CBS Offers "Star Trek: Discovery" Season 2 Premiere for Free on YouTube

[dgingeri]

Haven't watched any DSC, because of the pay wall. I may check out the free episode to see if it is any good.

I think I am one of the few for whom VOY was my favorite of the bunch. Loved the concept, the new setting and the holo doc was awesome.

These days, the Expanse fulfills my sci fi cravings.

You can catch a lot of clips on Youtube from various sources, mostly CBS, and believe me, they're the best STD has to offer.

 

[nilepez]

Pushing the boundaries on social norms and straight up supporting toxic intersectional feminism are wildly different things. One of these things (Old trek) teaches us to be better humans, the other is a hate movement. Sorry but I don't support hate movements.

Unless feminist (in your view) means a female lead, then this isn't a feminist show. It's certainly not a hate movement show and I'm starting to think you didn't even see the first season, because it's not even kinda similar to whatever it is you're trying to describe.

 

[nilepez]

I don't like being preached at, and that was exactly what we got from several episodes of the first season. Their SJW propaganda was front and center right from the beginning, shoved down viewers' throats like the old penicillin pills before science reduced their size. It's a blunt instrument in their SJW movement, as their whole movement seems to only be able to use these days.

Old Trek didn't do that. Old Trek had lessons, sure, but they were subtle, and didn't eclipse the story or the setting. It was enjoyable to watch because of the story and the setting. The lessons were barely noticeable. They had decent writers. Even in the first season of TNG, the worst for their writers for certain, they still kept their lessons subtle, even if the lines were rather wooden and the characters underdeveloped.

STD's writers are completely incompetent for such things. They're incapable of subtlety, or writing a story that is enjoyable to watch. They won't fire the writers, either. The writers they have got their jobs because of the SJW movement, and such a movement refuses to take competence into account.

Seriously? Plato's Children's interracial kiss was controversial, if SJW had been a thing then, it would have been criticized by peeps like yourself and NO, the message wasn't subtle. They knew what htey were doing and they blew alternate takes without the kiss so that that the only cut was the one with the kiss.

Discovery wasn't about women or girl power. It just had a female lead.

 

[surlyroad]

Great. But I can't see season one unless I subscribe.

Nope Nope Nope,

 

[5150Joker]

Pushing the boundaries on social norms and straight up supporting toxic intersectional feminism are wildly different things. One of these things (Old trek) teaches us to be better humans, the other is a hate movement. Sorry but I don't support hate movements.

What? Because a black female lead is named Michael? Lol.

 

[dgingeri]

Seriously? Plato's Children's interracial kiss was controversial, if SJW had been a thing then, it would have been criticized by peeps like yourself and NO, the message wasn't subtle. They knew what htey were doing and they blew alternate takes without the kiss so that that the only cut was the one with the kiss.

Discovery wasn't about women or girl power. It just had a female lead.

That's not the preachy part about it. Just having a female lead isn't a big deal. I had no problems with Captain Janeway. I had no problems with Commander Ivanova in B5, either. Strong woman have been in strong positions for a long time, and that's just where they should be. Not to be specially applauded or discourage. Each person has their own place. So what? That's the way life should be. Only morons fight that.

The preachy part about it is the gay engineer and the almost constant mention of his relationship in the first 3 episodes, (edit: sorry, that would be episodes 3, 4, and 5. The pilot is considered two episodes, and I hadn't even realized it was there. the first one I saw was episode 3.) almost as bad as living with a vegan or crosstrainer. I only watched about 20 minutes of each before giving up on it, but in just 15 minutes of the second episode, I heard it mentioned 6 times. Another preachy part is that the female characters mention of "never would have been allowed in the past" about a dozen times over those three episodes, as if women today aren't allow to leave the kitchen. I later saw a clip of the one with Harry Mudd, and I think they mentioned capitalism in a negative manner 5 times in less than 3 minutes. That's being preachy. That's downright being browbeaten by that stupid SJW movement.

 

[M76]

The rest of the world gets it on Netflix.

Huh? This is a promotional attempt to give it away for free, I didn't know Netflix was supposed to be free for the rest of the world.

 

[M76]

The first reboot movie gave us hope, because a reboot that destroys the universe is the only way to clean the current-fucked Star Trek Experience

The universe wasn't fucked up before the reboot. They fucked it up specifically to make room for the reboot produced under an alternative license, because the head of CBS wanted nothing to do with Star Trek, but still wanted the revenue from old star trek merch.

 

[M76]

What? Because a black female lead is named Michael? Lol.

No, because we're supposed to like her because she 's a black female named Michael. And anyone disliking the character or the show is automatically labelled racist or sexist or both. Feminism used to stand for equal opportunity for women. Now it stands for: You're not allowed to dislike anything that feminists have dibs on.

This is not Star Trek, not because of the gender or race of the main character, but because off how it is written. There is no room in the Star Trek universe for self-important, self-infatuated, angry, selfish characters, with not even repressed rage against male authority figures. And that was the main plot of the pilot. Apart from making the klingons religious turds that howl at the moon and have zero honor.

 

[Dan_D]

One episode of the second season, I missed the first whole season except for the premiere which I thought sucked. Not sure of the rest of the episodes. Not going to pay CBS anything.

It does get better later in the season. I wouldn't call it good though.

I don't understand, why not make the first season ftw to lure people in for the second.

If they did that, no one would want to watch the second season.

I agree it's a great show, I don't understand all the whining.

The show is bad. The writing is bad, the characters are annoying and things like the Klingons were needlessly redesigned. Although, there is a very good reason for at least 25% of that. (Which I'll get to.)

What agenda?

The SJW agenda that infects the show in question. While I will say that this isn't quite as bad as many people make it out to be, there is some of that going on. There may be some course correction half-way through Season 2 as the show is now on its fourth or fifth show runner. Its been a clusterfuck from day one both in front of and behind the cameras.

Star Trek: In Name Only

This actually hits the nail on the head. Content and writing aside, it's Star Trek in name only because of the licensing agreements in use behind the scenes. CBS owns the Star Trek TV shows. Paramount owns the original movies. CBS has licensed out an "alternative copyright" license which mandates 25% of anything Paramount produces be different. This includes uniforms, aliens, and all kinds of crap. If they want to keep something the same with zero changes, that must be licensed separately. CBS has nothing to do with ANY Star Trek being produced right now. In short, they've gotten Netflix and other companies to foot the bill for a Star Trek they can use on CBS All Access that CBS doesn't actually pay for. Paramount is producing the series and CAN'T produce Star Trek that connects properly to the Prime Timeline despite their insistence that Discovery does fit the Prime Timeline.

 

[dgz]

I thought Season 1 opening episode was amazing. The entire first season was fantastic.

S2 opening was 40 minutes of mindless "girl power" scenes that made me feel uncomfortable because I was feeling the shame they should've felt while filming this nonsense. I didn't like it but they are probably trolling all the "real men" such as the anti SJW crowd in this very thread. Congrats to them if that's what they are doing. One such episode per season would be worth it.

