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

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,807
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.




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?



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.



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.

Not sure what you mean the last paragraph. Didn’t the blue alien have the ability to sexually attract anyone? Where the other person had no control over it? Not sure why they should feel guilty for something they had no control over. Why waste more time on that. Orville after all is a more of a space comedy it’s not suppose to be super serious.

Honestly I never watch a show from political point of view. I leave that at the door. Don’t need my political biases influencing entertainment. I watch it for fun and entertaining not overthink things. Orville is what it is.

I guess I am the only one that enjoys both Star Trek and Orville. May be one can actually enjoy shows leaving politics on the side.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,807
You mean that twist that makes zero 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.

Well I wasn’t breaking down the seicene of the twist lol. I was only talking about the captain being from alternate universe. Nothing much. If we get to the science of things none of this shit will make sense in real world. So not something I worry about lol.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,710
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.
You don't see it for the same reason I don't see the resemblance either. I think they are a stand in for what the left believe a Trump supporter is, thinks and feels. They don't understand someone else's perspective, and their idea of what a "Trump" supporter is or isn't is largely based on propaganda alone. They believe Trump supporters are all racist, xenophobic and even violent. The Klingons in the show are all of those things. In fairness, some of that translates fairly well to Klingons. They weren't exactly the most progressive bunch.

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?
Let's be clear. I don't think Michael Burnham as a character is necessarily about pushing an SJW message by her being female or black. She's an example of a badly written character as she's basically a Mary Sue. She is the best soldier, the best scientist and best Command Officer on board. She's an example of what's wrong with Hollywood today. For some reason, writing a strong female character in 2018 is to basically write a man and then cast a woman for what seems clearly a male role. That's basically what Michael Burnham is. We've had plenty of accepted, strong female characters in the past and over the course of the last 30 years or so, writers have forgotten how to write them and people have seemingly forgot how to recognize or define them.

The character doesn't push a social justice message as much as one of 3rd wave feminism. All she does is do everything better than men and question everything men say and do. She's also rarely, if ever wrong. The only thing she's really ultimately done wrong in the show when you break everything down was date a white male because he was the bad guy.

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.
Star Trek built a reputation on at least using real scientific concepts. However, this didn't really start until Star Trek the Next Generation. With that said, things like warp drive, the transporter, etc. all ended up being sound concepts even though we can't do any of those things today. They are all theoretically possible. The Space Shroom drive on the other hand isn't based on any real concept, its actually based on some off the wall adventure game developed by some independent game maker. He is now in a legal battle with Paramount over this as his game's core plot and even the characters were clearly ripped off by STD.

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.
OK, let's examine the difference. Star Trek, the Orville and just about everyone involved in both shows is going to generally be largely left leaning and progressive. That's actually the nature of Hollywood and it has been since day one. What you need to understand is a clear difference between what we see in the Orville and by extension classic Star Trek and how Discovery does things. We have several examples we can look at, but lets take homosexuality and gender. Gene Roddenberry didn't want to touch that subject, but he didn't have all that much control over Star Trek beyond the original series. In those days, creators of shows sold their properties to the studio and got royalties and consulting jobs to keep the stories inline with the original vision. The studios could still do whatever they want. Its important to realize this because gender and alternative sexuality was broached many times in Star Trek's history despite Gene's stance on it.

Using your example of Bortis and his husband, is a great one. I'm glad you brought that up. Bortis is part of an all "male" race. Females are few and considered aberrations in their society. Given that two men in Bortis's race can actually have children, its clear that they are meant to represent homosexuality and that they aren't actually homosexuals in their world. Regarding a comparison between the Orville's "gay couple" and STD's "gay couple" I'd say things are roughly equal. No one makes a big deal about it and you see relationships that aren't intrinsically homosexual. The problems they face could generally happen to any couple regardless of the gender or sexual preferences of either party in the pairing. So I'll give you this.

However, when you get to the sexual reassignment of Bortis and Clygon's daughter, that's a whole different matter. We do not have a direct parallel in STD to examine, so we'll have to look at things another way. My opinion on this is that if STD makes any social or political commentary, its clear there is a bias on one side of that issue. Let's first look at how classic Star Trek handled forced gender reassignment surgery, and how the Orville does the same thing. For STD, we'll have to talk about a few things and infer how it would handle that same issue.

