doesn't feel genuine any more (or rather organic for the character).
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Some things to think about while this hatefest for Discovery goes on.
- Kirk was the Harvey Weinstein of Starfleet.
- Spock really wanted to be human all along.
- Picard was, and will probably remain, a pompous blowhard languishing in perpetual self pity.
- Riker was a wannabe Kirk.
- Data was a wannabe Spock.
- Troi and Seven of Nine were the fantasy girlfriends. For people who have problems with real relationships.
- Beverly was the MILF version of Troi and Seven of Nine.
- Worf was a candy TRIBBLE.
- The only reason Worf killed Gowron is because Gowron was a bigger candy TRIBBLE.
- Janeway was a rogue operative who should have been shot.
- Cardassians are the worst second tier villains in the history of televison.
- Odo was a wannabe Worf.
- Kira was a wannabe Beverly.
- Archer should have taken that last leap home.
- T'Pol was eyecandy. A cardboard cutout probably has better acting chops.
- The JJprize is the ricer version of ENT-A.
So you see, there's lots and lots to hate on in Star Trek. No need to confine your hatred to just one aspect or show.
A six year old boy and his starship. Living the dream.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Comments
Yes, it is a simplistic view, but it is almost guaranteed to be the critical aspect here.
The thing is, you don't know beforehand if your series will be loved. You can try to put in the best ingredients you want, but countless of series fail every year, even though they had a succesful actor or writer. From the point of view from CBS, they did put in some of the best ingredients into Discovery - modern effects, popular actors, good writers and producers, and the Star Trek brand. If it failed, why should they believe another popular actor or good writer coupled with Star Trek will do any better than the attempt before? The one thing they know already is that Star Trek wasn't enough.
And they also know from the movies that Patrick Stewart isn't enough of a draw, either.
Remember, it could very well be that the new series get just as much hate as DSC. Maybe many fans will hate what became of Picard (or the Federation) 30 years later. Maybe this will be Star Trek's equivalant of The Last Jedi and its "Jake" Skywalker.
It is so easy to TRIBBLE off hardcore fans, that there is no guarantee at all you can appease to them.
The thing you can hope for is that the brand Star Trek is so well recognized that people will get interested even if they aren't considering themselves Star Trek fans, and watch the show. But if Discovery wasn't succesful, the brand might very well not have been strong enough, or worse, had a reputation that actively turned off potential viewers.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Co-showurnner Aaron Harberts admitted part of the motivation for the time loop episode with Harry Mudd [“Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad”] was financial, saying:"In terms of the time loop, we were desperate to save money, I am not going to lie." https://trekmovie.com/2018/06/10/star-trek-discovery-cast-and-producers-talk-canon-and-character-at-emmy-fyc-event/
Sources say the budget for the season two premiere ballooned, with the overages expected to come out of subsequent episodes from Discovery's sophomore run. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/star-trek-discovery-showrunners-alex-kurtzman-take-1120416
The show went over-budget in both season one and season two.
Generally, such a declaration is followed by "why" they dislike (or like) the show. This is were the meat of the conversation lies. If your preferred social media is some kind of echo chamber (either for or against Star Trek: Discovery) then you have my sympathy. I prefer conversation and debate over having my biases confirmed.
If you do not want to engage in debate, then perhaps you should avoid threads that involve debate? If someone is using your preference for Star Trek: Discovery as an excuse for a personal attack, they are trolls. Personal attacks add nothing to a conversation.
Posters on this forum can get heated, but I do not endorse personal attacks of any kind.
(Even if your taste is terrible).
It is also the case that 'haters' are much more animated by their outrage, and thus more likely to talk about their hatred of something. This encourages other 'haters' of the unassailability of their position and thus empowers them to be dismissive or abusive of those who do express the opposite viewpoint. This is a well-established social phenomenon. DSC fans are less likely to be animated in their defence of DSC because they have nothing to animate them. Contentedness is not emotive. DSC 'haters' are animated to express their dislike, because they hate it (or some aspect of it), and hate is emotive. This is not unique to DSC 'haters' either. If you follow my postings on DSC, you will find numerous cases of me expressing irrational, blood-curdling hatred for that stupidly <tribble purring> PHOTOSENSITIVE EYES!