 

[Stimpy88]

I enjoy it. I also enjoy that it makes some ST fans cry. Their tears sustain me. More please.

It's totally ok you like it, as long as you don't pretend to be a Star Trek fan. STD is Star Trek in name only. Maybe that is why ST fans don't like it?

I bet you loved the 2016 Ghostbusters movie too? Was you inspired by Chris Homsworths character, and look to it as a role model?

 

[Stimpy88]

im 15 minutes into it, have not seen any of season 1, but... it doesnt seem all too bad... i am only 15 minutes into it though

How good can it be if you're messing with your phone and social media while watching it? STD must be great, interesting, thought provoking stuff......

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Unless feminist (in your view) means a female lead, then this isn't a feminist show. It's certainly not a hate movement show and I'm starting to think you didn't even see the first season, because it's not even kinda similar to whatever it is you're trying to describe.

What? Because a black female lead is named Michael? Lol.

Has nothing to do with the actors and actresses themselves boys. If that was the case it would be lumping Voyager in there and I'm clearly not doing that as Voyager was great. It's the writing and the people in charge that are the problem. If you can't see what's going on you are either badly uninformed or being intentionally obtuse.

 

[THRESHIN]

Discovery wasn't about women or girl power. It just had a female lead.

Thank you so much for saying what I was thinking. Weather you guys like it or not, women, gay, lesbian, etc. Are part of our society. Get over it.

Hell, some of the women I work with have more balls than any guy I know.

As far as this not being trek, I can agree to a point. Its vastly different. But that doesn't mean I hate it, quite the opposite. I enjoy most sci-fi and I'm very happy with sonetht different. I don't need to see TNG over and over again even if it was pretty good.

I would have been happier if this wasn't a star trek show. Could have been an interesting new IP. But hey I can still enjoy it for what it is despite its many flaws.

 

[bigdogchris]

Heck, I * still * don't care for any of those, and I'd add * GASP * TNG to that list as well. I very much enjoyed TOS, TAS and the original cast motion pictures, though.

That all being said, I have been enjoying Discovery a good bit. It's not perfect, but it is enjoyable. I can't say the same for The Orville which seems to me to be just rehashed TNG with a little potty humor thrown in from time to time.

Yes, TOS fans said the same thing about TNG as fans are now saying about DSC. I didn't mention it because I, like most others, got started on Trek with TNG so it was my basis for what to judge everything else.

 

[Slade]

I feel like DSC is more caught between the JJ Abrams reboot and the old trek, not sure which direction to go. As far as topics go, relationships, sjw, politics etc... ST has ALWAYS treaded on those things at the time. Gay relationships? How often are we tossed ANY relationships in any series? I watch because of tech, and space sci-fi, I could care less who bones who but every show will "push" relationships, its nothing new to any TV/movie media.

ST TOS had the first black kisss on tv... TNG had ghost relationships and interspecies.... DS9 treaded on GODS... even Voyager pushed the idea of pong far (think about that Bel'anna episode and that vulcan guy hitting his 7 year and its weird what its "implications" are...)

 

[TMCM]

Season 1 was killer. I'm waiting for S2 to finish airing so I can binge watch it.

 

[Mr.Scarface]

I don't like being preached at, and that was exactly what we got from several episodes of the first season. Their SJW propaganda was front and center right from the beginning, shoved down viewers' throats like the old penicillin pills before science reduced their size. It's a blunt instrument in their SJW movement, as their whole movement seems to only be able to use these days.

Old Trek didn't do that. Old Trek had lessons, sure, but they were subtle, and didn't eclipse the story or the setting. It was enjoyable to watch because of the story and the setting. The lessons were barely noticeable. They had decent writers. Even in the first season of TNG, the worst for their writers for certain, they still kept their lessons subtle, even if the lines were rather wooden and the characters underdeveloped.

STD's writers are completely incompetent for such things. They're incapable of subtlety, or writing a story that is enjoyable to watch. They won't fire the writers, either. The writers they have got their jobs because of the SJW movement, and such a movement refuses to take competence into account.

Every time is see a white boy whine about SJW, I just SEE the bigotry DRIP from the keyboard. I hate to tell ya, the world is more diverse than it use to. Keep whining......most people don't care.

 

[Dayaks]

I feel like DSC is more caught between the JJ Abrams reboot and the old trek, not sure which direction to go. As far as topics go, relationships, sjw, politics etc... ST has ALWAYS treaded on those things at the time. Gay relationships? How often are we tossed ANY relationships in any series? I watch because of tech, and space sci-fi, I could care less who bones who but every show will "push" relationships, its nothing new to any TV/movie media.

ST TOS had the first black kisss on tv... TNG had ghost relationships and interspecies.... DS9 treaded on GODS... even Voyager pushed the idea of pong far (think about that Bel'anna episode and that vulcan guy hitting his 7 year and its weird what its "implications" are...)

Half of Star Trek has always been personal growth.

I’ll end up watching this eventually. The problem I see with the series is it’s like The Last Jedi for Star Wars.... they do things that don’t feel right in the Star Trek universe.

It’s also hard to explain but both of those shows do things in an obnoxious way. Ed on The Orville just fell in love with a very alien Krill but it felt real and not over the top.

 

[MrDeaf]

can't view it, because region locking

That's okay, I won't subscribe to CBS streaming anyways.

 

[daglesj]

It's totally ok you like it, as long as you don't pretend to be a Star Trek fan. STD is Star Trek in name only. Maybe that is why ST fans don't like it?

I bet you loved the 2016 Ghostbusters movie too? Was you inspired by Chris Homsworths character, and look to it as a role model?

Thats the biggest load of crap I've heard in a while, but you have every right to think that as a 14 year old.

I'll still keep enjoying your tears.

 

[harbingerofdoom]

How good can it be if you're messing with your phone and social media while watching it? STD must be great, interesting, thought provoking stuff......

i dunno about you, but i multitask.
i was also actually at work when i posted that as well... sooooooo.

 

[Silverlok]

It does get better later in the season. I wouldn't call it good though.



If they did that, no one would want to watch the second season.



The show is bad. The writing is bad, the characters are annoying and things like the Klingons were needlessly redesigned. Although, there is a very good reason for at least 25% of that. (Which I'll get to.)



The SJW agenda that infects the show in question. While I will say that this isn't quite as bad as many people make it out to be, there is some of that going on. There may be some course correction half-way through Season 2 as the show is now on its fourth or fifth show runner. Its been a clusterfuck from day one both in front of and behind the cameras.



This actually hits the nail on the head. Content and writing aside, it's Star Trek in name only because of the licensing agreements in use behind the scenes. CBS owns the Star Trek TV shows. Paramount owns the original movies. CBS has licensed out an "alternative copyright" license which mandates 25% of anything Paramount produces be different. This includes uniforms, aliens, and all kinds of crap. If they want to keep something the same with zero changes, that must be licensed separately. CBS has nothing to do with ANY Star Trek being produced right now. In short, they've gotten Netflix and other companies to foot the bill for a Star Trek they can use on CBS All Access that CBS doesn't actually pay for. Paramount is producing the series and CAN'T produce Star Trek that connects properly to the Prime Timeline despite their insistence that Discovery does fit the Prime Timeline.