Star Trek: The Next Generation - Season 5, Episode 17 - "The Outcast"

I don't think the idea here is that anyone in the writers room would say that forcing gender assignment surgery would be a good thing. I think its rather about the treatment of someone who doesn't fit into the norms of society. This is actually applicable to modern society in a number of ways, but the closest analog to this would be persecution of someone who is either homosexual or transgender. In typical Star Trek fashion, the show handles this in a more subtle way than something like Law & Order: SVU would. The J'naii are a single gender species, much like Bortis's race in The Orville. Star Trek went for something more androgynous than The Orville, but the concept is the same. In this episode, Riker falls for a J'naii who identifies as female. I don't recall if there are physical traits in common as well. It seems obvious there are as their biology seems to imply a female bias as far as humans are concerned. This isn't any different than the Asari from Mass Effect either. When Soren (the J'naii Riker falls for) is found out, she is immediately taken against her will by the Government and forced to under a reconditioning of sorts to purge her feelings of being female and reacclimate her to J'naii society as androgynous.

The Orville - Season 1, Episode 3 - "About a Girl"

This episode is much like the above Star Trek episode and tackles this issue in the same way. In this episode, Clydon and Bortis have a daughter and Clydon wants to take the kid to sexual reassignment surgery as per his culture's custom. Of course, the human crew aboard the Orville are horrified as humans wouldn't consider forcing something like that on someone as it should be a matter of choice. Eventually, they get Bortis to see things this way as well. However, the issue goes to trial because the parents can't agree and the courts force their baby to undergo sexual reassignment.


Now, the real takeaway you should have from these episodes is that while the episode explores the topic of gender assignment and characters that do not fit into the norm of society, be if physically or through their sexual preferences, the shows do not make any judgements about what perspective is right or wrong. The Orville does a masterful job of actually arguing things from both sides of the aisle but does nothing to say what the production crew or the writers think. The issue is presented, argued and the viewer left to make their own decisions about how they would have liked that scenario to play out. In laymens terms, these shows don't take sides on these issues. There are other episodes of both which do cover the topic of homosexuality and even being transgender. This is a big part of the Dax story arcs throughout all of Deep Space Nine. Again, the show doesn't condone homosexuality or condemn it. The situation is presented and the viewer can take it for what they will.

This isn't what STD does. STD takes a subject and it shows a bias towards one side and almost attacks the other side for thinking differently. The Klingons are presented as the enemy for being xenophobic and as the aggressors. However, if you look at this critically, its quite the opposite. The reason why STD fails to even pick a side is due to the "logic" used in their writing. The Federation encroaches on the Klingon border and the Klingons don't like it. However, the Klingons don't do anything about it just yet. A Starfleet officer kills a Klingon warrior when said officer attempts to access or board a Klingon satellite or ship. In this case, the Federation is actually the aggressor. This is an analog for someone breaking into your house, killing your spouse and the home owner being labeled as the aggressor by the police.

Granted, the Klingons do spout xenophobic dialog, but they mostly talk about how the Federation assimilates other races and those races lose their identity. The Klingons merely express fear over the same fate and this is why they want nothing to do with Starfleet or the United Federation of Planets. Given their values and cultures are very different, I can see why they would be worried.

STD doesn't show men and women as equals while the Orville and classic Star Trek series do. They show how men and women are sometimes different, but always shows them as being equal. Men and women in those shows are judged by merit and mistakes without gender factoring in. This again, isn't what STD does. All of its male leads with the exception of the gay couple are treated as villains (because they are) or shown as being spineless. The helmsman of their orignal ship and the first officer of the Discovery are examples of this. They are indecisive and spineless. They are damn near damsels in distress and wait for women to save their asses. The strong women in Star Trek or the Orville stand on their own along side men, not at their expensive. Discovery can't say the same. The women are strong at the expense of men. In fairness, this isn't actually a problem with Discovery by itself. This is a systemic problem in Hollywood right now.

With this in mind, we can only imagine the dumpster fire that would occur if Discovery were to have the same plot line as the TNG and Orville episodes do. It would probably involve Michael Burnham going on a rescue mission to prevent the surgery and rescue the kid from a society of toxic white males and being the only survivor of the tactical team as all the men on it would have died because no one is as awesome as Michael Burnham. The show would clearly demonize anyone who was for the assignment surgery, regardless of the reason. I'm not sure how it would really go, but I'm certain that the show would advocate a bias towards one side rather than leaving the viewer to think on the issue and form their own opinion.