Photosensitive eyes is my equivalent of Doug Walker's Bat-Credit Card.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
The photosensitive eyes seemed like Discovery trying to foreshadow that Lorca was part of the Mirror Universe without there being any evidence for us to realize that photosensitive eyes = Mirror Universe due to every previous instance of the Mirror Universe didn't have photosensitive eyes. With how bright the USS Constitution and USS Defiant were in TOS and Enterprise, it should have permanently injured anyone from the Mirror Universe when they boarded.
Of course, it was used by Burnham to figure out that Lorca was Mirror Lorca, but there are far better ways for the revelation than using something that was not originally part of the Mirror Universe physiology. Then there is the issue that the photosensitive eyes ruins a part of what makes the Mirror Universe so insidious. That the darkness in the hearts of the people of the Terran Empire exists within the hearts of every Starfleet Officer. If Colonel Green and his men won World War III, then the Federation could have become the Terran Empire. With the photosensitive eyes, the Terrans are just another enemy not a reflection of 23rd Century humanity.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I think the part of the foreshadowing here was that in the Mirror Universe, Burnham specifically mentions that the cosmos seems less bright than at home. (My guess is because the Mirror Terrans are more photosensitive, so their windows are tinted more strongly than in the Prime Universe). If they had just put all the details in one episode, it would have been very obvious that there is a connection, but by establishing Lorca's photosensitivity earlier and using a later episode to hint at it and yet another episode for the official reveal, they gave watchful viewers something to notice and think about.
The photosensitivity is not the only physical hint, some viewers noticed that the scars that Lorca had on his body looked like from the TOS Mirror Universe hand-held agonizers.
> The photosensitivity is not the only physical hint, some viewers noticed that the scars that Lorca had on his body looked like from the TOS Mirror Universe hand-held agonizers.
THIS is good writing of a prequel. The light sensitivity is not. A prequel has to be judged by different set of rules, agonizer scars are a clever hint for watchful viewers. The light thing was made up and had to be explained. A goatee would have been cleverer, honestly 😄
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
When someone (like me) points out issues with the writing and characterization, why is the only response "well, other versions of Trek had terrible story telling so... your point is invalid"?
Why is it that many viewers like STDZ, but they have a hard time vocalizing why they like the show? The most common things I hear is about the visuals. "It looks good, instead of those garbage sets, costumes and models from the 60's". That's fine. It's a personal choice.
It does not matter how "sexy" the appearance, it has to have good story-telling or I'm just not interested. The characterization is shallow (or nonexistent), the subplots are so poorly developed that they are a waste of screen-time, the Klingon antagonists are boring, the Lorca antagonist is a major disappointment and the over-arching plot is a rushed hack-job. As a result, you are left with the individual episode plots which are a mixed bag.
The frustrating part is there is good stuff mixed in with all the trash; otherwise, I would just write the whole thing off. If there was no Tyler personality, the Voq reveal would have been much, much better. If Voq and Lorca had uncovered each other's secret, you could have had some really cool tension. If Lorca was more than a mustache-twirling villain, someone with a long-term multi-season goal, that would have been much, much better. If Burnham had even an ounce of character growth, she would have been more like-able. If Burnham was more consistent (sometimes, she acts like a human, sometimes like a vulcan; never with any consistency) she would at least be relatable, instead of an automaton that moves the plot.
When someone (like me) points out issues with the writing and characterization, why is the only response "well, other versions of Trek had terrible story telling so... your point is invalid"?
Why is it that many viewers like STDZ, but they have a hard time vocalizing why they like the show? The most common things I hear is about the visuals. "It looks good, instead of those garbage sets, costumes and models from the 60's". That's fine. It's a personal choice.
It does not matter how "sexy" the appearance, it has to have good story-telling or I'm just not interested. The characterization is shallow (or nonexistent), the subplots are so poorly developed that they are a waste of screen-time, the Klingon antagonists are boring, the Lorca antagonist is a major disappointment and the over-arching plot is a rushed hack-job. As a result, you are left with the individual episode plots which are a mixed bag.
The frustrating part is there is good stuff mixed in with all the trash; otherwise, I would just write the whole thing off. If there was no Tyler personality, the Voq reveal would have been much, much better. If Voq and Lorca had uncovered each other's secret, you could have had some really cool tension. If Lorca was more than a mustache-twirling villain, someone with a long-term multi-season goal, that would have been much, much better. If Burnham had even an ounce of character growth, she would have been more like-able. If Burnham was more consistent (sometimes, she acts like a human, sometimes like a vulcan; never with any consistency) she would at least be relatable, instead of an automaton that moves the plot.