Yes, i wonder about the focus group they use at CBS that like a preachy Mary Sue ( which makes any type of character arc impossible ) as a lead character.

But to add a bit to your financial info on STD ( again did they do that on purpose: STD? really? no focus group for the name contraction?) : Netflix invested 20 million for the first season, so CBS basically had a free pass to try to create a 'new' fanbase/money pool for their "all access" service.
Netflix's did not pay for season 2.
CBS had to foot the bill for Season 2. This was a desperate gamble that S2 would bring game of thrones like numbers to 'All Access'.
This has not happened ( in fact the rumor mill says that subscription numbers for CBS 'All Access' in Canada did not break double digits! )

No company in their right mind gives away for free a blockbuster flagship . The ONLY reason to release the E1 S2 on youtube is desperation. The people behind the decisions that shaped STD at CBS Are panicking because the show is flopping and the financial hemorrhaging it has created leave them in a situation where Paramount will almost certainly 'acquire' CBS by merger.
If this happens the people behind STD ( and STD itself ) will get kicked to the curb ( and almost certainly removed from cannon ) because Paramount does care about the Star Trek IP.

Unless STD S2 has some kind of course correction on par with the second coming ( of probably female ) Jesus hidden in upcoming episodes that draw in huge ( on the order of an additional 5 million subscribers minimum) dollars then it's show over , turn out the lights and lock the keys inside on your way out for CBS.

Makes one wonder if STD was done on purpose because Paramount had some inside men at CBS and wanted the thing to flop so they could merge the Trek IP back under one roof.

 

[5150Joker]

No, because we're supposed to like her because she 's a black female named Michael. And anyone disliking the character or the show is automatically labelled racist or sexist or both. Feminism used to stand for equal opportunity for women. Now it stands for: You're not allowed to dislike anything that feminists have dibs on.

This is not Star Trek, not because of the gender or race of the main character, but because off how it is written. There is no room in the Star Trek universe for self-important, self-infatuated, angry, selfish characters, with not even repressed rage against male authority figures. And that was the main plot of the pilot. Apart from making the klingons religious turds that howl at the moon and have zero honor.

I don't know what show you're talking about but that wasn't at all the plot to discovery. She went against another female captain and if you're referring to Lorca, he was never anyone's captain. She's not portrayed as angry, self important or any other descriptions you've tried to ascribe. Seems to me you're just creating faux outrage.

Has nothing to do with the actors and actresses themselves boys. If that was the case it would be lumping Voyager in there and I'm clearly not doing that as Voyager was great. It's the writing and the people in charge that are the problem. If you can't see what's going on you are either badly uninformed or being intentionally obtuse.

So why don't you enlighten us with actual facts to support your theory.

 

[5150Joker]

The SJW agenda that infects the show in question. While I will say that this isn't quite as bad as many people make it out to be, there is some of that going on.

What SJW agenda? Having a couple gay guys in the show is now an agenda?

 

[The Mad Atheist]

They can shove that std right up their ass !! That shit isnt star trek, oh hell no !! if the entire usa would see that shit there would be riots at the cbs office, people with torches ready to burn down the std set.

God bless Seth Macfarland, savior of star trek !! The ongoing mission to seek out strange new worlds, and go where no man has gone before on the Orville.

That moment when you 1st read it as sexually transmitted disease......lol

Can't see paying for anymore liberal sjw crap to watch.
Edit: even if it's free.

I get enough of that crap in real life.

 

[runudownquick]

I enjoy it. I also enjoy that it makes some ST fans cry. Their tears sustain me. More please.

I too love seeing all these people gatekeeping Star Trek.

"I don't like it, therefore it should be cancelled"

 

[acidrain97]

just use the KODI plug in Yoda and download this shit. CBS can kiss my ass. Shit gets canceled because of free downloading? Oh well. TV shows are replaceable. So far the first 2 episodes are actually pretty good. First season was shit.

 

[Dan_D]

What SJW agenda? Having a couple gay guys in the show is now an agenda?

No. Not really. It goes far deeper than that. The problem with the main character isn't that she's a woman, or that she's black. Its that she's a Mary Sue in the same tradition as Rey in the current Star Wars Trilogy. As for the gay couple, I thought it was handled fairly well. Its a bit "in your face" but it was handled like a normal relationship for the most part with normal problems. I'll actually give them props for that. To be perfectly honest, I think too many people cry about the SJW stuff. I only agreed that its in there because someone else mentioned it. It surely is, but I'd give most of the perceived SJW crap a pass. But, if you want to get into it, I think its interesting that the heterosexual white men are all villains, the women don't need help from anyone with a penis unless that penis is attached to a gay man and its all "girl power" all the time. The bridge crew's demographic in favor of women hasn't ever been seen since the "Bridge Bunnies" on Robotech / Macross Season 1. In that show, it's viewed as sexist today. Yet Discovery gets a pass for this. Virtually every man in the show is some bad guy or some insecure and weak individual who wouldn't have made it through Starfleet Academy in the first place.

While I acknowledge this is blatant, and an SJW agenda is there, its actually not the shows most prominent issue.

You could argue that Star Trek has always been very liberal and very progressive. What it also had before was subtlety. Something the current writing staff wouldn't know anything about. There is a difference between equality and propping up one group at another's expense. Most current "woke" media is the latter. They don't care about equality and they only cast for diversity based on a quota rather than acting ability. See Doctor Who's latest series for an example of this. Star Trek isn't nearly that bad.

Has nothing to do with the actors and actresses themselves boys. If that was the case it would be lumping Voyager in there and I'm clearly not doing that as Voyager was great. It's the writing and the people in charge that are the problem. If you can't see what's going on you are either badly uninformed or being intentionally obtuse.

Voyager is not great. Voyager is in some ways, the worst Star Trek series of them all outside of Discovery. Its writing is inconsistent, its characters are often inconsistent and several "creative" choices were made which negatively impacted the story and the Star Trek universe as a whole. Dumbing down the Borg and making them weak was one serious issue that comes to mind. The show relied on too many of the same tropes way too much. Time travel being the big one. In one episode arc, the ship goes back in time and ends up 70,000 light years across the galaxy at EARTH. All they'd need to do is go forward of that to get home. Its not like it wasn't known or easy to do time travel the way it was done in TOS or Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

The show has its strong points, but overall it trade's blows with Enterprise for being bad.

I feel like DSC is more caught between the JJ Abrams reboot and the old trek, not sure which direction to go. As far as topics go, relationships, sjw, politics etc... ST has ALWAYS treaded on those things at the time. Gay relationships? How often are we tossed ANY relationships in any series? I watch because of tech, and space sci-fi, I could care less who bones who but every show will "push" relationships, its nothing new to any TV/movie media.

ST TOS had the first black kisss on tv... TNG had ghost relationships and interspecies.... DS9 treaded on GODS... even Voyager pushed the idea of pong far (think about that Bel'anna episode and that vulcan guy hitting his 7 year and its weird what its "implications" are...)