Well I wasn’t breaking down the seicene of the twist lol. I was only talking about the captain being from alternate universe. Nothing much. If we get to the science of things none of this shit will make sense in real world. So not something I worry about lol.
That's not entirely true. Much of Star Trek's science "fiction" is based on actual scientific theory. This hasn't always been the case, but its one of the better shows for doing this and it grounded the show in a way not common in science fiction. It kept them from ridiculous plot points like Warp 10 shuttles, evolving into salamanders and traversing the galaxy through slavery of a giant tardigrade and a space shroom drive. You can see at which point Voyager abandoned the idea of using scientific consultants. It certainly wasn't better off for doing so. Discovery is worse off for not having scientific consultants as well.
 
Last edited:

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,630
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.
So if the doctor was a woman, you'd be whining about it being an SJW show? And FYI, Trek was not a capitalist show since (at least) TNG. They didn't have money, just credits, unless they were dealing with the capitalist Ferengi, who were not looked at kindly throughout most of TNG and for much of DS9 too.

Aside from there being 2 gay crew members (it's almost 2020, it's time to get over it), there's nothing that I haven't seen in the last 30+ years.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,630
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.
Dude, you implied you're not in the US. How the hell can CBS give you free access to an episode when the rights are owned by someone else in your country?
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,328
Also people something to think about. The first half of season 1 sucked royal ass imo. The 2nd half got better. And I think that has to do with Jonathan franks directing most of the episodes (William Riker). It looks like season 2 was directed by him. Which explains how much better just the first 2 episodes are.

Give it a chance. They had some hiccups in season 1 for sure. Season 2 at least to me seems like it’s going in the right direction. Shit even in episode 1 it seems like they found the new Morn!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
like this

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,630
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.
Assuming this is true, and I really don't care enough to research it, it makes no sense, since CBS, CBS All Access and Paramount are all essentially Viacom companies. Of course the difference between us is I don't care if they change stuff from the old trek. The show worked for me (probably won't see this season for 2 or 3 months). And frankly, we don't know if it fits in the prime timeline or not. For all we know, all that we saw S1 happened and it wasn't talked about for reasons we don't know yet.
 
Last edited:

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,630
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?
Yeah that's what they said about DS9 too...you know, the series that's often ends up ranked #1 in trek series (for quality not ratings....TNG is the ratings champ).
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,630
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.
The writing was awful. In several seasons, the best episodes were all holodeck episodes, because the series was broken from day 1. RD Moore's take down of Voyager pretty much covers how bad the show is. It was the beginning of the end of Star Trek on TV.

In most rankings of Trek, Voyager comes in 2nd to last (if they don't count the animated series). On the other hand DS9 comes in first (in most lists), though I saw one list that put it 2nd to TNG and another 2nd to Wrath of Khan (cuz it included movies) and S1 of Discovery in the ones i"ve seen comes in the middle of the pack.

Moviefone: Discovery" delivered the franchise's best first season since The Original Series'. And one of the franchise's most accessible/relatable ensembles, headlined by Sonequa Martin-Green's conflicted Michael Burnham and Jason Issac's complicated (and fortune cookie-loving) Captain Lorca.

Screen Rant: There was creative turmoil behind the scenes, as Bryan Fuller was running the show right up until he wasn’t.... Amazingly, though, the show ended up being really great.


Comments on Voyager:

Vulture: Unfortunately, Voyager reigns as the most infuriating and creatively haphazard Star Trek series for how it squandered such a great premise. Voyager was saddled with several annoying and pointless characters, uneven storytelling, and a misguided dedication to the Prime Directive, despite the crew being far from Federation space. Worse yet was the characterization.

Moviefone: Most Trek series (save for TOS) suffer from rocky starts, especially in the first two seasons. "Voyager" is arguably the most guilty of this, as the series never really delivered on its most inspired premise... To paraphrase cast member Robert Beltran's criticism of the show around the 100th episode: Did we do 100 episodes, or the same show 100 times? <snip> The series all but flatlined with a big, but lackluster, series finale that shows Voyager getting home after seven seasons without giving them -- or fans -- a dramatically satisfying homecoming. The episode just ends with Voyager approaching Earth's orbit like it were just another planet. Snooze.