Burnham is difficult to relate to and lacks qualities that make her likeable. You can make such a character work, but when you put her alongside bubbly cheery Tilly, the contrast is dramatic. Everyone flocks to Tilly and never warms to Burnham. Rather than appearing competent, Burnham comes across as over-confident, even egotistical. Tilly is humble and helpful. Burnham is conniving; such as using Saru to determine if the tartigrade is truely dangerous. For Burnham to work, you need to commit to surrounding her with equally flawed characters. Tilly, as a self-insert for the showrunners, just serves to make Burnham look cold and unlikeable by comparison.
Then, they messed up Burnham's "redemption" story. Burnham was supposed to capture T'Kuvma alive, so he could be embarrassed. Apparently, embarrassing Klingons will stop them from murdering everyone. Sounds iffy to me, but that is the plan. Burnham does the "emotional" thing and murders T'Kuvma. The story, as presented, makes this look like a bad thing. The story makes us think Burnham messed up. Later, when she is in a very similar position, she again makes the "emotional" choice and rescues Empress Saru-breath. So, the audience is left wondering "has this character not learned a damn thing"? If the writers wanted the audience to not facepalm, they should have set this up differently. If you wanted Empress Saru-breath to continue being a "thing", you did not need to put Burnham in the situation of rescuing the bad guy and thus looking stupid. Have the empress escape some other way.
I'm certain the writers of Star Trek: Discovery hate Burnham more than the show's detractors do.
I'll start with Burnham. How is this woman still a Star Fleet Officer? She assaulted her captain, started a war, and caused countless deaths including her mentor and Captain. If this were a real military force she'd be discharged out of the service.
Ash Tyler, a spy with with two personalities that kills a fellow crewman with NO consequences what so ever? Again in the real world he'd be discharged from service and probably committed or jailed. I'm also bothered by the fact that everyone just shrugs their shoulders and instantly forgives him. I sure as heck wouldn't want to sleep in the bunk next to him or them (Ash or Voq).
Do I even have to mention the Klingons?
CBS All Access was just a pain in the butt to deal with and I am glad I canceled it.
If the Federation knows about spore drives wouldn't they put them on all their ships or maybe use the technology to bring Voyager home? Yes, I know the tech is unstable but Star Fleet would undoubtedly try to dust it off as tech advanced.
Just a few things off the top of my head but there are just too many things I didn't like that don't make me want more TRIBBLE.
Co-Leader of Serenity's Grasp
It's interesting to me that some commenters here hold that Burnham is a bad character because she's a Mary Sue, and others say it's because she's unlikeable. You see, one of the primary characteristics of a Mary Sue is that everyone loves her, and anyone who disagrees is quickly shown to have been wrong to do so, and is probably a villain. ("Always being right" isn't so much a mark of a Mary Sue as a mark of a protagonist.) So, which is it?
She's a Mary Sue who can do no wrong. If she's seen to have done wrong, it turns out to be a mis-evaluation by the observer, and it turns out she was right all along. But to give the character depth they made her an Anti-Mary Sue who nobody likes.
So, instead of a Mary Sue you have an Aunty Sue, I guess.
Sounds extremely like Rick Sanchez. Although Rick Sanchez is likely the Ultimate Jerk-Sue while Burnham is only a minor Jerk-Sue.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I'd rather we see more Tilly.
Burnham, I'd rather see get shoved into an airlock.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
- Kirk was the Harvey Weinstein of Starfleet.
- Spock really wanted to be human all along.
- Picard was, and will probably remain, a pompous blowhard languishing in perpetual self pity.
- Riker was a wannabe Kirk.
- Data was a wannabe Spock.
- Troi and Seven of Nine were the fantasy girlfriends. For people who have problems with real relationships.
- Beverly was the MILF version of Troi and Seven of Nine.
- Worf was a candy TRIBBLE.
- The only reason Worf killed Gowron is because Gowron was a bigger candy TRIBBLE.
- Janeway was a rogue operative who should have been shot.
- Cardassians are the worst second tier villains in the history of televison.
- Odo was a wannabe Worf.
- Kira was a wannabe Beverly.
- Archer should have taken that last leap home.
- T'Pol was eyecandy. A cardboard cutout probably has better acting chops.
- The JJprize is the ricer version of ENT-A.
So you see, there's lots and lots to hate on in Star Trek. No need to confine your hatred to just one aspect or show.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!