Well, it is. The reason for this is because Paramount is producing it under it's alternative copyright license just like the reboot films. Its made to have some match to those. Its also worth noting that the current showrunner is Alex Kurtzman, who was involved in the reboot films.

Every time is see a white boy whine about SJW, I just SEE the bigotry DRIP from the keyboard. I hate to tell ya, the world is more diverse than it use to. Keep whining......most people don't care.

If that's all you see, you need to get your eyes checked. While I'll agree there is certainly some of that, actually reading those comments might help you understand what's really going on. I am not seeing anyone trash Discovery for having a female lead or a black female lead. I haven't seen too many criticisms of the gay couple or anything like that either. I'm sure there are some people like that, but a few comments do not mean this is true for the vast majority of people who don't like the show. The reasons why people dislike that show are considerably different than what you seem to think they are. It may be hard for you to comprehend, but heterosexual white men can hate a show based on reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry.

Someone isn't a bigot just because they don't like Michael Burnham. You need to understand the reason behind the statement before you can actually judge whether or not the reason is simple bigotry. Let's try this: I don't like Michael Burnham. The right response to that statement would be a question. Instead, people like you seem to assume that statement has only one or two reasons behind it. Those being sexism and or racism. You are making an assumption without even asking yourself, much less the person making the statement if that sentiment is even remotely true.

That question in response to that statement would or should be; "Why don't you like Michael Burnham?" Now, if I said; "I don't like her character because the actress is black and because she is a woman." you could call me a bigot and if that were my actual answer, you would be right. However, this isn't my real answer. It isn't the reason I made that statement. The real answer to that question is: "I don't like Michael Burnham because she is a Mary Sue and because she's a badly written, unrealistic and unlikable character." I never said anything about her being female or black. I have nothing against the actress herself. It might be news to you, but straight white men have accepted strong female leads for DECADES now. Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Wonder Woman (from the 1970's no less) and just about every lone female survivor / protagonist of horror movies just to name a few. Diverse casting doesn't bother me unless people are getting the job based on the color of their skin rather than merit. This is bad if its white people being cast if they are white or black, Hispanic etc. being cast just because their ethnicity. Now, this is somewhat of a gray area because some characters may be one gender or race in their source material and changing that just to be "diverse" is bullshit.

Star Trek Discovery sucks, not because the cast has a ton of women in it. It doesn't suck just because of some of the restyled elements, although some, like the Klingons are hard to take because they create issues with canon. The reason Star Trek Discovery blows is because its badly written, has no grounding in science fact, (which was a hallmark of earlier series prior to V'ger) and creates tons of issues with Star Trek canon. You do not win over your fan base by offering something that's Incongruent with previous entries in a beloved franchise like Star Trek. There are several mistakes. Put any notions of SJW bullshit aside, which admittedly are overblown despite some obvious agenda pushing in the series. As I said, that's not even close to the worst of the show's issues.

The show has a singular main character instead of being more of an ensemble cast. Yes, Worf, Data and Picard ended up getting more focus as Star Trek: The Next Generation progressed, but primarily because those proved to be the most popular characters. Michael Burnham is the main character in STD and she's not remotely believable, realistic or likable. She's a Mary Sue and can do everything better than everyone else. Within the show's narrative, she's blamed for the start of the war with the Klingons even though her mutiny failed and she never fired the first shot. Klingons ultimately fired first and while you could argue her intent was to start a war, she didn't do it. The show's premise is also that the Discovery has a new type of FTL drive that is powered by space shrooms and some guy getting high in a sealed chamber. Its a cross between the blink drive from Dark Matter and the Spice Navigators in Dune. I'm not exaggerating, that's really the premise of the show. The show violates Star Trek canon in so many ways it boggles my mind. This would be fine if it were an alternate universe, but the arrogant producers insist it lines up with the Prime Timeline.

Once again, STD's issues have nothing to do with the main character being black or female. It has nothing to do with having a gay couple on the show either. I've actually defended the show (even despite having issues with it) for not being as bad as many people say it is. I think it is bad, but you have to stick it out through the whole season to see that it isn't as bad as one might initially believe. Having said that, the show has a ton of flaws and the biggest among them is it doesn't feel like Star Trek at all. People want more of what they like. Long time fans of Star Trek want more of what drew them to the TV shows and films in the first place. We'd like to see new material in the same vein as the stuff we loved. Whether you can understand this or not, the main problem with STD has nothing to do with bigotry. It has everything to do with the fact that the show before us is nothing like the Star Trek we know. Its so different its unrecognizable. The stories aren't even remotely similar to what we've seen in the past. Star Trek occasionally goes to dark places, but its always been more utopian rather than dystopian. STD is more the latter than the former. This is why people flock to watching the Orville. Its more like the Star Trek we know and love than anything produced in the last decade by people with access to a Star Trek license.

You see "bigotry" drip from the keyboard. All I see in responses from people like you is ignorance dripping from the keyboard. It's ironic that the people who throw the most stones at other people for being closed minded are in fact, the most closed minded people out there with the most limited world view.

 

[noko]

No. Not really. It goes far deeper than that. The problem with the main character isn't that she's a woman, or that she's black. Its that she's a Mary Sue in the same tradition as Rey in the current Star Wars Trilogy. As for the gay couple, I thought it was handled fairly well. Its a bit "in your face" but it was handled like a normal relationship for the most part with normal problems. I'll actually give them props for that. To be perfectly honest, I think too many people cry about the SJW stuff. I only agreed that its in there because someone else mentioned it. It surely is, but I'd give most of the perceived SJW crap a pass. But, if you want to get into it, I think its interesting that the heterosexual white men are all villains, the women don't need help from anyone with a penis unless that penis is attached to a gay man and its all "girl power" all the time. The bridge crew's demographic in favor of women hasn't ever been seen since the "Bridge Bunnies" on Robotech / Macross Season 1. In that show, it's viewed as sexist today. Yet Discovery gets a pass for this. Virtually every man in the show is some bad guy or some insecure and weak individual who wouldn't have made it through Starfleet Academy in the first place.

While I acknowledge this is blatant, and an SJW agenda is there, its actually not the shows most prominent issue.

You could argue that Star Trek has always been very liberal and very progressive. What it also had before was subtlety. Something the current writing staff wouldn't know anything about. There is a difference between equality and propping up one group at another's expense. Most current "woke" media is the latter. They don't care about equality and they only cast for diversity based on a quota rather than acting ability. See Doctor Who's latest series for an example of this. Star Trek isn't nearly that bad.



Voyager is not great. Voyager is in some ways, the worst Star Trek series of them all outside of Discovery. Its writing is inconsistent, its characters are often inconsistent and several "creative" choices were made which negatively impacted the story and the Star Trek universe as a whole. Dumbing down the Borg and making them weak was one serious issue that comes to mind. The show relied on too many of the same tropes way too much. Time travel being the big one. In one episode arc, the ship goes back in time and ends up 70,000 light years across the galaxy at EARTH. All they'd need to do is go forward of that to get home. Its not like it wasn't known or easy to do time travel the way it was done in TOS or Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

The show has its strong points, but overall it trade's blows with Enterprise for being bad.