Screen Rant: Voyager started as mostly forgettable, ended up getting pretty good, and then overstayed its welcome and limped through a Borg-infested finale.


The latter did have some nice things to say, but in a ranking of shows/movies, it's ranked 14/16 (discovery landed in 8th (middle of the pack is where it is in both lists that include it).
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,630
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.
And both complained about DS9 (which once again is typically ranked as the best (but sometimes 2nd best) trek series. Or in some cases at or near the top even when they include movies.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
The writing was awful. In several seasons, the best episodes were all holodeck episodes, because the series was broken from day 1. RD Moore's take down of Voyager pretty much covers how bad the show is. It was the beginning of the end of Star Trek on TV.

In most rankings of Trek, Voyager comes in 2nd to last (if they don't count the animated series). On the other hand DS9 comes in first (in most lists), though I saw one list that put it 2nd to TNG and another 2nd to Wrath of Khan (cuz it included movies) and S1 of Discovery in the ones i"ve seen comes in the middle of the pack.

Moviefone: Discovery" delivered the franchise's best first season since The Original Series'. And one of the franchise's most accessible/relatable ensembles, headlined by Sonequa Martin-Green's conflicted Michael Burnham and Jason Issac's complicated (and fortune cookie-loving) Captain Lorca.

Screen Rant: There was creative turmoil behind the scenes, as Bryan Fuller was running the show right up until he wasn’t.... Amazingly, though, the show ended up being really great.


Comments on Voyager:

Vulture: Unfortunately, Voyager reigns as the most infuriating and creatively haphazard Star Trek series for how it squandered such a great premise. Voyager was saddled with several annoying and pointless characters, uneven storytelling, and a misguided dedication to the Prime Directive, despite the crew being far from Federation space. Worse yet was the characterization.

Moviefone: Most Trek series (save for TOS) suffer from rocky starts, especially in the first two seasons. "Voyager" is arguably the most guilty of this, as the series never really delivered on its most inspired premise... To paraphrase cast member Robert Beltran's criticism of the show around the 100th episode: Did we do 100 episodes, or the same show 100 times? <snip> The series all but flatlined with a big, but lackluster, series finale that shows Voyager getting home after seven seasons without giving them -- or fans -- a dramatically satisfying homecoming. The episode just ends with Voyager approaching Earth's orbit like it were just another planet. Snooze.

Screen Rant: Voyager started as mostly forgettable, ended up getting pretty good, and then overstayed its welcome and limped through a Borg-infested finale.


The latter did have some nice things to say, but in a ranking of shows/movies, it's ranked 14/16 (discovery landed in 8th (middle of the pack is where it is in both lists that include it).
Sorry if I don't give a flying flip about the "professional opinions" of the same groups that tried to convince us that Ghostbusters 2016 wasn't a feminist dumpsterfire. Sorry I'll pass on anything the "Woke" media has to say. You can keep your agenda pushing nonsense to yourself. Quality of the series aside, Janeway was and will always be a better written captain than STD's captain ever will and for the very simple reasons outlined by Dan_D. The writing of that character is the problem with the series as a whole as it is more interested in being "woke" than it is in being star trek. Sorry but you can keep that preachy shit to yourself.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,242
I agree about the agenda thing... Star Trek has always been 'wildly liberal' and about breaking down social norms and considering other points of view. Having a few SJW characters is hardly the most groundbreaking thing they have ever done.
I mean... OG Star Trek had a Russian and a black lady... and both were good normal people, while vilified in all other TV shows at the time. It was super controversial at the time even though we dont blink an eye at it now.

That said... ugh. The first trailer made me skeptical, and the pilot turned me off of the show entirely. I'll give S2E1 a go tonight, but expectations are not exactly high. There are simply better things to occupy my time. Give me a plot that makes sense and actors who can get their lines out; really not asking for much.
Star Trek had the first multi-racial kiss on television.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Official Forum Curmudgeon
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
29,585
I don't get the hate towards Discovery. I think it's been pretty good thus far.

Not good enough - mind you - to sign up for CBS All Access, but still pretty good.

(I will actively resist streaming service exclusives. All titles on all platforms!)

I didn't like how they changed the appearance of the Klingons, but apart from that it is a well written, well acted and well produced series.

