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

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Jan 26, 2019.

  1. NKD

    NKD [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,526
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007

    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.
     
  2. NKD

    NKD [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,526
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007

    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.
     
  3. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,817
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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: Jan 28, 2019
    Revdarian, Ididar, wyqtor and 2 others like this.
  4. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,337
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    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.
     
  5. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,337
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    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?
     
  6. Brackle

    Brackle Old Timer

    Messages:
    7,205
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    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: Jan 27, 2019
    NKD likes this.
  7. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,337
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    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: Jan 27, 2019
  8. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,337
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    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).
     
  9. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,337
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    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).
     
  10. nilepez

    nilepez [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,337
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    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.
     
  11. Dekoth-E-

    Dekoth-E- [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,600
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    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.
     
  12. chameleoneel

    chameleoneel 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,919
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Star Trek had the first multi-racial kiss on television.
     
  13. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,028
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    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.
     
    nilepez likes this.
  14. cjcox

    cjcox [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,133
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    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.
     
  15. dgingeri

    dgingeri 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,830
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    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: Jan 28, 2019
    Ididar likes this.
  16. nutzo

    nutzo [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,377
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    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.
     
  17. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,817
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    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.
     
  18. M76

    M76 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,022
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    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.
     
  19. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,035
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    I don't know this SJW and STD thread is getting weird./s
     
  20. lostin3d

    lostin3d [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,001
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2016
    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.
     
  21. gunbust3r

    gunbust3r Gawd

    Messages:
    900
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    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.
     
  22. TheOne&OnlyZeke

    TheOne&OnlyZeke 100% Irish

    Messages:
    10,221
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2000
    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
     
  23. Draax

    Draax [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,085
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    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.
     
  24. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,817
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    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.
     
    Skyblue and Revdarian like this.
  25. Draax

    Draax [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,085
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    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.
     
  26. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,035
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016

    Yeah, multitask.. suuuure... NSFW
     
  27. gunbust3r

    gunbust3r Gawd

    Messages:
    900
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2004
    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.
     
  28. Draax

    Draax [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,085
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    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.
     
  29. Ididar

    Ididar Gawd

    Messages:
    594
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    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.
     
  30. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,035
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Yeaah, .. no one can carry a conversation when that happens.
     
  31. Merc1138

    Merc1138 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,086
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    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.
     
  32. Draax

    Draax [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,085
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    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.
     
  33. harbingerofdoom

    harbingerofdoom Gawd

    Messages:
    774
    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    i do apologize that my ability to do more than one thing at once has somehow triggered you and your sensitive nature.
     
    Uvaman2 likes this.
  34. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,028
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    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.
     
  35. Uvaman2

    Uvaman2 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,035
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Hehe, no one is triggered here....
    And, I can text back ' k' so that's all the multitask I need..
     
    harbingerofdoom likes this.
  36. Merc1138

    Merc1138 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,086
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    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?
     
  37. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,817
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    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.
     
  38. Dan_D

    Dan_D [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    53,817
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    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.
     
  39. Merc1138

    Merc1138 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,086
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    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.
     
  40. Ranulfo

    Ranulfo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,463
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2006
    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.
     
    Skyblue likes this.