Well, it is. The reason for this is because Paramount is producing it under it's alternative copyright license just like the reboot films. Its made to have some match to those. Its also worth noting that the current showrunner is Alex Kurtzman, who was involved in the reboot films.



If that's all you see, you need to get your eyes checked. While I'll agree there is certainly some of that, actually reading those comments might help you understand what's really going on. I am not seeing anyone trash Discovery for having a female lead or a black female lead. I haven't seen too many criticisms of the gay couple or anything like that either. I'm sure there are some people like that, but a few comments do not mean this is true for the vast majority of people who don't like the show. The reasons why people dislike that show are considerably different than what you seem to think they are. It may be hard for you to comprehend, but heterosexual white men can hate a show based on reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry.

Someone isn't a bigot just because they don't like Michael Burnham. You need to understand the reason behind the statement before you can actually judge whether or not the reason is simple bigotry. Let's try this: I don't like Michael Burnham. The right response to that statement would be a question. Instead, people like you seem to assume that statement has only one or two reasons behind it. Those being sexism and or racism. You are making an assumption without even asking yourself, much less the person making the statement if that sentiment is even remotely true.

That question in response to that statement would or should be; "Why don't you like Michael Burnham?" Now, if I said; "I don't like her character because the actress is black and because she is a woman." you could call me a bigot and if that were my actual answer, you would be right. However, this isn't my real answer. It isn't the reason I made that statement. The real answer to that question is: "I don't like Michael Burnham because she is a Mary Sue and because she's a badly written, unrealistic and unlikable character." I never said anything about her being female or black. I have nothing against the actress herself. It might be news to you, but straight white men have accepted strong female leads for DECADES now. Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Wonder Woman (from the 1970's no less) and just about every lone female survivor / protagonist of horror movies just to name a few. Diverse casting doesn't bother me unless people are getting the job based on the color of their skin rather than merit. This is bad if its white people being cast if they are white or black, Hispanic etc. being cast just because their ethnicity. Now, this is somewhat of a gray area because some characters may be one gender or race in their source material and changing that just to be "diverse" is bullshit.

Star Trek Discovery sucks, not because the cast has a ton of women in it. It doesn't suck just because of some of the restyled elements, although some, like the Klingons are hard to take because they create issues with canon. The reason Star Trek Discovery blows is because its badly written, has no grounding in science fact, (which was a hallmark of earlier series prior to V'ger) and creates tons of issues with Star Trek canon. You do not win over your fan base by offering something that's Incongruent with previous entries in a beloved franchise like Star Trek. There are several mistakes. Put any notions of SJW bullshit aside, which admittedly are overblown despite some obvious agenda pushing in the series. As I said, that's not even close to the worst of the show's issues.

The show has a singular main character instead of being more of an ensemble cast. Yes, Worf, Data and Picard ended up getting more focus as Star Trek: The Next Generation progressed, but primarily because those proved to be the most popular characters. Michael Burnham is the main character in STD and she's not remotely believable, realistic or likable. She's a Mary Sue and can do everything better than everyone else. Within the show's narrative, she's blamed for the start of the war with the Klingons even though her mutiny failed and she never fired the first shot. Klingons ultimately fired first and while you could argue her intent was to start a war, she didn't do it. The show's premise is also that the Discovery has a new type of FTL drive that is powered by space shrooms and some guy getting high in a sealed chamber. Its a cross between the blink drive from Dark Matter and the Spice Navigators in Dune. I'm not exaggerating, that's really the premise of the show. The show violates Star Trek canon in so many ways it boggles my mind. This would be fine if it were an alternate universe, but the arrogant producers insist it lines up with the Prime Timeline.

Once again, STD's issues have nothing to do with the main character being black or female. It has nothing to do with having a gay couple on the show either. I've actually defended the show (even despite having issues with it) for not being as bad as many people say it is. I think it is bad, but you have to stick it out through the whole season to see that it isn't as bad as one might initially believe. Having said that, the show has a ton of flaws and the biggest among them is it doesn't feel like Star Trek at all. People want more of what they like. Long time fans of Star Trek want more of what drew them to the TV shows and films in the first place. We'd like to see new material in the same vein as the stuff we loved. Whether you can understand this or not, the main problem with STD has nothing to do with bigotry. It has everything to do with the fact that the show before us is nothing like the Star Trek we know. Its so different its unrecognizable. The stories aren't even remotely similar to what we've seen in the past. Star Trek occasionally goes to dark places, but its always been more utopian rather than dystopian. STD is more the latter than the former. This is why people flock to watching the Orville. Its more like the Star Trek we know and love than anything produced in the last decade by people with access to a Star Trek license.

You see "bigotry" drip from the keyboard. All I see in responses from people like you is ignorance dripping from the keyboard. It's ironic that the people who throw the most stones at other people for being closed minded are in fact, the most closed minded people out there with the most limited world view.

lol, not very encouraging to spend time in this show. Now I liked Voyager minus some of the bazaar episodes (going over Warp 10), from season 3 and on it was gold for me. First season was rough but the characters/actors worked into something that told the story, at least for me. Maybe I just melted when 7 of 9 showed up

 

[M76]

I don't know what show you're talking about but that wasn't at all the plot to discovery. She went against another female captain and if you're referring to Lorca, he was never anyone's captain.

Yes, she defied the female captain too, and disobeyed orders, put her entire crew at unnecessary risk, went head to head for sake of pride and ego against another crew member, while neglecting her duty as an officer. And it all culminated in a giant ripoff of Spock's spacewalk scene from the original Star Trek Motion Picture. Except Spock at the time just returned from an extended leave of absence, wasn't even officially reinstated yet. Since Dekkard was the first officer at the time. But of course she's not the only thing that is wrong with discovery, but the character is a major part of what's wrong with STD. What was even worse is that the alien who she competed with for ego reasons, took the challenge didn't say hey, this rivalry is stupid and puts the mission at risk. That's the opposite of Star Trek values. Instead of the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one STD's message is: One's ego outweighs the needs of the entire crew and everything that starfleet uses to stand for.

She's not portrayed as angry, self important or any other descriptions you've tried to ascribe. Seems to me you're just creating faux outrage.

If they weren't trying to portray her as such, then it is even worse, since that is how it came across regardless of what they wanted.
Why would I create faux outrage? I was desperate for some new Star Trek on TV, you don't know how excited I was when they announced discovery! So if I could I would like it. Hell if I didn't absolutely hate every minute of the pilot I'd have tried to continue watching the show.
But STD took my idea of Star Trek crumpled it up like a piece of paper then threw it out the window, only for The Orville to pick it up and try to put it back together.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

No. Not really. It goes far deeper than that. The problem with the main character isn't that she's a woman, or that she's black. Its that she's a Mary Sue in the same tradition as Rey in the current Star Wars Trilogy. As for the gay couple, I thought it was handled fairly well. Its a bit "in your face" but it was handled like a normal relationship for the most part with normal problems. I'll actually give them props for that. To be perfectly honest, I think too many people cry about the SJW stuff. I only agreed that its in there because someone else mentioned it. It surely is, but I'd give most of the perceived SJW crap a pass. But, if you want to get into it, I think its interesting that the heterosexual white men are all villains, the women don't need help from anyone with a penis unless that penis is attached to a gay man and its all "girl power" all the time. The bridge crew's demographic in favor of women hasn't ever been seen since the "Bridge Bunnies" on Robotech / Macross Season 1. In that show, it's viewed as sexist today. Yet Discovery gets a pass for this. Virtually every man in the show is some bad guy or some insecure and weak individual who wouldn't have made it through Starfleet Academy in the first place.