I can understand how many didn't like the Pilot episode but (spoiler alert) things change rather quickly after that episode, so it isn't really reflective of the series at all.

Now on the flip side, I saw an ad for that Seth MacFarland show and it filled me with instant revulsion. That goofy shit was everything I hated about the worst of TOS.
 

cjcox

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,541
I watched it. I do not pay ransom for CBS content, so I have no idea about how bad the first season was, or why people consider this episode to be "back on the right track" (?). Anyway, it was "ok", but weird.
 

dgingeri

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
2,830
So if the doctor was a woman, you'd be whining about it being an SJW show? And FYI, Trek was not a capitalist show since (at least) TNG. They didn't have money, just credits, unless they were dealing with the capitalist Ferengi, who were not looked at kindly throughout most of TNG and for much of DS9 too.

Aside from there being 2 gay crew members (it's almost 2020, it's time to get over it), there's nothing that I haven't seen in the last 30+ years.
No, you don't get it. It isn't that a character might be a woman. I had no problems at all with the doctors in TNG, for example. It's the constant barrage of making note of being proud of getting to that level as a woman. It isn't that a character is gay. It's because it is constantly noted that the character is gay and in a marriage. It is also really bothersome that the "main character" IS a main character, and that they emphasize that she is named a man's name.

I'm not against vegans. To each their own. I just hate it with they call themselves out, like it is some spectacular thing. I'm not against crossfit. Exercise is good, and crossfit seems to be particularly effective. It's when someone calls it out constantly like they're on some wonderful voyage.

It's not the leftist views, it's them shoving them down the viewers' throats. You know, PREACHY.

Then there's also all the points this guy raises:

I didn't see enough of it to get this guy's point of view, but I do trust that he's right, considering what I have seen.

Also, there's this scene:

Seriously, in the middle of the battle, they take time to show the gay engineer tell his husband that he loves him. Why?? It's the middle of a battle sequence. Again, because they want to emphasize their SJW lesson, actively interrupting the action and the story to do so. This is PREACHY.
 
Last edited:

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
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.
Wouldn't watch the CBS junk even if it was free, and this is coming from a dedicated trekie who has DVD's of all the movies and older series.

Didn't care much for the first season of Orville. They seemed to be targeting 10 year old school boys with the poor writing and bathroom humor.
However, Season 2 seems to be much better.
Better story lines, but still a little too much of the Hollywood social agenda and bathroom humor in it.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,710
Assuming this is true, and I really don't care enough to research it, it makes no sense, since CBS, CBS All Access and Paramount are all essentially Viacom companies. Of course the difference between us is I don't care if they change stuff from the old trek. The show worked for me (probably won't see this season for 2 or 3 months). And frankly, we don't know if it fits in the prime timeline or not. For all we know, all that we saw S1 happened and it wasn't talked about for reasons we don't know yet.
No, it's true. CBS and Viacom split with the latter owning Paramount. CBS is currently its own company. There is talk about re-merging the two. However, when the split occurred Star Trek was divided between the two. CBS owns the TV shows and Paramount owns the original films. They have distribution deals so that nothing has changed as far as back catalogs go. However, the licensing as I explained is complicated and essentially Netflix effectively paid for Season 1, but it was produced by Paramount so CBS didn't shoulder any of the risk.

If the show worked for you, that's great. I wish it worked for me. Again, I enjoyed it more than most of the show's detractors, but it isn't what I'd consider good Star Trek, despite my being onboard for a darker, grittier and more action packed version of the classic franchise. However, we do know that the show is supposed to be in the Prime Timeline. The producers of Discovery have stated this. Numerous sites and publications have reported on that.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
10,436
I don't get the hate towards Discovery. I think it's been pretty good thus far.

Not good enough - mind you - to sign up for CBS All Access, but still pretty good.

(I will actively resist streaming service exclusives. All titles on all platforms!)

I didn't like how they changed the appearance of the Klingons, but apart from that it is a well written, well acted and well produced series.

I can understand how many didn't like the Pilot episode but (spoiler alert) things change rather quickly after that episode, so it isn't really reflective of the series at all.

Now on the flip side, I saw an ad for that Seth MacFarland show and it filled me with instant revulsion. That goofy shit was everything I hated about the worst of TOS.
FYI the visual appearance was the least of it, you could look past that, it's the ethics (or lack thereof) of the show that is the problem. It's completely aligned with social justice ideals, where feelings trump logic and reason.

The orville might be goofy, but it has the right message, and proper humanist (alienist?) values. BTW it is more like TNG, than TOS, in fact I didn't see much resemblance to TOS in it.

And the Ads I saw are completely 180 of what the show actually is. It is not a comedy, far from it. It has a couple or two jokes per episode, but that's not the main theme of it, as the ads suggest. That are trying to sell it as the next comedy by MacFarland.
What is readily apparent if you watch even one episode, that the writers understand Star Trek. Which cannot be said of STD. STD could have any other title and you wouldn't be able to tell that it was supposed to be a star trek series.
 

lostin3d

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 13, 2016
Messages
2,043
And the Ads I saw are completely 180 of what the show actually is. It is not a comedy, far from it. It has a couple or two jokes per episode, but that's not the main theme of it, as the ads suggest. That are trying to sell it as the next comedy by MacFarland.
Too true. He(Seth) has actually come out stating such on multiple occasions. Fox is really going out its way to market it like that. A shame really since the show has obviously gained enough fans who know the real story. Wife and I enjoy it. Sometimes it's the diet soda of Trek but that's o.k. to us. Really nice to watch something that isn't constantly shoving an agenda in your face. It's does occasionally, but generally 1 or 2 episodes a season as opposed to the entire series. It's also interesting to note how many TNG names behind the camera are involved. Brannon Braga is a regular and last year we noticed Jonathan Frakes directed one also. In front of the camera we've already since the actors who played the Dr.'s from Voyager and Enterprise this season. Probably more but those are the ones we've noticed. My biggest worry for them is if they survive for more seasons whether or not they fall into the season long story line ruts so many shows do.

I think a lot of us would've bickered about STD if it'd been free to begin with in the U.S. but there would've been a lot more support for it too. I remember complaining every time a new post TNG series debuted and then years later re-watching and gaining appreciation I didn't have to begin with. Over 50 years of OTA Trek and then a pay wall. Hard to take that bitter pill and not feel bitter in return and presently don't have the opportunity to watch/re-watch for a change of opinion. To hear stories of agendas cited with recurring examples only makes it go from bad to worse. Ironically by the time Netflix U.S. finally negotiates a contract for it they'll probably raise their rates to a point where we cancel and miss out anyway.
 

gunbust3r

Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
900
Pull up episode... Tig Notaro??? /Star Trek Computer voice: Front load social justice gold star points for season 2 successful. /Resume nonsensical spinning/flipping disco ship spore drive CG shots.
 

TheOne&OnlyZeke

100% Irish
Joined
Jul 21, 2000
Messages
10,418
Wow the essays in this thread.
I like Trek...TNG is my fav....this is...ok...not great, not bad...just ok.
I know you all are harping on about the SJW stuff, but...really? this is just brain candy...in one ear out the other.
I don't carry a single 'message' from it at all.
I watch an episode and think...that was ok...and then move on and watch some Hentai about fisting alien octopus...you know..normal viewing material
:D
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,160
I’m calling a spade a spade. Discovery haters were singing Orville praises because discovery had a black women named Michael and there were a couple of gay guys and they kissed ( don’t worry you won’t catch gay) but after the Orville episode with Bortis and his addiction to hologram sex with other males (his species is all males) they don’t know what to do.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,710
I’m calling a spade a spade. Discovery haters were singing Orville praises because discovery had a black women named Michael and there were a couple of gay guys and they kissed ( don’t worry you won’t catch gay) but after the Orville episode with Bortis and his addiction to hologram sex with other males (his species is all males) they don’t know what to do.
What a myopic viewpoint. This will obviously come as a shock to you, but people can and do dislike Star Trek Discovery for reasons other than those you've stated.
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,160
What a myopic viewpoint. This will obviously come as a shock to you, but people can and do dislike Star Trek Discovery for reasons other than those you've stated.
Well, they can't actually come out and say they dislike the show for the reasons I have suggested ... so they need to make up some other BS. I believe I am much closer to the truth than far too many are willing to admit.
 