While I acknowledge this is blatant, and an SJW agenda is there, its actually not the shows most prominent issue.

You could argue that Star Trek has always been very liberal and very progressive. What it also had before was subtlety. Something the current writing staff wouldn't know anything about. There is a difference between equality and propping up one group at another's expense. Most current "woke" media is the latter. They don't care about equality and they only cast for diversity based on a quota rather than acting ability. See Doctor Who's latest series for an example of this. Star Trek isn't nearly that bad.



Voyager is not great. Voyager is in some ways, the worst Star Trek series of them all outside of Discovery. Its writing is inconsistent, its characters are often inconsistent and several "creative" choices were made which negatively impacted the story and the Star Trek universe as a whole. Dumbing down the Borg and making them weak was one serious issue that comes to mind. The show relied on too many of the same tropes way too much. Time travel being the big one. In one episode arc, the ship goes back in time and ends up 70,000 light years across the galaxy at EARTH. All they'd need to do is go forward of that to get home. Its not like it wasn't known or easy to do time travel the way it was done in TOS or Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.

The show has its strong points, but overall it trade's blows with Enterprise for being bad.



Well, it is. The reason for this is because Paramount is producing it under it's alternative copyright license just like the reboot films. Its made to have some match to those. Its also worth noting that the current showrunner is Alex Kurtzman, who was involved in the reboot films.



If that's all you see, you need to get your eyes checked. While I'll agree there is certainly some of that, actually reading those comments might help you understand what's really going on. I am not seeing anyone trash Discovery for having a female lead or a black female lead. I haven't seen too many criticisms of the gay couple or anything like that either. I'm sure there are some people like that, but a few comments do not mean this is true for the vast majority of people who don't like the show. The reasons why people dislike that show are considerably different than what you seem to think they are. It may be hard for you to comprehend, but heterosexual white men can hate a show based on reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry.

Someone isn't a bigot just because they don't like Michael Burnham. You need to understand the reason behind the statement before you can actually judge whether or not the reason is simple bigotry. Let's try this: I don't like Michael Burnham. The right response to that statement would be a question. Instead, people like you seem to assume that statement has only one or two reasons behind it. Those being sexism and or racism. You are making an assumption without even asking yourself, much less the person making the statement if that sentiment is even remotely true.

That question in response to that statement would or should be; "Why don't you like Michael Burnham?" Now, if I said; "I don't like her character because the actress is black and because she is a woman." you could call me a bigot and if that were my actual answer, you would be right. However, this isn't my real answer. It isn't the reason I made that statement. The real answer to that question is: "I don't like Michael Burnham because she is a Mary Sue and because she's a badly written, unrealistic and unlikable character." I never said anything about her being female or black. I have nothing against the actress herself. It might be news to you, but straight white men have accepted strong female leads for DECADES now. Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Wonder Woman (from the 1970's no less) and just about every lone female survivor / protagonist of horror movies just to name a few. Diverse casting doesn't bother me unless people are getting the job based on the color of their skin rather than merit. This is bad if its white people being cast if they are white or black, Hispanic etc. being cast just because their ethnicity. Now, this is somewhat of a gray area because some characters may be one gender or race in their source material and changing that just to be "diverse" is bullshit.

Star Trek Discovery sucks, not because the cast has a ton of women in it. It doesn't suck just because of some of the restyled elements, although some, like the Klingons are hard to take because they create issues with canon. The reason Star Trek Discovery blows is because its badly written, has no grounding in science fact, (which was a hallmark of earlier series prior to V'ger) and creates tons of issues with Star Trek canon. You do not win over your fan base by offering something that's Incongruent with previous entries in a beloved franchise like Star Trek. There are several mistakes. Put any notions of SJW bullshit aside, which admittedly are overblown despite some obvious agenda pushing in the series. As I said, that's not even close to the worst of the show's issues.

The show has a singular main character instead of being more of an ensemble cast. Yes, Worf, Data and Picard ended up getting more focus as Star Trek: The Next Generation progressed, but primarily because those proved to be the most popular characters. Michael Burnham is the main character in STD and she's not remotely believable, realistic or likable. She's a Mary Sue and can do everything better than everyone else. Within the show's narrative, she's blamed for the start of the war with the Klingons even though her mutiny failed and she never fired the first shot. Klingons ultimately fired first and while you could argue her intent was to start a war, she didn't do it. The show's premise is also that the Discovery has a new type of FTL drive that is powered by space shrooms and some guy getting high in a sealed chamber. Its a cross between the blink drive from Dark Matter and the Spice Navigators in Dune. I'm not exaggerating, that's really the premise of the show. The show violates Star Trek canon in so many ways it boggles my mind. This would be fine if it were an alternate universe, but the arrogant producers insist it lines up with the Prime Timeline.

Once again, STD's issues have nothing to do with the main character being black or female. It has nothing to do with having a gay couple on the show either. I've actually defended the show (even despite having issues with it) for not being as bad as many people say it is. I think it is bad, but you have to stick it out through the whole season to see that it isn't as bad as one might initially believe. Having said that, the show has a ton of flaws and the biggest among them is it doesn't feel like Star Trek at all. People want more of what they like. Long time fans of Star Trek want more of what drew them to the TV shows and films in the first place. We'd like to see new material in the same vein as the stuff we loved. Whether you can understand this or not, the main problem with STD has nothing to do with bigotry. It has everything to do with the fact that the show before us is nothing like the Star Trek we know. Its so different its unrecognizable. The stories aren't even remotely similar to what we've seen in the past. Star Trek occasionally goes to dark places, but its always been more utopian rather than dystopian. STD is more the latter than the former. This is why people flock to watching the Orville. Its more like the Star Trek we know and love than anything produced in the last decade by people with access to a Star Trek license.

You see "bigotry" drip from the keyboard. All I see in responses from people like you is ignorance dripping from the keyboard. It's ironic that the people who throw the most stones at other people for being closed minded are in fact, the most closed minded people out there with the most limited world view.

Responding only to my part, voyager being great was perhaps a little "rose colored" from me. I was pretty much referring to in respect to everything since. Also the show grew on me a bit over the years despite its very obvious flaws. Enterprise as you mentioned was just bad and STD is an absolute dumpster fire. I 100% agree with the rest of your statements and will just defer to them in regards to the clowns trying to claim STD isn't utterly full of nonsense.

 

[Brackle]

I will have to say, Season 2 already is leaps and bounds better then season 1. Loving Captain Pike!

 

[Stimpy88]

Some serious SJW/NPC activity in this thread... You can tell because they are the aggressive ones with no foundation for their arguments, and simply resort to calling names when their opinion is challenged... So if we don't agree with you, are we man-babies, misogynists, homophobes, privileged white males, you know, the usual shit.

You can't win against an NPC, the only real choice is not to play.

 

[NKD]

Man if you hate the show just because its subscription-only it ain't doing it justice. Go ahead and sign up for 7 days free and binge the shit out of the first season. I used the 7 days free to binge the first season and thoroughly enjoyed it, it got better and better as it went on. Built up quite well to the finale with a twist I wasn't expecting at all. If you are already biased and going to hate it, sucks for you. But if you leave that aside I am sure you will like the effort that they put into the show.

 

[NKD]

Haven't watched any DSC, because of the pay wall. I may check out the free episode to see if it is any good.

I think I am one of the few for whom VOY was my favorite of the bunch. Loved the concept, the new setting and the holo doc was awesome.

These days, the Expanse fulfills my sci fi cravings.

Can't wait for expanse to come back. But try out CBS all access, you get 7 days free enough to binge through it. Season 1 really builds up in the second half and goes out with a bang.

 

[ManofGod]

Boring. Also, why do they not have a human male captain named Maria?

 

[5150Joker]

No. Not really. It goes far deeper than that. The problem with the main character isn't that she's a woman, or that she's black. Its that she's a Mary Sue in the same tradition as Rey in the current Star Wars Trilogy. As for the gay couple, I thought it was handled fairly well. Its a bit "in your face" but it was handled like a normal relationship for the most part with normal problems. I'll actually give them props for that. To be perfectly honest, I think too many people cry about the SJW stuff. I only agreed that its in there because someone else mentioned it. It surely is, but I'd give most of the perceived SJW crap a pass. But, if you want to get into it, I think its interesting that the heterosexual white men are all villains, the women don't need help from anyone with a penis unless that penis is attached to a gay man and its all "girl power" all the time. The bridge crew's demographic in favor of women hasn't ever been seen since the "Bridge Bunnies" on Robotech / Macross Season 1. In that show, it's viewed as sexist today. Yet Discovery gets a pass for this. Virtually every man in the show is some bad guy or some insecure and weak individual who wouldn't have made it through Starfleet Academy in the first place.

Ok that link is something I've never read before. The thing is the Klingons of that time period were always hostile towards the federation and were imperialistic (though not really xenophobic). In fact, later in Discovery Ash, Burnham and the alternate universe Captain go to Qnos and there's all kinds of species there so clearly Klingons are not as racist/xenophobic as that interview suggests. That's why I think the claims of SJW or Klingons not being true to their character rings hollow. I hate the redesign of them as well but I don't see any parallels with them and Trump.

If that's all you see, you need to get your eyes checked. While I'll agree there is certainly some of that, actually reading those comments might help you understand what's really going on. I am not seeing anyone trash Discovery for having a female lead or a black female lead. I haven't seen too many criticisms of the gay couple or anything like that either. I'm sure there are some people like that, but a few comments do not mean this is true for the vast majority of people who don't like the show. The reasons why people dislike that show are considerably different than what you seem to think they are. It may be hard for you to comprehend, but heterosexual white men can hate a show based on reasons that have nothing to do with bigotry.

Someone isn't a bigot just because they don't like Michael Burnham. You need to understand the reason behind the statement before you can actually judge whether or not the reason is simple bigotry. Let's try this: I don't like Michael Burnham. The right response to that statement would be a question. Instead, people like you seem to assume that statement has only one or two reasons behind it. Those being sexism and or racism. You are making an assumption without even asking yourself, much less the person making the statement if that sentiment is even remotely true.

That question in response to that statement would or should be; "Why don't you like Michael Burnham?" Now, if I said; "I don't like her character because the actress is black and because she is a woman." you could call me a bigot and if that were my actual answer, you would be right. However, this isn't my real answer. It isn't the reason I made that statement. The real answer to that question is: "I don't like Michael Burnham because she is a Mary Sue and because she's a badly written, unrealistic and unlikable character." I never said anything about her being female or black. I have nothing against the actress herself. It might be news to you, but straight white men have accepted strong female leads for DECADES now. Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Wonder Woman (from the 1970's no less) and just about every lone female survivor / protagonist of horror movies just to name a few. Diverse casting doesn't bother me unless people are getting the job based on the color of their skin rather than merit. This is bad if its white people being cast if they are white or black, Hispanic etc. being cast just because their ethnicity. Now, this is somewhat of a gray area because some characters may be one gender or race in their source material and changing that just to be "diverse" is bullshit.

PERSONALLY I can't stand Michael Burnham, I think she is a very contrived character that is a wannabe spock + generic human emotions attached. BUT I don't see any hardcore SJW agenda being pushed with her apart from the name being Michael which isn't all that SJW to be honest. I have a friend from the UK that is male named Ashley, does that mean his parents were SJWs?

Star Trek Discovery sucks, not because the cast has a ton of women in it. It doesn't suck just because of some of the restyled elements, although some, like the Klingons are hard to take because they create issues with canon. The reason Star Trek Discovery blows is because its badly written, has no grounding in science fact, (which was a hallmark of earlier series prior to V'ger) and creates tons of issues with Star Trek canon. You do not win over your fan base by offering something that's Incongruent with previous entries in a beloved franchise like Star Trek. There are several mistakes. Put any notions of SJW bullshit aside, which admittedly are overblown despite some obvious agenda pushing in the series. As I said, that's not even close to the worst of the show's issues.

The show has a singular main character instead of being more of an ensemble cast. Yes, Worf, Data and Picard ended up getting more focus as Star Trek: The Next Generation progressed, but primarily because those proved to be the most popular characters. Michael Burnham is the main character in STD and she's not remotely believable, realistic or likable. She's a Mary Sue and can do everything better than everyone else. Within the show's narrative, she's blamed for the start of the war with the Klingons even though her mutiny failed and she never fired the first shot. Klingons ultimately fired first and while you could argue her intent was to start a war, she didn't do it. The show's premise is also that the Discovery has a new type of FTL drive that is powered by space shrooms and some guy getting high in a sealed chamber. Its a cross between the blink drive from Dark Matter and the Spice Navigators in Dune. I'm not exaggerating, that's really the premise of the show. The show violates Star Trek canon in so many ways it boggles my mind. This would be fine if it were an alternate universe, but the arrogant producers insist it lines up with the Prime Timeline.

With regards to the spore drive psuedo science I completely agree, it was a cheap plot mechanic and I really disliked it. However, it's still Star Trek and every scientific concept on that show is b.s. and it started with TOS and the transporter (they wrote it in to save on money for special effects) so the spore drive is just another typical Star Trek contrived plot device. I mean just look at past Star Trek shows like DS:9 and the prophets which was incredibly annoying and cringy which I think is worse than this.