gunbust3r

Gawd
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
900
Well, they can't actually come out and say they dislike the show for the reasons I have suggested ... so they need to make up some other BS. I believe I am much closer to the truth than far too many are willing to admit.
Buddy you are not so special that we are making up socially acceptable reasons to dog a show so that your feelings are spared, all while harboring super secret sex and racial bigotry.
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,160
Buddy you are not so special that we are making up socially acceptable reasons to dog a show so that your feelings are spared, all while harboring super secret sex and racial bigotry.
I'm not sure where I suggested I was special or that my feelings were being hurt? Additionally, Its not to spare anyones feelings its because people can't actually come out and say that at the risk of being labeled and because such views are simply no longer acceptable. The angry responces to my post speaks volumes. Maybe I hit a little too close to the mark? I mean I didn't even single anyone out yet people responded as if my comments had applied to them.
 

Ididar

Gawd
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
595
Well, they can't actually come out and say they dislike the show for the reasons I have suggested ... so they need to make up some other BS. I believe I am much closer to the truth than far too many are willing to admit.
That's a nice self-fulfilling big of reasoning there. No matter what people dislike about the show you can declare their reasons just a smoke screen for racism and sexism.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
That's a nice self-fulfilling big of reasoning there. No matter what people dislike about the show you can declare their reasons just a smoke screen for racism and sexism.
Yeaah, .. no one can carry a conversation when that happens.
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,120
You don't see it for the same reason I don't see the resemblance either. I think they are a stand in for what the left believe a Trump supporter is, thinks and feels. They don't understand someone else's perspective, and their idea of what a "Trump" supporter is or isn't is largely based on propaganda alone. They believe Trump supporters are all racist, xenophobic and even violent. The Klingons in the show are all of those things. In fairness, some of that translates fairly well to Klingons. They weren't exactly the most progressive bunch.
The showrunners actually did claim that's what the klingons in STD represent back in 2017 in various interviews, here's one example of an article about it. https://www.inverse.com/article/362...-klingons-politics-donald-trump-2016-election

The funny part about it though, is that the klingons in STD are a culture that is divided into a bunch of diverse subgroups that do not entirely get along with eachother, almost ethnicities that even go as far as skin color, that have managed to unite themselves despite their differences into a space exploring race and a successful empire that spans a portion of the galaxy.

So basically they were so dumb when trying to come up with their allegory for trump supporters, they accidentally created a vision of a unification of humanity and its advancement into the stars.
 

Draax

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
5,160
That's a nice self-fulfilling big of reasoning there. No matter what people dislike about the show you can declare their reasons just a smoke screen for racism and sexism.
Ya it’s totally logical that the Klingons in Discovery are meant to be Trump supporters lol ... but it’s entirely illogical that a large portion of discovery haters hate the show because there is a black female lead with a males name and two characters are gay and kissed.
 

Zarathustra[H]

Official Forum Curmudgeon
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
29,585
No, you don't get it. It isn't that a character might be a woman. I had no problems at all with the doctors in TNG, for example. It's the constant barrage of making note of being proud of getting to that level as a woman. It isn't that a character is gay. It's because it is constantly noted that the character is gay and in a marriage. It is also really bothersome that the "main character" IS a main character, and that they emphasize that she is named a man's name.

I'm not against vegans. To each their own. I just hate it with they call themselves out, like it is some spectacular thing. I'm not against crossfit. Exercise is good, and crossfit seems to be particularly effective. It's when someone calls it out constantly like they're on some wonderful voyage.

It's not the leftist views, it's them shoving them down the viewers' throats. You know, PREACHY.
I don't think it's preachy at all.

It does't come across as unnatural or strained at all when watching it, to me. It just feels normal.

It might say more about your background and surroundings that it feels so out of place, than it does about the goals of the show.
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,120
Ya it’s totally logical that the Klingons in Discovery are meant to be Trump supporters lol ... but it’s entirely illogical that a large portion of discovery haters hate the show because there is a black female lead with a males name and two characters are gay and kissed.
Or... people just think they're shitty characters with shitty writing maybe? It's not like the show has never had a female lead, or a black lead, but nope it's a black female lead that must have been the last straw! Couldn't possibly be ANYTHING else that people have actually complained about, definitely not, just the fact that the combination of black and female is the straw that finally broke the camel's back.