Once again, STD's issues have nothing to do with the main character being black or female. It has nothing to do with having a gay couple on the show either. I've actually defended the show (even despite having issues with it) for not being as bad as many people say it is. I think it is bad, but you have to stick it out through the whole season to see that it isn't as bad as one might initially believe. Having said that, the show has a ton of flaws and the biggest among them is it doesn't feel like Star Trek at all. People want more of what they like. Long time fans of Star Trek want more of what drew them to the TV shows and films in the first place. We'd like to see new material in the same vein as the stuff we loved. Whether you can understand this or not, the main problem with STD has nothing to do with bigotry. It has everything to do with the fact that the show before us is nothing like the Star Trek we know. Its so different its unrecognizable. The stories aren't even remotely similar to what we've seen in the past. Star Trek occasionally goes to dark places, but its always been more utopian rather than dystopian. STD is more the latter than the former. This is why people flock to watching the Orville. Its more like the Star Trek we know and love than anything produced in the last decade by people with access to a Star Trek license.

You see "bigotry" drip from the keyboard. All I see in responses from people like you is ignorance dripping from the keyboard. It's ironic that the people who throw the most stones at other people for being closed minded are in fact, the most closed minded people out there with the most limited world view.

You know what I find amusing is people say Discovery is SJW crap and praise Orville but Orville has FAR more liberal SJW messages embedded in it. From bortis and his gay husband's child being sexually reassigned to Captain Mercer being a typified White male weak cuck who still wants his ex-wife back after she bones some blue alien and then he subsequently bangs the dude too and doesn't think afterwards "holy shit I just banged a guy". Instead they just brush it off as just another day at the office.

 

[Dan_D]

Man if you hate the show just because its subscription-only it ain't doing it justice. Go ahead and sign up for 7 days free and binge the shit out of the first season. I used the 7 days free to binge the first season and thoroughly enjoyed it, it got better and better as it went on. Built up quite well to the finale with a twist I wasn't expecting at all. If you are already biased and going to hate it, sucks for you. But if you leave that aside I am sure you will like the effort that they put into the show.

You mean that twist that makes zero sense?

Spoiler: Plot "twist" that makes no sense.

I think you are probably talking about Captain Lorca being from the mirror universe. I have some issues with this. First, and foremost, the creative people behind Deep Space Nine went to this well far too often. It didn't stop Enterprise either. It was probably the best arc / episodes of Enterprise, so I'll give them credit where it is due. My second problem with it in this case is that the appearance of characters from the mirror universe predates the discovery of that universe in TOS. This creates an obvious issue with Star Trek canon. My third problem is the "light sensitivity" nonsense. Essentially, everyone in the "mirror universe" is sensitive to light. Why? This makes no sense and isn't elaborated on. This is an example of throwing something into the story early on as forshadowing so you look competent, but the problem is that no one would have known this foreshadowed anything because it wasn't part of the mirror universe in any of its appearances.

Some people have pointed out that the mirror universe appeared darker in DS9 and Enterprise than our universe, but this isn't because there is less light in that universe. Rather, it is due to artistic style being added to make that universe seem oppressed and darker in tone. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. This is an absolute failure to understand the Star Trek source material on the part of STD's writing staff and one of the many symptoms of what's wrong with the show's production.

As I've said, the show isn't nearly quite as bad as it sounds. Despite the retarded "Space Shroom" drive and some other contrived BS, the show is relatively entertaining. However, it isn't the somewhat action packed and largely cerebral Star Trek of old. It's more action driven and darker in tone to be "edgy" like the reboot films. It has lost a lot of what made Star Trek what it was. That's the biggest problem with modern Star Trek. It has lost the essence of what made it interesting. I can certainly appreciate the darker tone and added realism in some respects. I have no problem with the way Discovery explores sexuality among its characters or the fact that they use profanity. I always felt Star Trek was unrealistically optimistic about the future. That said, exploring what it is to be human and social commentary aren't things STD does well. It has all the tact of a sledge hammer. You can wrap one in velvet but its still a sledge hammer. There is little nuance in the way these issues are handled. One thing I appreciated about Star Trek is that they kept personal conflicts to a minimum among the crew.

But there is nothing more human than personal conflicts. That's one of Gene Roddenberry's edicts that never made sense to me. That said, I appreciate that it never reached high school drama levels of conflict the way BattleStar Galactasuck's remake did. There are a lot of missed opportunities with Discovery's story that are obvious low hanging fruit and yet they don't ever try to pick them. The bridge woman who was scarred and has cybernetic implants that are visible as a result of the behavior of Michael Burnham is a big one I've brought up. The two women were supposedly friends, and the blonde woman greets Michael in a hostile way when she first boards Discovery. However, nothing more comes of that. When you blame someone for maiming you, working with that person every day would be extremely difficult. I don't like petty bickering, but these are the types of conflicts that SHOULD be explored given the narrative.

Another reason STD isn't well received is because the Star Trek fans never wanted another prequel series. We've had far too many of those as it is. Star Trek should always move forward and rarely if ever, backwards. Why they haven't moved forward after ST: Nemesis is beyond me. The movie was mediocre, but the fallout of what occurred in that movie is enormous. What was hinted at beyond that by Spock Prime in the reboot films is much the same. The implications are huge but nothing is ever explored. We keep going back to Captain Kirk's era or before that with STD. Why? Its never made any sense.

Even if you take every bit of political ideology and perceived SJW agenda pushing off the table, the series still suffers from mediocre to bad writing. It suffers from lack luster principal characters who are badly written. It suffers from too many changes to established Star Trek lore. The show also under utilizes its other characters and doesn't explore or build character relationships. Many of the characters as I've pointed out, wouldn't have even made it through Star Fleet academy. No Starfleet officer, man, woman, machine or other would be so spineless and weak willed as several of the characters shown in Discovery. You have leaps in logic which don't make sense within the confines of established lore. A lot of the redesigns are about the alternative copyright license, and I get that but I think they could have adhered to the license without sacrificing what Star Trek is. They should have expanded on the foundation built by TNG, DS9, and even Voyager. (Granted, I'd undo a lot of what happened with V'ger.)

I'm a pretty hardcore Star Trek fan and I gave the show its fair shake. While it isn't quite the dumpster fire people often proclaim it is, the show has a laundry list of problems which are so numerous I don't think fixing the show is really in the cards. It will probably get canned after this season and we'll never hear anything about it again. Its going to be an utterly forgettable chapter in Star Trek's history. Soft reboots, hard reboots and flat remakes of shows are a tried and true method of bringing an established IP into the public consciousness. For the most part, I think these are not only inevitable, but a good thing in a general sense. The problem is that many of the remakes we are seeing now do not handle the properties with care. They also don't seem to revere or even understand the source material. A good remake will keep what was beloved about the original material while updating it for the modern age. If they do their job properly, the writers can build on and add to the mythology of the show while preserving what came before. Unfortunately, for every good reboot, you have a few that just don't work. As far as I'm concerned, STD just doesn't work. It wasn't handled right behind the scenes. It wasn't handled correctly on social media. CBS took the wrong path with its "risk free because we'll get someone else to pay for it" approach to getting the series produced.