How much do you hate yourself and the world that you need to pretend that everyone is a racist when you wake up in the morning?
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,710
The showrunners actually did claim that's what the klingons in STD represent back in 2017 in various interviews, here's one example of an article about it. https://www.inverse.com/article/362...-klingons-politics-donald-trump-2016-election

The funny part about it though, is that the klingons in STD are a culture that is divided into a bunch of diverse subgroups that do not entirely get along with eachother, almost ethnicities that even go as far as skin color, that have managed to unite themselves despite their differences into a space exploring race and a successful empire that spans a portion of the galaxy.

So basically they were so dumb when trying to come up with their allegory for trump supporters, they accidentally created a vision of a unification of humanity and its advancement into the stars.
I know, I pointed this out. I linked an article about it in another post. My point is, I don't see the resemblance in the show despite what they said. I think the Klingons are representational of what the showrunners at the time perceived Trump supporters to be, rather than what they actually are. Like thier view of Trump supporters, their belief that you have to be sexist or racist to hate the show isn't founded on anything but their irrational perception of the world around them.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,710
Well, they can't actually come out and say they dislike the show for the reasons I have suggested ... so they need to make up some other BS. I believe I am much closer to the truth than far too many are willing to admit.
So you think the only reason people could hate that show is due to sexism and racism, and that all other reasons are made up to avoid coming out and saying, they are racist or sexist? You aren't remotely close to the truth. That's the problem with people with such myopic world views. They can't conceive of anything beyond their point of view. While I am sure there are some people who are sexist or racist being their reasons for hating STD, I doubt that's the vast majority of people.

Its pretty easy to point to shitty and unimaginative writing. The whole "Space Shroom" drive story line was stolen from a little known indie video game called Tardigrades. Numerous publications have reported this. There are also tons of canon violations of Star Trek lore and inconsistencies with its themes and characters. Virtually every single man shown in STD wouldn't have made it through Starfleet Academy. Sarek isn't remotely like the Mark Leonard version of the character. I mentioned the lack of logic behind the "mirror universe" humans and their light sensitivity being a result of the writers not understanding the source material. Its also unimaginative that another prequel was done going back to the same well DS9 and Enterprise went to so many times. The list goes on and on. You don't need to point to racism and sexism to find reasons to dislike the show.

I don't think the average person in America is sexist or racist. While the media would have you believe differently, the U.S. by in large doesn't resemble the attitudes of the deep south in the 1950's.
 

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,120
I know, I pointed this out. I linked an article about it in another post. My point is, I don't see the resemblance in the show despite what they said. I think the Klingons are representational of what the showrunners at the time perceived Trump supporters to be, rather than what they actually are. Like thier view of Trump supporters, their belief that you have to be sexist or racist to hate the show isn't founded on anything but their irrational perception of the world around them.
Sure, but it's extended to the small fanbase of the show now, instead of just the staff.

Hell, here's a question. The show is called Star Trek: DISCOVERY yet they rarely actually go out and discover any damned thing.

The fact that CBS needs to constantly do free previews, trials, etc. and even combine subscriber increases with NFL championship games(really? yeah, those two fanbases have always been the same... not.) and still can't get decent ratings or anyone willing to bother with international distribution is just absurd. The simple facts are, the writing sucks(all of the other ST shows including TNG had progressive things in them for their time), none of the characters are likable, the idiotic decisions that occur for the sake of the plot(yeah, lets leave the mirror universe rebel trying to save his version of humanity to die because he lied, lets take along the despot who eats PEOPLE while running an evil empire because she looks like a character that Michael knows, etc.). Hell, even bringing in Spock(which they originally said they'd never do) to just suddenly meet his stepsister(?) that was NEVER ever mentioned before(I guess she was worth even less of a mention than Sybock) and then bringing Picard's old ass back because something something romulans(he had more ties to the Klingons than the Romulans, possibly the Cardassians in some regard)? Just make a good show, it shouldn't be that hard.
 

Ranulfo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
1,820
The writing was awful. In several seasons, the best episodes were all holodeck episodes, because the series was broken from day 1. RD Moore's take down of Voyager pretty much covers how bad the show is. It was the beginning of the end of Star Trek on TV.
While Moore is right on a lot regarding Voyager I find it greatly ironic because he and his crew blew BSG up in the long term by clearly not having a coherent storyline planned out. That show went to hell by season 3 and became preachy on some politics but even more so just a boring, "who is a cylon this week" story.
 
Top